This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all
disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the
project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the
discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles
Untitled
Jay, how does redirecting to segregation deal with the term "global apartheid" or, for that matter "Israeli apartheid" when neither of those phrases appear on that page?
Homey03:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)reply
There is one article on
Israeli apartheid and another called
Apartheid wall. How do you justify not including these articles in an article disambiguating the word apartheid? Can you set aside your POV and answer that question?
Homey06:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)reply
What POV would that be? The articles exist, one of the articles has existed for some time. Our practice on disambiguation pages is clear. How do you justify violating this practice?
Homey06:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Adding Israel here is not encyclopedic. This was a slanderous allegation, applied to Israel specifically with one purpose - to demonize it. ←
Humus sapiensну?08:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)reply
1) Is
Apartheid (disambiguation) a disambiguation page, intended to differentiate articles associated with the same title/word, in this case "apartheid? Yes or no?
2) Do the two articles in question have "apartheid" as part of their official titles (that is, they're not redirects)? Yes or no?
3) Are the two articles legitimate articles? Yes or no?
So if the answer to the above questions are all "yes", what POSSIBLE justification is there for excluding the two articles from the disambig page? Try to answer without resorting to the coy "we're part of the Zionist conspiracy ha ha" nonsense (it's an intellectually dishonest cop-out intended to make your opponents look like conspiracy nuts) or the handwaving "I don't like those articles" nonsense. And try to answer these simple questions without insulting my intelligence. --
Calton |
Talk08:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)reply
From the edit summary Those are not encyclopedic terms. They are slanderous allegations. Sigh. Try not insult people's intelligence: are these actual encyclopedia articles? Yes? Then by definition they're encyclopedic. If you claim they're not, take it up with
WP:AFD. --
Calton |
Talk08:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)reply
I think you misunderstand the meaning of "unencyclopedic" in the context. It means it does not belong in an encyclopedia, in fact wikipedia has several unencyclopedic articles, it is not necessarily an oxymoron.-
Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg |
Talk08:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Calton is 100% correct. This is a disambiguation page, an index page. It must link to all the articles we have which contain the word 'apartheid'. Whether it's a slanderous term doesn't matter in the slightest - that's something to discuss in the relevant article, or AfD. From the post above you seem to be more concerned with the term itself than the mechanical function of disambiguation, and you're in the wrong place. --
Sam Blanning(talk)11:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Moshe, this is not slander, though your insistence that your opponents are trying to demonise Isreal may well be slander. Please take a look at some other disambiguation pages, such as
Allah (disambiguation) (which links to, among opther things, a satirical blog).
I support the reasoning of Calton and San Blanning above. I'd ask a non-involved admin to unprotect the page so that the disambiguation links can be restored. This is not the place to argue about the POV of one or more articles that are linked to in a dab page; if you have problems with the contents of those articles, discuss them on their respective talk pages, attach a cleanup or NPOV tag, bring them to AfD, or whatever, but trying to exclude them from a dab page on the grounds of being "slander" is simply against Wikipedia policy and precedent.
MCB16:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)reply
I find the arguments above flawed. In this case, terminology is intentionally misused/abused by pundits. This slanderous allegation was applied to Israel with one purpose - to demonize it. If you insist to include everyone/everything subjected to slander in disambigs, consider starting with
Fascist (disambiguation). ←
Humus sapiensну?19:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Once again, you're talking about an issue that isn't relevant here. I'm not sure whether those articles should exist or not, but as long as they do exist and contain the word 'apartheid' in the title, they must be linked to from the relevant disambiguation page. And there is no
fascist (disambiguation), so I'm not sure what you're getting at there. There is a
Template:Fascism sidebar, which includes our articles on
clerical fascism and
neo-fascism, two terms which could also be seen as abusive terminology. --
Sam Blanning(talk)22:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Basques
I am removing Basques as well. There are hundreds of events somebody called apartheid, fascism or any other slander terms. They are not belong to the disambig article.
abakharev08:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)reply
"Disambiguation in
Wikipedia and
Wikimedia is the process of resolving ambiguity—the conflict that occurs when a term is closely associated with two or more different topics. In many cases, this word or phrase is the "natural" title of more than one article. In other words,
disambiguations are paths leading to different topics that share the same term or a similar term."
Yes, it looks like as so far as we have articles with the titles
Apartheid wall and
Israeli apartheid we should include these into the disambig. I would personally support renaming of these articles into something less POV, but thats just me
abakharev18:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Pecher, read this page. Most of the editors on it now agree that the articles should be listed. You'll have to accept that.
Homey20:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Still, this isn't about majority rule. This is about the point of disambiguation:
"When a user searches for a particular term, something else might be expected than what actually appears. Therefore, helpful links to any alternative articles with similar names are needed."
Perhaps the term 'Apartheid wall' is offensive. It is certainly not slanderous, in itself, to acknowledge that the term exists. Even if the article is deleted, and a redirect is put in place, this disambiguation page should include a link to it. --
Ec561806:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure we should have those articles, but as long as we do, they should be presumably listed in the disambig. Someone may want to AfD the two articles.
JoshuaZ19:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)reply
I think it is time to have a poll. Poll is ended on 23:09 (UTC)
June 4 The poll seems to be not very popular, but it looks like a consensus emerging on the talk page. I have unportected the article
abakharev23:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Polls are evil but Edit warrings are worse than Polls
Compromises and consensuses are better than polls, but I do not see any proposals for the compromise here - the articles are either there or not
abakharev09:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)reply
But since a supermajority of editors has already expressed support for the inclusion of the links, the poll adds nothing of substance. --
Ec561809:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Just look onto the history of the article, before I protected it the article it was reverted every half an hour or so. No 3RR violations, no obvious socks just a crowd of supporters on each side. If it is named consensus on your planet then what color is the Sun there?
abakharev10:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Since you protected the article many more editors have commented on the issue. So far there are 8 for the links and 2 against. That's a pretty clear consensus. Also, the 2 against have not addressed the argument that the real issue is with the existence of the articles, and that this should be addressed at
WP:AFD, not by trying to remove them from a disambiguation page. Note that I don't believe we should unprotect the article yet, I think we should wait for discussion to become stale or, failing that, about a week after protection was applied. However, I do think the discussion is easy enough to follow that a poll is unnecessary, and the arguments against having one laid out on the Meta page very convincing. --
Sam Blanning(talk)10:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Alex, there is a clear consensus here. Can you please unprotect the article - it's ridiculous to delay any longer.
Homey23:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)reply
If Israel is to be mentioned here, we should make it clear that it this expression is a propaganda epithet used in order to demonize it, and not a factual description. ←
Humus sapiensну?05:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Disambiguation?
I've read some of the discussion here, especially Abakharev's comments. My question is, do we need this disambiguation page at all? The term "Apartheid" refers to the South African regime. There is no ambiguity in that - even in phrases like "Israeli Apartheid" or "Basque Apartheid" or "Global Apartheid" the word "Apartheid" refers to the South African regime. I suggest that we simply put this disambiguation up for AfD. Possibly with a note in the
Apartheid article that some has used the word "Apartheid" as a pejorative epithet, but I am not sure this is notable enough for the article. --
Heptortalk09:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Actually, it may be that the existence of this disambiguation page is in fact wrong. From
Wikipedia:Disambiguation: "Lists of articles of which the disambiguated term forms only a part of the article title don't belong here. Disambiguation pages are not search indices. Do not add links that merely contain part of the page title (where there is no significant risk of confusion)." This seems to apply here. Given that, I would support deletion on an AfD for this page. That doesn't mean I'm reversing my position on the Israeli links above though - as long as the article is, rightly or wrongly, a list of articles which contain the word 'apartheid', it should contain all of them. --
Sam Blanning(talk)10:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Do you really want me to finish the "A"s? There are not a "few other" disambiguation pages, there are hundreds that do this.
Homey02:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Moshe, look at the previous section, eight editors favour the links, two oppose. There's a consensus.
Homey02:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)reply
It's not disregarded because "I feel like it" but because most editors do not support it. Disagree with me? Why don't you start going to other disambig pages and removing the links that contradict the guideline? I guarantee that you won't get very far doing that before a) dozens of irate editors start "whooping your ass" and b) the guideline is changed.
BTW, how do you justify leaving "global apartheid" while removing the other links. Doens't global apartheid also violate this guideline that you suddenly find so sacred?
Homey02:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)reply
That's understandable as you'd lose an AFD. But fear of losing (or laziness if that's what you claim) does not excuse a double standard.
Homey02:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Protected
I've protected this article again as it seems that the edit-warring has not yet come to an end. Please resolve your differences and reach a compromise. Once that has been done, I will unprotect the article.
AmiDaniel (
talk)
02:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)reply
There is no way to compromise between "X" and "not X", however, if you read the talk page you'll see there is a general consensus even if Moshe refuses to adhere to it. One obsessive editor should not be allowed to stand in the way of consensus and you shouldn't be enabling one editor to do so.
Homey02:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Yes, I do see that there is a general consensus, or at least a wide majority, here, but I still don't think that a couple of days of protection will hurt--perhaps after that time Moshe will calm down and refrain from edit-warring. It's not a particularly good sign when edit warring flares up not an hour after the article is protected, and I don't want to see that happen again.
AmiDaniel (
talk)
03:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Not to raise
Wikipedia:The Wrong Version but don't you think you are encouraging him to edit war by protecting his preferred version of the article? If your intent is to encourage him to "calm down" you're doing it in a counter-intuitive manner. By protection his version you're encouraging him to resume edit warring once protection is lifted.
Homey03:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Okay, in looking over the talk page again, I think it's quite clear that there is just one user standing against the consensus of four or five others, and so I'm going to revert the page to the last version by HOTR and unprotect. Please, refrain from revert-warring any further, especially as both HOTR and Moshe... are one revert away from being blocked, and be aware that 3RR does not discriminate on the basis of where consensus on the talk page stood. Note as well that my reversion is not an endorsement of that version (nor was my originally protecting "his" version)--I'm not involved in this dispute at all. I'll let it run its course for a few hours, though I do so grudgingly, and if it turns into the same old edit war, I will protect again.
AmiDaniel (
talk)
03:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)reply
This is ridiculous, one user against four or five others? Samuel Blanning, Humus Sapiens, and alex bakharev have all expressed agreement with me. Also the fact that the wikipedia guidlines support me as well makes me question your motive.-
Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg |
Talk06:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Add me to that list, specifically I think that if this page is here it should be
this version. Given its current state, I edited it to be more NPOV, and I believe someone else continued further in that direction, so it is certainly better now than it was. However, I would defer to Moshe's version. (Oops, I neglected to sign:
6SJ711:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC))reply
I have no motive here except ending this edit war. I only placed a 3RR warning on your talk page as I had already posted one here for Homeontherage, but I apologize if I gave the impression that I was taking sides--I was merely acting upon what I saw as the consensus here. I don't want to mediate this dispute or force an opinion upon anyone--there was consensus to unprotect and so I unprotected; I believed there to be a stronger consensus for HOTR's version than yours and so I reverted, with an edit summary that I was not endorsing that version, merely following what I saw as consensus. I apologize if you find my actions here to be mistaken, and I intend to stay out of this dispute altogether from now on.
AmiDaniel (
talk)
06:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Moshe, please withdraw your, to AGF, erroneus interpretation of what I said. Which part of "Calton is 100% correct" did you misread? As I made very clear, as long as this page exists, it must contain all relevant terms. --
Sam Blanning(talk)09:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Okay sorry, if I was wrong about your position then I apoligize. However while you did say that Calton was correct, you also later seem to have retracted that position with the statement: "Actually, it may be that the existence of this disambiguation page is in fact wrong". So I thought I had ample reason to believe you were expressing agreement with my conclusions.-
Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg |
Talk09:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)reply
As I said before, I made a mistake by not more closely examining the discussion. Homeontherage approached me, stating in full confidence that there was a consensus against your opinion. I saw that the majority of reverts were done by HOTR and yourself, and I read a few comments like "Thusfar, 8 people have voiced support for including the links, and have cited policy to show that the links are valid disambiguation links.
Homey,
Calton,
Sam Blanning,
Ec5618,
MCB,
JoshuaZ,
Sandstein and
abakharev. These people were opposed by
Humus sapiens and
Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg." It seemed there was a consensus at the time, but quite obviously there was not. Given the current state of the AfD and the edit war repeat that is already brewing, it seems obvious that you are all pretty divided on every aspect of this article, but I think it best for me, being quite an outsider, to just stay out of the debate altogether. I will not voice support for one version or the other, nor will I say that there is consensus for one version or the other. I hope you can accept my apology and let this go.
AmiDaniel (
talk)
07:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Actually, I still see no evidence of a lack of consensus. An obvious supermajority has suggested the links be reinstated. Some people have additionally (and unrelatedly) questioned the logic in keeping this page at all. Consensus is to readd the links, and consensus is moving toward deleting the page entirely.
Humus sapiens' version states that "Israeli apartheid is a controversial propaganda epithet used to demonize the State of Israel." Clearly, this is rather emotive language. Both 'propaganda' and 'demonise' are not neutral words, in any sense of the words. Though there may be references to back the use of such harsh language, they too are rather onesided and emotive. The original wording neither promotes nor dismisses the term, which is clearly preferable, from a NPOV POV. Finally, please don't assume I have a POV, as I have expressed none. --
Ec561807:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)reply
It would seem that the whole point of a disambiguation page would be to differentiate between a few different uses or meanings of the word. In my experience this word has expanded beyond its narrow, literal definition and this page should include a few of its more recent applications, whether rightly or wrongly. The current version seems more useful than Moshe's. Also, while it isn;t exactly what a disambiguation page is supposed to be, it is still useful, so I wouldn't delete it. Have fun warring y'all!
Obhaso00:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)reply
, soI am reverting
this edit, on the grounds that it was vandalism, plain and simple. This is just a note, for clarification, as it might seem like a violation of
WP:3RR on my part. The edit in question changed the description of Israeli apartheid from:
"Israeli apartheid is a controversial phrase used by some critics of
Israel's policies towards the
Palestinians."
to
"Israeli apartheid is a a focused, targeted propaganda epithet which is at the center of a campaign for a political platform is attempting to rewrite and redefine the history of Israel as that of a "racist apartheid state".it's sole purpose is to to demonize the State of Israel"
Without judging the original text, the change can, in my view, not be seen as a good faith edit, and must be either vandalous, or
WP:POINT. Either way, I am reverting. --
Ec561822:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)reply
At least it is not a slabby attempt to sneak in a POV. it's sole purpose is to to demonize the State of Israel entertaining!
Bertilvidet22:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)reply
No, it's not vandalism. It's blatant POV, but
WP:VAND explictly states that violations of
WP:NPOV are not vandalism. And it's not
WP:POINT either. It's well known that there are more false accusations of violating
WP:POINT in a given period than there are actual violations of the guideline. --
Sam Blanning(talk)22:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)reply
You're correct; it's not
WP:POINT, but it is clearly a violation of
Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Nevertheless I think that Ec5618, you, and I would all agree that reverting was appropriate.
I notice that certain overzealous editors are trying to bend the rules under the guise of NPOV or by accusing others in vandalism. This should not be tolerated, the rules are for all of us to follow. ←
Humus sapiensну?01:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)reply
No. As I said elsewhere, this Cold War period political epithet was slapped together in order to demonize Israel. Serious neutral encyclopedias should expose propaganda rather than promote it. ←
Humus sapiensну?03:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)reply
I expect people to come to this page looking for different uses of the term apartheid. Humus what, exactly, is POV about the content of the article. Your POV argument seems based on the existence of the article itself rather than its content. If so then that should be dealt with through the AFD not by tagging.
Homey03:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Be specific - what phrase do you find POV? If you're interested in making the article NPOV then you have to actually engage and tell the rest of us what your specific objection is and what might be done to address it. Otherwise the tag has no constructive purpose. See
Wikipedia:NPOV dispute.
Homey03:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Homey took the tag out, I put it back. As noted in my edit summary, we need to remember that the tag expresses no opinion on whether the article is in fact neutral. What it says is that the article's neutrality is disputed. Can there really be a dispute over whether there is a dispute going on here?
6SJ705:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)reply
6SJ7, please list below the specific phrases in the article that you find POV.I've asked for this several times but no one seems able to do it.
Homey05:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Humus, the issue is not a tag or not to tag. The problem is using wikipedia to what it is clearly not (see
WP:Not)
Every user who lookup the words "Apartheid" is directed to these two articles which have severaly disrupted wikipedia editors and are confusing to any reader. the word should ONLY be used in the context of South Africa. See
[1] see quote from Fred below:
Zeq05:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)reply
::I think you made some very good points on the talk page. I don't like that article. Apartheid really should be used only in the South African context. (Not that the Palestinians don't have legitimate complaints).
Fred Bauder 13:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
What should be and what is are very different things. The fact is the term apartheid has entered widespread usage to describe other situations by analogy.
Homey16:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Homey, in response to your question about what parts of the article are not neutral, I do believe people have been clear about what parts of the article they object to. However here's another take on it: Articles "should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each." The article currently describes several labels used by people with certain beliefs, but it does not describe any of the equally-inflammatory labels that the people with opposite beliefs would sling back.
I've done a lot of thinking about this over the past few days, and I believe what we're all looking for is fairness. I would like to see more clear guidelines in Wikipedia about usage of epithets as article titles; it is important that everyone has equal opportuntity to make articles out of their epithets and to put epithets on disambiguation pages. I can't see a way to solve the undue-weight we're seeing here given what the titles of the articles are. The undue-weight problem is one of several reasons that I think (IMHO) Wikipedia should generally discourage having inflammatory (and, in particular, accusatory) epithets as article titles. Perhaps in order to reach consensus here Wikipedia guidelines need to be clarified, and then applied to all articles about epithets, not just the ones listed here.
Su-laine.yeo09:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)reply
That's really an argument for the AFD and as the AFD has failed we are left with an Israeli apartheid article and an Apartheid Wall redirect. The question is how to deal with them on a disambiguation page. As to your first point, this is a disambiguation page and not an article so there's no place for the "equally inflammatory lables that the people with opposite beliefs would sling back," all we can do is list the articles with a minimum of prose and in a neutral manner but we do have to list the article names. If the POV objection is to the names themselves then that's not really an issue for the disambig page and, as I mentioned, that issue has been dealt with (or is being dealt with) via the AFDs.
Homey00:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Proposal
I propose a solution to the issue posed by the guideline regarding disambiguation pages (and the resulting AfD): keep the article, and simply remove "(disambiguation)" from the article title. Thus, this would become the article
Apartheid, with a short definition and citation to the Afrikaans origin, and then links to the various usages, with
History of South Africa in the apartheid era being the first and most prominent link, with the others following, retaining the language about usage being an analogy to South African apartheid.
This solves the disambiguation guideline issue. I don't believe there is a consensus to delete this article, and argued in favor of keeping it, but I acknowledge the argument that it is less of a literal/classic disambiguation page and more of a "here are some uses of the term which have Wikipedia articles" page. I believe there are a number of precedents for that type of page, where a term is discussed in different contexts, some or all of which have individual articles. --
MCB06:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)reply
IMHO, every minority or fringe view can be found on the web.
This is why there are wikipedia policies (such as
WP:RS which specigy clearly what not to use in cases of sensitive subjects.
Not adheering to
WP:RS also caused this article to become a violation of
WP:Not because it turned the article (and the accompaning
Israeli Apartheid article) to become a "news group" in which the merits of the issue are debated.
We should keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia, not a Bultein group or indymedia or a discussion group.
As a result there is no place for this political propeganda in wikipedia. "Aprthide" was the political system in south africa, that is it.
Zeq07:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)reply
PS
Editors who continue to push political view by using these articles are also violating
WP:Point by disrupting wikipedia to make a point. This is an issue for ArbCom.
Zeq07:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)reply
I think that this proposal is a good one in that it incorporates the various criticisms of the current dab page and points to a way forward. It is similar to my "
Apartheid (metaphor)" suggestion. --
Ben Houston20:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Cleanup
I've cleaned up the article to abide by Wikipedia guidelines on Disambiguation pages, specifically:
"Lists of articles of which the disambiguated term forms only a part of the article title don't belong here. Disambiguation pages are not search indices. Do not add links that merely contain part of the page title (where there is no significant risk of confusion)."
By now, you should be aware that the term apartheid is used in several contexts - regardless of your persoanl approval of the uses - and there is thus indeed a significant risk of confusion.
Bertilvidet08:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Look, I am not here to argue with you because wikipedia is not a discussion board. You should be aware of the relevant Wikipedia policy and now that you are you know your edit had violated it. Suggest you self revert.
Zeq08:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)reply
It is obviously not vandalism, if you scroll above there is adequate justification for its removal, and the guidlines about it are clear, the only reason it is still usually there is because of the tenaciousness of a few editors.-
Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg |
Talk12:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)reply
An outside opinion
Hello everyone,
I know there is a lot of disagreement going on regarding the dismabiguation of this page. I've read over the discussion and the various AfDs, and having worked on disambiguation pages a bit, I thought I'd add a few outside opinions that might help with the discussion.
One of the issues is what entries belong on disambiguation pages. As has been stated,
Wikipedia:Disambiguation does state that disambiguation pages should not simply be lists of all the articles containing the term being disambiguated. This is certainly true, but at the same time, it does not mean that just because an article has words other than the word being disambiguated, it should be excluded from the disambiguation page.
Although this seems like a tough call to make, it may not be as hard as is thought. A pretty good way to think about it is "if someone searches for this term, is it possible that they could be looking for this article?" So in this situation, "if someone searched for 'apartheid', could they really be looking for <whatever article is in question>?"
It should be noted that since this page is at
Apartheid (disambiguation), the primary topic has already been established.
Apartheid redirects to
History of South Africa in the apartheid era, meaning that this disambiguation page is only accessed if someone searches for "Apartheid" and isn't looking for that article. This should relieve a lot of issues from the disagreement - there is no issue with the Apartheid in Africa being the primary topic. All the other articles listed here are ones that are much less likely to be searched for, but still may be valid.
I might suggest waiting until the various AfDs regarding all the articles currently liked to on this page complete, and then deciding where to go from there. Once it's determined which articles are appropriate to be articles, then it can be decided which are likely to be searched for with the term "apartheid".
Remember, the goal of disambiguation pages is to aid in the searching of Wikipedia. We do not want to have a myriad uneeded articles linked to from the pages, but at the same time we don't want to cause people to have to search to much to find the article they are looking for.
Don't you find the circumstances of the creation of this "disambiguation" page, and the subsequent discussions regarding it and its associated articles, to be at all troubling? You can see those circumstances for yourself in the edit histories, the related articles and AfD pages and related talk pages, but just start with these:
This disambiguation page was created only 90 minutes after the same editor created the "Israeli apartheid" page;
During those 90 minutes, the same editor's first move was to move the article about South African Apartheid to just "Apartheid" and then place on that page the following statement: This article refers to apartheid as it originated in South Africa. To see an article on the term as used to describe Israeli policies see
Israeli apartheid. (Of course, this statement was advertisement for the "Israeli apartheid" page that the same editor had just created);
When this d. page was created, the only pages to which it referred were the South African apartheid page (to which "apartheid" had previously redirected); the just-created "Israeli apartheid" page; and the "Apartheid Wall" page;
Both of the non-South Africa pages to which this page originally referred are thinly-veiled propaganda attacks on Israel;
Over the two days after this article was created, as the controversy erupted, the same editor created pages on "global apartheid," "gender apartheid" and "sexual apartheid" in order to create more articles for this article to "disambiguate" to...
I could go on, and talk about the same editor's use, and in some cases abuse and misuse, of both the rules and policies of Wikipedia and of his position as an administrator, to fend off all attempts to reduce or remove the POV implications of this article and the related articles, or to redirect or delete it; his twisting of the words of other editors on talk pages (including mine); and other conduct about which others know more than I. But even apart from the conduct of the creator of these articles, I believe the most important point is that while the purpose of a disambiguation page is to reduce confusion, the effect of this disamabiguation page is to create confusion. not reduce it. I believe that the circumstances show that this is not only the effect of the page, it was its purpose, as well. It is part of a propaganda attack on Israel. I do not think Wikipedia should allow itself to be used for such a thing.
6SJ705:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Natalya, thanks for stepping in. I'm glad you're here. Could you provide any examples of dab pages that have been as controversial as this one? I wouldn't be surprised if there are some controversial dab pages, but in this case people feel that they're being attacked through the page and that kind of brings it to another level. Maybe looking at a different examples would give us some ideas for getting to consensus.
Su-laine.yeo05:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)reply
6SJ7, you have to look at the content of the articles, not attribute motivations to the edtors. The fact remains that in today's world the word apartheid has been applied in myriad ways and has been adopted by various political interests. This was originally developed in the
Apartheid article but there was a POV war to purge that article of any references to "Modern" usages that resulted in that article being moved to
History of South Africa in the apartheid era. This meant that any "modern" meanings were orphaned. I guess I could say that was done for POV and propaganda reasons in order to insulate Israel from any association with apartheid in wikipedia, despite the fact that in the real world the association is made by many people and thus should be referenced here. But it's not for you or me to impugn the motives of editors. All you can do is judge the articles on their merits.
Apartheid wall exists as a term in wikipedia and is redirected to
Israeli West Bank barrier.
Israeli apartheid is an article on wikipedia and it looks like
Sexual apartheid and
Global apartheid will survive their AFDs.
The fact is that for anyone under 30 their exposure to the word "apartheid" is increasingly likely to be in these senses than in the original meaning. This is particularly the case on campuses where students are exposed regularly to debates about the "apartheid wall" and "Israeli apartheid" and "global apartheid" but less so to the historical qeustions of South African apartheid. That means a disambiguation page is necessary despite the resistance of a small group of pro-Israeli editors who virtually shut down the Apartheid article a year ago for POV reasons and have been fighting the creation of an article on the *phrase* Israeli apartheid tooth and nail despite the phrase having over 300,000 hits on google. You can't censor wikipedia for political reasons.
Homey10:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)reply
You, Homey, can't use wikipedia for political reasons. As we can see, "a small group of pro-Israeli editors" is not that powerful, so leave your conspiracy theopries for another occasion. ←
Humus sapiensну?10:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Oh please, there's no conspiracy theory and I never asserted any particular "power" aside from the usual advantage gained from tag-team editing. There are various circles of editors on wikipedia with common or overlapping interests. Just as there is a group of editors who are strongly pro-Serbian and will intervene in any article they think impugns Serbia, just as there is a group of editors who have a strong interest in libertarianism and will intervene in any article that they think impugns libertarianism, just as there is a small group of Muslim editors who will intervene on Muslim issues there is a small group of editors who is strongly pro-Israel and will do the same. There is no conspiracy but as in any environment there are clusters of people with interests who work together.
Homey11:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Look at the history and debates in the
Apartheid article and
Talk:Apartheid and tell me that it isn't completely out of whack with reality that we have no apartheid article today. Can you explain to me why that is?
Homey11:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Lets all please try and refrain from
personal attacks. That should make the discussion much calmer and easier. It seems that the discussion on the various apartheid pages is overflowing onto this page. A disambiguation page does not need to be a controversial article. It is one thing for the articles listed on the disambiguation page to be in dispute, but until those disputes are corrected, the disambiguation page should just be there to do its disambiguating. If an article is AfDed, then it should be removed from the page. If it is not, then it has some purpose, and should be left on (if it is appropriate from the page). It is absoultely fine to disagree with the articles listed on this disambiguation page, but those issues are more usefully addressed when brought up at the specific articles. I know that they are already being discussed at great length, but it seems like the overflow from those discussions to here is what is causing much of the issue, which does not need to happen.
Nothing to lose at this point by making a new proposal. Actually this is a recycling of someone else's idea buried somewhere in an old Talk page I can no longer find. How about something along the lines of:
Apartheid usually refers to Apartheid in South Africa, the system of racial segregation in South Africa prior to the early 1990s.
The term "apartheid" is also sometimes used as a political epithet to describe practices that segregate and discriminate against ethnic groups. For example, the term is used to describe past and current practices in
Israel for its treatment of the
Palestinian population,
Canada for its treatment of aboriginals,
China for...
Depending on the outcome of the AfD discussions, we might need to include references to Gender, Sexual, and Global apartheid.
Some remarks about this approach:
For the reader's convenience, it provides a direct link to the articles. If a user is looking for "apartheid" with Israel in mind, this page will meet their needs.
It does not single out one country for criticism. I hope this will satisfy those of you who feel that Israel is being unfairly singled-out. As a Canadian, I don't mind seeing Canada in a list of many countries; I would be upset if Canada was the only country other than South Africa named on the page.
It does not publicize the "Israeli apartheid" epithet that many people find offensive. I find the use of offensive epithets to be offensive even if I agree with the gist of what the epithet says.
It educates the reader with the relevant fact that the analogy has been applied to many countries.
I don't expect this proposal to be perfect. In particular we can probably work on the best examples for the countries to be named. Do you think the proposal is something we can refine into something acceptable?
Su-laine.yeo05:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)reply
this is a great suggestion just be more bold and accurate:
"*The term "apartheid" is also sometimes used as a political epithet to negativly portray one side ina political debate and present it's action as a refelection of the south Africa policis during Apartheid era. It is a controversial comparison, sometimes used to demonize a specific group or country and usualy based on drawing controvesial and false analogies to South Africa practices to segregate and discriminate against ethnic groups. For example, the term is used to describe past and current practices in
Israel for its treatment of the
Palestinian population,
Canada for its treatment of aboriginals,
China for..."
Zeq05:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)reply
For the reader's convenience, it provides a direct link to the articles. If a user is looking for "apartheid" with Israel in mind, this page will meet their needs.
Not really, it doesn't even mention
Israeli apartheid - instead it makes the user think the link is just to
Israel. Rather than conveniencing the reader it does quite the opposite. Why not just be straightforward and a) acknowledge that the term (and article) exist and b) acknowledge that the term is controversial and contested?
It does not publicize the "Israeli apartheid" epithet that many people find offensive. I find the use of offensive epithets to be offensive even if I agree with the gist of what the epithet says.
The article survived AFD, no point in trying to hide it now or pretend it doesn't exist. We have many articles for controversial phrases and words and many of them are listed on disambig pages. There's no reason to act differently here. Instead of censoring or bowlderizing simply acknowledge that the phrase *is* used and acknowledge that it is controversial. It's not like the term "apartheid state" or "Israeli apartheid" never appear in the Israeli media.
Homey05:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)reply
As for Zeq's suggestion it is completely POV, polemical, one-sided and inappropriate. You are writing as if you are putting together an op-ed piece or an argumentative essay.
Homey05:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)reply
actually the use of the word "apartheid" is by itself polemical and designed to create negative emotional response so we need to mention this fact right at the start in order to NPOV the impression this word creats.
Zeq06:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Zeq, has it occured to you that there is no difference between your concept of an NPOV article and your concept of one where you are pushing your POV?
Homey06:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Homey, you are the one using Wikipedia to push your POV. You do it in so many issues (your objection to israel is just one) that I don't understand how you get away with this but I am sure at some point it will stop. PLease try to understand wikipedia NPOV policy and what wikipedia is
WP:notZeq06:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)reply
I have to say I prefer the page as it is currently, however I also think Su-laine.yeo's proposal has it's merits. It seems that the only criticism Zeq and Homey have is towards how to list the Isreal stufff, so how about this? (Boy am I glad we haven't riled up the Canadians with this article, yet...)
The term "apartheid" is also sometimes used as a political epithet to describe practices that segregate and discriminate against ethnic groups, a controversial comparison to the practices of Aparteid era South Africa. For example, the phrase
Israeli apartheid has been used by some critics of Isreal's past and current treatment of the Palestinian population, as well as Canada for its treatment of aboriginals, China for...
It does seem to me that Zeq's suggestion goes a little too far, but is there any more that would be appropriate to add?
Obhaso06:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)reply
The Apartheid was a system of racial segregation that was enforced in South Africa from 1948 to 1991.
Apartheid may also refer to:
*Entry
*Entry
*Entry
The opening line could be rephrased as needed, but the primary topic belongs on the top. I have a couple ideas for making the entries more NPOV, which is both personal preference and MoS related, but take a look at that first. --
Natalya12:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Here's a suggestion of how the page could be laid out. It's just an idea, but it follows the
Manual of Style, and tries to be unoffensive. And it is, of course, subject to the completion of the various AfDs.
The Apartheid was a system of racial segregation that was enforced in South Africa from 1948 to 1991.
Apartheid may also refer to:
*
Apartheid outside of South Africa, a description of events compared to the South African apartheid
*
Israeli apartheid (epithet), a political epithet used by some to compare policies of the Israeli government to that of the South African apartheid
*
Global apartheid, a term used by some to describe the "First World's" relationship to the "Third World"
*
Gender apartheid, a term used by some to describe gender-based discrimination
*
Sexual apartheid, a term used by some to describe sexual orientation discrimination
* The apartheid wall, a political epithet used in context of the
Israeli West Bank barrier
Remember, a disambiguation page is not a place for NPOV controversy. It is just supposed to reflect the articles that are being disambiguated. The NPOV issues should take place at the specific articles, and the disambiguation page should reflect whatever is decided for the articles. We may not all agree about an article, but that doesn't stop the need for the articles to be disambiguated. --
Natalya16:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Su-laine.yeo, describing the word as an epithet is POV and assumes that Desmond Tutu and others didn't use it as a serious comparison.
Homey21:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Term does not mean something is scholarly terminology (if it did, Humus wouldn't have just had to use "scholarly" as an adjective to describe "terminolgy"). It just means "a word" according to wikipedia and the dictionary. It is neutral whereas "
political epithet" has negative connotations. Phrase is similarly neutral23:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
You may be very correct. However, since POV is a big issue, is it not best to find the most-NPOV (to all parties) word to use? (as miniscule of a detail as it may seem) --
Natalya23:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Finding the most-NPOV word to use would require not using "apartheid" to describe Israel in the first place. Then we wouldn't have to worry about "term" or "phrase" or "epithet" or anything else. I think the person who put "epithet" in the title was trying to balance a strongly POV word with something that would render the title, overall, somewhere in the middle. But it would be easy enough to avoid the problem in the first place, by not having the title at all.
6SJ700:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)reply
We can just avoid the issue:
The Apartheid was a system of racial segregation that was enforced in South Africa from 1948 to 1991.
Apartheid may also refer to:
* Apartheid outside of South Africa, a description of events compared to the South African apartheid
* Israeli apartheid, used by some to compare policies of the Israeli government to that of the South African apartheid
* Global apartheid, used by some to describe the "First World's" relationship to the "Third World"
* Gender apartheid, used by some to describe gender-based discrimination
* Sexual apartheid, used by some to describe sexual orientation discrimination
* The apartheid wall, used by some detractors as a name for the Israeli West Bank barrier
Actually, if the Apartheid outside South Africa article is kept, all of the other articles you list can be merged into it, and then this bogus disambiguation page will be unnecessary. We don't need a separate article for every derogatory name that someone can think of.
6SJ700:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)reply
It would be wrong of WP to impugn the motives of Desmond Tutu and others who've applied the word apartheid to Israel. The phrase "apartheid state" refers to a system and is applied to Israel as part of an analysis which may be right or wrong - but it's not for us to take sides or be dismissive by adding epithets like epithet. As for your desire to eliminate the Israeli apartheid article and merge it I don't think it shows a lot of respect for wikipedia to so blatantly try to circumvent the AFD on Israeli apartheid.
Homey00:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Tutu has no authority beyond SA borders. His Nobel means as much as Arafat's. Welcome to WP, there was no consensus in the AFD, so all options are open. ←
Humus sapiensну?00:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)reply
His authority is irrelevent - it is his motives that I was discussing. By using the term epithet you are assuming an ill motive rather than a sincere one.
Homey02:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)reply
6SJ7, that's a very good point about what would happen if
Apartheid outside South Africa is kept - that would solve a lot of problems! We might still need the disambiguation page, depending on whether or not "apartheid wall" was decided to be appropriate for the page (since the article has been merged into another article), but it should be a lot easier. --
Natalya11:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Hi. To help clarify the overall argument I created a
Crime of apartheid article that deals with just the international law aspects. It does not mention Israel, btw. I think it would be appropriate to add to this dab, probably in the form of something like:
Since all of the various AfDs have finished, with no concensus being reached in any of them, it seems appropriately time to try and get this disambiguation page back to working again.
We may not (and probably do not) agree that some of the article listed on this page are worthy articles. That doesn't mean that it should be argued over whether or not they are to be included. However, what we can do is make sure that when the articles are listed, they are done so in a very
NPOV manner, so that this page can be appropriate neutral.
I've moved my suggestion from one of the above section here, with some of the suggested modifications made. There didn't seem to be too much disagreement with it, and if we can modify it so that it can appease everyone, we will have made a great deal of progress.
The Apartheid was a system of racial segregation that was enforced in South Africa from 1948 to 1991.
Apartheid may also refer to:
*
Crime of apartheid, a criminal act characterized in as a "crime against humanity" in international law
*
Apartheid outside of South Africa, a description of events compared to the South African apartheid
*
Israeli apartheid (epithet), a term used by some to compare policies of the Israeli government to that of the South African apartheid
*
Global apartheid, a term used by some to describe the "First World's" relationship to the "Third World"
*
Gender apartheid, a term used by some to describe gender-based discrimination
*
Sexual apartheid, a term used by some to describe sexual orientation discrimination
* The apartheid wall, a term used by some in context of the
Israeli West Bank barrier
Thanks for pointing that out, Su-laine.yeo! Feeling a bit silly for not noticing, waiting will definitly be a good thing. :) --
Natalya21:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)reply
There is no aricle on Apartheid wall but Homey sitill insists on keeping it in the disambig. Suddenly, no respect for consensus, Homey? ←
Humus sapiensну?22:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)reply
"
Apartheid wall" is a widely used phrase and exists as a redirect. Sorry Humus but one person (you) is not consensus. Get consensus first and then make the change.
Homey22:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Yeah, let's pretend you misundserstand. The consensus was not to keep article under such title. We do not put redirs into disambigs. ←
Humus sapiensну?23:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)reply
I've posted on Natalya's page asking for her views. She's away until the 9th though so we might not hear anything right away. As I recall though, Apartheid wall was included in the consensus version of this article that she helped mediate.
Homey23:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)reply
I am referring to the version suggested by Natalya several weeks ago (10 June see above, pasted below):
The Apartheid was a system of racial segregation that was enforced in South Africa from 1948 to 1991.
Apartheid may also refer to:
*
Crime of apartheid, a criminal act characterized in as a "crime against humanity" in international law
*
Apartheid outside of South Africa, a description of events compared to the South African apartheid
*
Israeli apartheid (epithet), a term used by some to compare policies of the Israeli government to that of the South African apartheid
*
Global apartheid, a term used by some to describe the "First World's" relationship to the "Third World"
*
Gender apartheid, a term used by some to describe gender-based discrimination
*
Sexual apartheid, a term used by some to describe sexual orientation discrimination
* The apartheid wall, a term used by some in context of the
Israeli West Bank barrier
I don't understand why individuals are objecting to the inclusion of apartheid wall then but object to it now. I also think that, had it been against policy to include the reference as above, then Natalya, who is more familiar with disambig policy than any of us, would have said something.
Homey06:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)reply
On disambiguation pages, there does not necessarily have to be an article solely on the subject for the subject to be listed. In the suggestion above, the term is mentioned, and then the article which contains it is linked to. That way, the term is still mentioned, but the correct article is linked to. This is a frequent occurance on disambiguation pages. For mention in the Manual of Style, see
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#URL_anchor_notation --
Natalya13:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)reply
That being said, I'm not sure if the way it is currently portrayed on the page (linking directly to
apartheid wall) is the best choice with so much tension going on. By linking to the correct section of
Israeli West Bank barrier, it both puts the link in a less-controversial context, and takes the reader directly to the part of the article referring to the term. Thoughts? (don't want to change it unless there is support) --
Natalya 03:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC) Follow up: I suggest that we all stop adding/deleting the entry until we can decide on something here. There is no need for
edit warring!. --
Natalya03:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)reply
The article has not been renamed, it's been merged and the
apartheid wall link actually links to the particular section of the article on the "apartheid wall" term. As Natalya says above this is accepted practice in disambig pages. There is no justification for removing the link. Not liking the phrase is not a sufficient reason.
Homey06:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)reply
HOTR, while I do think the article should be linked to, if you read my previous paragraphs, I say that the best way is probably not the way that it is now. Linking to
apartheid wall does not link to any particular section of
Israeli West Bank barrier. I'm going to go ahead and be
bold and change the entry to the way suggested above. That way, the correct article is linked to, and it is not controversial. Please, if anyone feels it should be different, discuss it here first! This page was protected for a while while heated discussions ensued, lets not do that again. --
Natalya11:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Below is a copy of a conversation I have had with
Homey. He suggested that
Natalya comment here. I feel that adding the wall is redundant to the article, as described below, and that unless we are willing to add every example of every form of every action that has been alledged to be apartheid, it is the equivalent of "cherry-picking" a particular issue. My opinion is more fully described in the conversation below. Of course, I always reserve the right to be mistaken or convinced by reasoned and reasonable discourse 8-) . --
Avi19:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Conversation
1) What does the RFA have to do with including apartheid wall in the disambig page?
2) I can AGF but that doesn't change the fact that no credible reason has been given for removing the link.
Homey15:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)reply
No. Just the Israeli apartheid article and not in relation to its content. The disambig article and/or apartheid wall is not subject to the RFA.
Homey18:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)reply
But that does not change the fact that adding the wall specifically is redundant, or why does it in your opinion? --
Avi18:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)reply
As I said
Allegations of Israeli apartheidis listed and the apartheid wall is both mentioned prominently in that article, as well as being an example ofAllegations of Israeli apartheid. Is the idea to list every example of every allegation of every type of action referred to as apartheid on that page? What about civil unions and same-sex marriage laws? The reductio ad absurdum can go on. Why do you feel there is something special and unique about the wall? --
Avi19:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)reply
And there actually is no section in
Allegations of Israeli apartheid on the separation barrier as apartheid wall. That section is
here in the Israeli West Bank barrier article.19:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments/Responses
Yes, but no one has answered the issue that it is taken care of by Allegations of Israeli apartheid. Are we to list same-sex marriage as well as an example of sexual apartheid? Please see talk
No because that is dealt with primarily in the sexual apartheid article whereas the concept of an apartheid wall is dealt with primairly in the West Bank barrier article whose link you keep removing. Please self-revert.
Homey19:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Yes, but no one has answered the issue that it is taken care of by Allegations of Israeli apartheid.
I did a) it's dealt with in passing 13 paragraphs into that article b) the main place it is dealt with is
Israeli West Bank barrier where it has its own section. It is this link you keep removing. Conversely, the same-sex marriage/apartheid issue is primarily dealt with in Sexual apartheid to which there is already a link in the disambig page.
Homey19:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)reply
This is supposed to be a disambiguation page, a place that points the reader to the right place if they type in a term that can mean several things. If
Israeli apartheid can conceivably mean something real, then apartheid wall is definitely a political epithet. Besides, Arbcom deals with conduct not content, so it doesn't really matter whether it's redundant or not. --
Leifern19:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)reply
"a place that points the reader to the right place if they type in a term that can mean several things". Yes, and the "right place" for apartheid wall is the section in
Israeli West Bank barrier which Natalya linked to.
Homey20:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Avi, I agree with what you have done in moving the "Apartheid wall" material to the "Allegations of..." article, with only a small summary remaining in the "barrier" article. Since it appears that the "Allegations of..." article will (unfortunately) remain as a separate article, at least this move keeps most of the POV propaganda together in one place instead of being spread far and wide. As a result, I think the "apartheid wall" mention needs to be removed from this disambiguation page.
6SJ720:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Avi, obviously your problem was that you did something with an "apartheid" article without getting permission from the person who thinks he owns them.
6SJ721:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)reply
There was a consensus in AFD on merging apartheid wall with Israel West Bank barrier. This shouldn't be overturned unilaterally and it certainly shouldn't be passed off as a minor edit.
Homey20:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)reply
This idea was never even considered before, and under the circumstances it is appropriate. It is your action that is unilateral. Please self-revert.
6SJ720:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)reply
On disambiguation pages, there does not necessarily have to be an article solely on the subject for the subject to be listed. In the suggestion above, the term is mentioned, and then the article which contains it is linked to. That way, the term is still mentioned, but the correct article is linked to. This is a frequent occurance on disambiguation pages. For mention in the Manual of Style, see
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#URL_anchor_notation --
Natalya13:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)reply
It is a good point that including the link to the section of
Israeli West Bank barrier regarding the apartheid wall does verge on including too much information on disambiguation pages. The reason it may be valid to be there is that at one point it was a separate article, and although it's now been merged, it is still a valid use of the word. If we can decide that it is indeed not a notable enough use of the word, then it can be removed.
On another, and less happier note, I requested another admin to re-protect this page (since I am invloved in discussions, it's not appropriate for me to do). I'm sorry to see that it has turned back into a revert war, but since no one has taken heed of the suggestions to discuss before editing, protection will force us to do so. --
Natalya23:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the pointer, but I don't see what this has to do with this disambiguation page, except that when whatever is decided there is instantiated in one or more articles, we would edit the dab page to reflect reality. --
MCB22:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Further, if the merge is agreed upon, then I think we all agree that the wall's entry on this page is redundant. Homey feels that that is the sole reason for the suggestion. I beg to differ; as discussed at the pointer provided above. Feel free to join in over there.--
Avi23:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)reply
If the change is approved we should rewrite the link as follows:
Allegations of Israeli apartheid, used to describe the alleged treatment by Israel of the Palestinian population inclducing the so-called "Apartheid wall".
Not really since "Apartheid wall" is only used by extrimists as an epithet to convey a political POV - a disambiguation paghe is
not the place to start push POV cause other wise there will be a need to NPOV it and that is not the riole of a Disanbiguation page.
Zeq07:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)reply
"Apartheid wall" has 434,000 hits on google and it seems to be the preferred term used by its opponents (who should not be described in a blanket fashion as "extremists"). See, for instance
this article in Ha'aretzHomey07:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Still, a disambiguation page is not a place to push POV. It is only a disambiguation page. all the POV needs to be elsewhere where it could NPOV.
Zeq07:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)reply
A disambiguation page is definitly not a place for anything that is not
NPOV. I don't think the term will need to be included though, and here's why. Since apartheid wall is apparently a very well-known term (as is seen by its many google hits), if someone is searching for information on it, they will be very likely to search directly for "apartheid wall", which will take them to whatever article is decided as the correct redirect. The likliness of someone searching for "apartheid" and looking for the "apartheid wall" appears to be rather low, and since disambiguation pages should only include those articles which are likely to be confused, it doesn't seem necessary. --
Natalya11:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)reply
I'd hope that we could enact a decision once it's unprotected, but we need to wait and see what article is decided to be the main article for "apartheid wall". --
Natalya22:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Why is CJCurrie reverting the consensus of a number of different editors, and restoring links to stubs that have already been re-merged into their parent articles? And why is he removing references to actual non-stub existing articles?
Jayjg (talk)22:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)reply
My reverting is not bizarre, and is explained
here.
I have two questions of my own:
(i) Why are JayJG and FeloniousMonk suggesting that I'm acting as a proxy for a banned user, when this is clearly not the case?
(ii) Why is FeloniousMonk removing the "mergeto" notices that I've placed on the "Global apartheid" and "Sexual apartheid" articles? It seems obvious that there is disagreement on these points; a call for discussion seems entirely appropriate.
CJCurrie23:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)reply
I see your explanation, but I don't find it very strong; I've responded to it. Regarding your questions:
(i) As it clearly is the case, the answer is quite obvious.
(ii) As the articles have already been merged by common consensus (moved by one editor, supported by at least 5 others), there is no need for a merge notice. The real question is, why suggest an article be merged when the merger has already taken place?
Jayjg (talk)23:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)reply
(i) Really? What banned editor are you speaking of?
(ii) The "common censensus" appears to represent only one side of the discussion. Since there's clearly some disagreement on this point, a "mergeto" notice seems entirely appropriate.
CJCurrie23:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)reply
(i) I'm not playing. You know. :-)
(ii) The only one disagreeing is you, at least until you round up some more buddies (soon enough, no doubt).
User:Beland merged the articles 3 weeks ago, and there was no objection whatsoever until the banned editor noticed it yesterday and started reverting. Then, in a completely "unexpected" turn of events, his long-term friend showed up to revert for him as well.
Jayjg (talk)23:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)reply
(i) The thought has occurred to me that you may be referring to someone from our previous discussions ... but he was never banned, so that can't be it. I'm at a loss as to who else it could be.
(ii) No, Jay, I'm not planning to drag in five associates to create the false appearance of consensus. There's quite enough of that on Wikipedia already. I've made my points, and we'll see what the response is.
CJCurrie23:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)reply
(i) Disingenuous comments may not be as helpful as you think.
Lets take a deep breath for a second, everyone. This doesn't need to be a big issue. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with the merging of articles. However, until the disagreement is resolved, the links on the disambiguation page should reflect the current status. Since the articles in question are at the moment, still merged into
Apartheid outside South Africa, the links should stay as is if/until any change is made. --
Natalya15:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)reply
What purpose does this page serve?
The section heading about says it all. I am having great difficulty seeing what purpose this page serves. As some have pointed out in the past, it is not really a disambiguation page at all -- it does not clarify meanings among the same or similar terms. (So please excuse the somewhat sarcastic edit summary that I just wrote, as I know that people have noticed this; I wish edit summaries were edit-able.) The
Allegations of apartheid article serves the same purpose as this page, and is far preferable, since it is a substantive article. All this page really does is to proliferate the word "apartheid" on Wikipedia without adding any actual content. What does anyone else think?
6SJ706:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)reply
There is no
Allegations of apartheid article anymore, so the concerns raised above are moot. Clearly, there is more than one article on Wikipedia with the word "Apartheid" in the title. Accordingly, this page should be a disambig that lists all those articles. Redirecting to
Apartheid in South Africa misleads the reader into thinking that is the only case of apartheid or only use to which the word can be put which is obviously untrue. Accordinly I've restored the page's contents.
Tiamuttalk12:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)reply