Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Apartheid/Archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Proposal by User:KimvdLinde

My rough indication, with approximate proportions (rough estimates)

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

Maybe supplemented with:

  • Israeli apartheid: If and only if the amount of relevant information is sufficient to warrant a split of from the main article. Short article.
  • Section on Apartheid Wall can remain where it is.
  • All remaining articles with apartheid in the header get deleted and the usefull information added to the aboe articles.

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

  • Support per argument stated at Wikipedia_talk:Central_discussions/Apartheid, a larger poll regarding essentially the same issue (note, the other poll is written from an anti-apartheid arguement position, and, as such, those who support this proposal will probably oppose that proposal). --(Mingus ah um 20:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC))
  • Oppose per vote below on Jayjg's proposal. An article on "Apartheid" should be about South Africa because that is where it was a government policy. I also oppose any proposal that even leaves open the possibility of "Israeli apartheid", under whatever name, remaining an independent article. (Forgot to sign 6SJ7 12:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC))
  • Oppose An article on "Apartheid" should be about South Africa. "Israeli apartheid" is something that does not exist. Zeq 12:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support would like to see the proposed main article on Apartheid first. Homey 00:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Acceptable. CJCurrie 01:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Apartheid should be or redirect to the main article on apartheid in South Africa. Zaian 08:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose (though agreed on 'wall' section clause). -- tasc wordsdeeds 20:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support --Coroebus 20:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per 6SJ7 Zeq 21:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The proposal will perpetuate the current stalemate. Pecher Talk 14:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • weak Support - Xed 06:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all above. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 23:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Suport What am I missing here? Of course a link to apartheid should explain to the reader what apartheid means. I just went a made what I thought was a standard edit to the apartheid redirect, assuming this was common sense! Kendrick7 19:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Apartheid can have more than one usage, not just South African. However, a ton of the time, it refers to South Africa. I would have Apartheid be the article about that chapter in SA history, and then have a "other uses" note at the top of the page linking to a disambig page with other possible uses, including Israeli and whatever. -Zapptastic (talk) 07:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Poll: Rename "Israeli apartheid" article to "Allegations of Israeli apartheid"

This poll was moved here inappropriately by anon 72.60.226.29 (talk · contribs). The actual poll is still at Wikipedia talk:Central discussions/Apartheid#Poll: Rename "Israeli apartheid" article to Allegations of Israeli apartheid". It's inappropriate to move a poll in progress, because the edit history is lost, which makes checking votes difficult. --John Nagle 04:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Poll: Rename "Apartheid outside of South Africa" article to "Allegations of apartheid outside South Africa"

This poll was moved here inappropriately by anon 72.60.226.29 (talk · contribs). The actual poll is still at Wikipedia talk:Central discussions/Apartheid#Poll: Rename "Apartheid outside of South Africa" article to "Allegations of apartheid outside South Africa". It's inappropriate to move a poll in progress, because the edit history is lost, which makes checking votes difficult. --John Nagle 04:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal by User:Nagle

  • Resolve the Israeli apartheid -> "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" renaming issue first. Use whatever Wikipedia dispute resolution processes are necessary to get a decision on this that will stick. After that, regard that issue as closed.
  • Hold off on all other related renaming/moving/refactoring until that issue is decisively resolved.
  • Then reevaluate whether any of the other related articles should be changed.

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

Support I think it is clear that they are only allegations since there has been no decisive fact finding by any authorative body. --Ben Houston 02:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment The proposal and poll on Israeli apartheid -> "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" renaming has now been listed as a formal Wikipedia:Requested moves action item, with the poll at Wikipedia talk:Central discussions/Apartheid#Poll: Rename "Israeli apartheid" article to "Allegations of Israeli apartheid". This starts the Wikipedia 5-day voting period for a proposed move that has been contested. --John Nagle 03:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The name of the "Israeli apartheid" article is just a temporary issue, while its separate existence is being determined. 6SJ7 12:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, this whole thing is about the Israeli apartheid article, the other articles are mostly part of that fight. We should sort out not only the name, but also the content of that article. Then and only then can we decide how the others can interact with that (central) article. --Coroebus 17:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support This is also acceptable. Homey 00:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Acceptable. CJCurrie 01:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. This should come first. BTW, please transfer this comment to any vote on "Israeli apartheid": unless the article on "new anti-Semitism" is moved to "allegations of new anti-Semitism", there is no way the "Israeli apartheid" article should be moved and to do so would be yet another example of POV editing on the part of the pro-Israel lobby here. Guys, you cannot give more positive labels to articles you do not like and not to ones you do! You do this all the time. Try to consider using a single standard and using it evenhandedly. Grace Note 02:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
If you want to vote on the proposed move, the page for that is at Wikipedia talk:Central discussions/Apartheid#Poll: Rename "Israeli apartheid" article to "Allegations of Israeli apartheid". Thanks. --John Nagle 02:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. It is better than the current title. -- Heptor talk 21:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • weak Oppose Zeq 21:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. --Ian Pitchford 20:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Per Grace Note. - Szvest 10:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Given the rancor already witnessed with this relatively minor change, the much more drastic step of reorganizing article content shouldn't become entangled with it. Nysin 16:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The articles are interconnected and need to be addressed as a whole. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposal by Jayjg

1)Aside from sharing the term "apartheid" do Israeli Apartheid, Gender apartheid, Sexual apartheid, Global apartheid have enough in common to justify being in the same article? Wouldn't this be a grab-bag article?
2) As a number of countries listed under Apartheid outside of South Africa are accused of gender apartheid, doesn't it make more sense to merge those sections of the former article into the latter?
3) Do you envision the entire Israeli apartheid article being put into Allegations of apartheid outside of South Africa or do you expect it to be shortened?
4) Doesn't the title Allegations of apartheid outside of South Africa assume that South Africa is immune from gender apartheid, sexual apartheid and global apartheid as the title explictly excludes that contry?Homey 01:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
1) The commonality is obvious; the use of the term "apartheid" to designate some alleged discrimination by one group against another.
2) The countries often have multiple accusations of "apartheid" made against them; as a simple example, Saudi Arabia has been accused of gender, sexual, and religious apartheid. Also, the terms themselves tend to be nebulous; they mean different things to different people in different situations, and sometimes even in the same situation.
3) Most of it, I'd imagine. Ideally it should be cleaned up to use the best possible sources, but that probably wouldn't change the size very much, just the choice of sources. I suspect the sections on other countries would grow a little; there's lots of information out there, and I've only started fleshing some of them out.
4) Good point. I've fixed that. Jayjg (talk) 01:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Why not simply have a disambiguation page that links to the various articles and sections of other articles?
Wouldn't the size of Israeli apartheid dwarf the rest of the page. Isn't it the usual practice on such pages to have a one paragraph synopsis and then a link to a larger article? As User:Gatoclass said on Talk:Apartheid outside of South Africa: "I think the "Israel" section is too long in comparison to the rest of the article. It seems to me that the obvious thing to do is keep the Israeli apartheid page a separate one, with a precis of that article here and a link to the Israeli apartheid page as the main entry on this subject. Gatoclass 23:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)"
Thinking of users, is a reader not more likely to be looking for an article called "Global apartheid" or "Gender apartheid" or "Israeli apartheid" than a catchall article called "Allegations of apartheid"? Homey 01:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
1) Disambiguation pages are for disambiguating; it wouldn't be necessary in this case, since the articles in question would be comprehensive and would provide much needed context.
2) If the Israeli apartheid section turns out to be much larger than the others, then decisions can be made about sub-pages at that time. That's the way editing is normally done, first you write the article, then, if it gets too large, you breakout sub-articles; you don't decide on a sub-article before you've even completed the main article. As well, the sections on other countries are likely to grow, as I said above; there's lots of material out there, and little of it has been incorporated into the article yet.
3) If that is the case, then those can easily be re-directs to the broader article, which will be much more informative; that's what re-directs are for. Jayjg (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
As Gatoclass points out, the Israeli apartheid "sub-article" as you refer to it is already "too long" for your compilation article. As the article seems to be getting longer by the day at what point do you think it would be "too large" and require a "breakout sub-article"?Homey 02:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate that Gatoclass holds that opinion, but others certainly differ. We'll have to see what happens; this shouldn't be a pre-decided thing, but rather a natural, organic process, as happens with all other articles. Also, I note that that all sorts of "apartheid" allegations are made, beyond the simplistic "global, sexual, and gender" ones, such as "urban apartheid", "social apartheid", "economic apartheid", "Muslim apartheid", "hidden apartheid", etc. - and this ignores the overlap between "gender" and "sexual" apartheid. "Apartheid", of whatever kind, tends to be a fuzzy epithet mostly indicating an alleged discrimination of some sort - artificial divisions into lots of stubby articles misinforms the reader. Jayjg (talk) 02:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: If the article (Israeli apartheid) is moved anywhere, I believe that it should be incorporated into an article with broader scope (one such page, Political opposition to Israel, was proposed on the other main Israeli apartheid poll). I believe that it would be more practical to tie the concept of Israeli apartheid to Israeli opposition than it would be to, say, gender apartheid, etc, etc... Peace in the Middle East. --(Mingus ah um 21:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC))
  • Support per nom and Humus. Zeq 09:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Clean and simple. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per SV. This is the most logical way out. Pecher Talk 09:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per Jayjg, SV, and Humus.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support ditto, although I feel that the Allegations of Apartheid article is not needed, the summary in Apartheid should be sufficient and should preferrably be called "Apartheid" in political rhetoric or suchlike. Kuratowski's Ghost 10:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - unworkable as the Israeli apartheid article is too long to justify being merged into another article. Would string together tangentially related articles on various different issues and create a dog's breakfast. Homey 12:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
shoreting the article to it's reasoanble appropriate length could be a solution. Wikipedia NPOV policy clearly sais that minority view of minor groups should not be given space here at all. On that ground alone this article should not have existed. Zeq 12:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for revealing the hidden agenda in this proposal - ie to evade the unsuccessful AFD and try to truncate and ultimately destroy the Israeli aparatheid article. The way to deal with the issue if you think the article is not NPOV is to edit, not to use sleight of hand to try to make an article you don't like disappear.Homey 15:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
There is no hidden agenda The article need to be both shorter and NPOV. Zeq 15:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per SV and Zeq's solution for the "article too long" objection. Isarig 14:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support having all of the allegation together the article can better compare and contrast where (if ever) the term is appropriate outside of South Africa. Jon513 16:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose at present, Israeli apartheid article is too long (and getting longer by the day), don't think global apartheid fits, but, as I think I mentioned at its AFD, I think it's potentially an interesting topic we haven't addressed. I'm probably still inclined towards my merge into discrimination etc arguments I made at the figurative apartheid AFDs too. I think this is not going to be a satisfactory solution of the Israeli apartheid problem (which is why we're all here), and probably just shifts the fight to a new page. If we could negotiate a sensible shortish Israeli apartheid article (which everyone appears to be trying their hardest to prevent) I might support its merger, but it currently doesn't look like that's going to happen. --Coroebus 17:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is the right-wing pro-Israel proposal (as evidenced by its proposal by Jayjg and its complete support by that faction -- if you are wondering who many in this faction are, see the first 7 support votes above) that attempts to bury the article, Israeli apartheid, that they disagree with. (It should be noted that this is only one of a few POV-pushing factions on Wikipedia that are tied to a religion -- there is also a well known Christianity-related group and a more recent Islam-related one. These special interest groups weild a lot of influence on Wikipedia via their coordination.) --Ben Houston 18:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Right-wing? Wow, people who actually know me would be pretty surprised to hear that. Pro-Israel I will admit to, but only when they're right. 6SJ7 20:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I struck the right-wing mention. My perspective is based on reading Haaretz on a fairly regular basis -- a newspaper that is fairly left-wing but also implicitly pro-Israel that I find myself in agreement with. I do not share the same views as this block, even though I am not pro-Arab nor anti-Israel -- thus I tried to find an additional differentiating descriptive term to add to pro-Israel. --Ben Houston 21:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment - BH, could you find anything better than to allege some Zionist conspiracy? As if this whole issue is not politicized and polarized enough. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment - Humus sapiens, you can make any baseless deflamatory claims you want but I can't help but notice that you just recently featured prominently a link to this page on the Jewish history WikiProject (see here [1]) even though this page is not really about Jewish history but of modern Israeli politics. That same behavior, when done by someone of the Islam project was considered by Pecher as vote solicitation, see [2] and similar behavior by the Muslim Guild was criticized by Timothy Usher, see [3]. Thus in concrete terms, according to Pecher, you are soliciting votes. --Ben Houston 23:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't the one who chose to radicalize and polarize this area of WP. Do not expect others to sit still while unjust defamatory accusations are being made against a community. AFAIK, there is no Jewish guild or Zionist cabal, but thank you for keeping a watchful eye on my clandestine activities. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
In the first two sentences of your response you implicitly admit my main point. In the first sentence you make clear that there is radicalization and polarization going on and you imply that you are part of it, but only acting in retaliation. In the second sentence you make it clear that this is about protecting "a community" from "unjust defamatory attacks" -- this completely aligns with my description that there is a pro-Israel faction. Thus in your view it is legitimate to defend the community from attacks and it wasn't you that started it. I do not contest your perspective of things. But you are admitting that there is an aligned group of editors who are working to protect "a community" from what they see as attacks -- this is my point just with a different perspective. The last sentence is strange since it goes back to denying there might be any community-aligned interests among editors -- but you just made clear in the previous two sentences that there was. There doesn't have to be a cabal or conspiracy -- and I never made such a claim. --Ben Houston 21:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per all my past comments supporting basically the same thing. In fact somewhere on the article's talk page there is a comment entitled "Global Proposal" or something like that, that was mine from about 3 weeks ago and it is very similar to this. 6SJ7 20:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose At the end of the day the Palestinians will still be regarded as second-class citizens persons, they will still be subjected to unjust collective punishment, humiliated at checkpoints, refused much of the liberties the rest of us take for granted. At the end of the day The Guardian, Tutu, Meretz, etc, will still talk about Israeli apartheid. The Likudniks may be successful in their hasbara attempt to bury this article; the tragedy of it all is that they haven't realized what us Jewish Meretz liberals have - that their misguided efforts to protect the homeland is detrimental to the long-term security of Israel. The right of the state of Israel to exist is absolute, a right to be excluded from essential and valid criticisms is nonexistent. And it's not a 50-50 situation, it's entirely reasonably to expect more from the wealthy democracy Israel than from an unorganised Palestinian people. Article20 21:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • This harangue has nothing to do either with Wikipedia in general or with the apartheid articles in particular. Article20 is simply using this page to push a POV on particular issues. I can only remark that Palestinians cannot be second-class citizens by definition because they are not Israeli citizens. Pecher Talk 22:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Funnily enough, the precise same argument was made in apartheid South Africa where the citizenship of Blacks was transferred form South Africa to the various Bantustans. Homey 23:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
              • Even more funnily, the government of apartheid South Africa actually called their policy "apartheid." 6SJ7 02:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
          • But no such "transfer" of citizenship occured in Israel, demonstrating the paucity of your analogy. In fact, were you honestly interested in drawing parallels between South Africa and ths situation in the West Bank, vs. using it as an Israel-bashing stick, you'd be creating articles named "Jordanian Apartheid", as it was Jordan who "transferred" the citizenship of its West bank citizens to the Palestinian Authority. Isarig 23:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
              • "But no such "transfer" of citizenship occured in Israel, demonstrating the paucity of your analogy" - there was a physical transfer of much of the Palestinian population in 1948.Homey 01:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
            • According to the New_Historians some transfer did occur -- see that article for more info. --Ben Houston 00:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
      • (persons instead of citizens) Read my comment in the context of the essay Wikipedia:Notability. Article20 23:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment - we are not negotiating the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict here. Article20, you just confirmed that this is being used as a propaganda weapon against Israel. Thank you. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Certain government policies, not the country. And thank you for confirming that opposition to the phrase has nothing to do with it's encyclopaedic merits (or lack thereof), but with misguided attempts to "defend" Israel. A "defence" that Israel would be better off without as it is only concerned with appearances, and not with the underlying reality. Article20 23:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
It is deceiving to say that those who compare Israel with Nazi Germany and single it out for demonization (and not Iran, Burma, N.Korea or Saudi Arabia) are concerned with "Certain government policies, not the country." ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Compare Israel with South Africa. So you say it's unfair to criticize Israel for it's treatment of Palestinians when there is a Kim Jong-Il in North Korea or the corrupt Saudi family in Saudi Arabia. It's equally unfair I suppose to criticise Kim Jong-Il as he isn't as bad as Pol Pot, or to criticize Pol Pot as he isn't as bad as Hitler. Basically what you saying is; to criticize is to demonise and should never be done (as long as the target of criticism isn't the Palestinians of course). One reason people talk more about Israel than Burma could be that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the single most serious (political) problem facing Humanity today (with China-Taiwan and Kashmir as runner-ups). A way forward is to engage in honest discussions, not pathetic hasbara games. Article20 11:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
This is not the page for you to promote your view that the analogy is accurate; please take it elsewhere, preferably to an off-Wikipedia blog. Jayjg (talk) 11:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
A claim such as "This is not the page for you to promote your view that the analogy is accurate" (emphasis mine) is both untrue and a violation of policy. It has no place anywhere on Wikipedia, and certainly not here, which is where we're supposed to be having a serious discussion. Please take this page (and policy) seriously. Article20 12:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
No, it's the political opinions of editors that have no place here, because they're of no relevance. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
From Wikipedia talk:Central discussions/Apartheid: "Agree if this is the only option, although I'm totally confused about what's going on. There's no such thing as "Israeli apartheid," except that it's used as an insult by pro-Palestinian activists and neo-Nazis, and so it should be Israeli apartheid (term), or better still it should be merged into an article called Apartheid (term), which lists every country this accusation has been made of, or it could be called Use of the term Apartheid outside South Africa. It seems this whole Apartheid mess was started because someone wanted to create a stick to beat Israel with. That's not what Wikipedia's about, so we should try to find an across-the-board solution that takes the stick out of people's hands. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)" [4] Article20 12:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
That's not a political opinion. There is as a matter of fact nothing resembling apartheid in Israel. There are people who believe there is differential treatment of certain citizens and they are drawing an analogy between that and apartheid. No one believes there is actually an apartheid system there. The above reiterated that, and made suggestions about how to proceed with the articles, so take your views and your digs somewhere else. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
A matter of fact eh? So if you possess objective facts and I simply have views I suppose I should rely on you to make sure information is presented in a NPOV fashion. I happen to agree with you that Israel isn't an apartheid state, but the oppression of Palestinians have been addressed by notable scholars and statesmen in the context of an apartheid analogy, thus the analogy is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Irregardless of your political facts and my political opinions. A fringe minority advocates the use of the phrase New anti-Semitism (and in the process give sanction to claims made by the far-right, euro-nationalists, neonazis, KKK, etc), yet there is such an article. The people who advocate the notion that Israel is (similar to) an apartheid state isn't a fringe minority. Also, I take my views (and sometimes my digs) with me wherever I go. Article20 13:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Article20, you say the "Israeli apartheid" analogy is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. At this point, I have to agree. However wrongheaded and ridiculous I think the analogy is, enough people have decided to beat Israel over the head with it, that it warrants some mention. But that is not what this whole discussion has been about. What almost all of the discussion and all the debates, edit wars, reverts, page-moves, harassment, stalking etc. have been about is whether this subject deserves its own article, and if so, whether that article should have a title that makes clear that it deals only with an accusation and not with reality. The only reason for a separate article is so that some people can derive pleasure from a "headline" attacking Israel. And that's not a good enough reason for a separate article. 6SJ7 14:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC) (Edited 6SJ7 14:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC))
  • Oppose per Article20. The fact that Israel has occupied the West Bank and Gaaza and has not given Palestinians equivalence in rights only suggests the Israeli situation is considerably worse than South Africa's aparthied. The dictionary definition of aparthied doens't mention that the separation has to be from groups within a single citizenry, so that's irrelevant. It's aparthied nonetheless. His Excellency... 23:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I took the liberty to move His excellency/Amibidhrohi's vote out of the middle of above discussion. It seems that the accusatory side still cannot decide whether to apply this "term" to Israeli Arabs or GS&WB. The only goal is to besmirch Israel. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    • His Excellency's missive illustrates perfectly why this article is trash - he actually believes the lie that this piece of rhetoric (and article) is intended to propagate, even if that means trivializing the suffering of millions of South Africans. --Leifern 10:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is no valid reason why Israeli Apartheid cannot remain a separate, autonomous and NPOV article. I'm willing to discuss changes to the title, but there's no need to merge the content elsewhere. CJCurrie 00:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Semi support. The "Israeli apartheid" article should be kept for the same reason we have a "new anti-Semitism" article. However, it should not be discussed in the context of South African apartheid. Serious commentators rarely do that and I think at least that part of Jay's solution that keeps the apartheid article from being in any great part about Israel is a good idea. Grace Note 02:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: New anti-semitism isn't an article about a phrase; it's an article about an (alleged) phenomenon. This article, as it stands, is an article about a phrase, as Homey has helpfully reminded us. --Leifern 10:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, reluctantly. The proposal would mean that the South African editors will have to deal with us and our disputes, and I don't think that's fair. See this comment by a South African editor: "The consensus, achieved after much discussion and upheld over several years, is that Apartheid should redirect to History of South Africa in the Apartheid Era as the article about the official use of the term. The longer name is to prevent confusion and controversial editing involving other countries (in particular Israel) from taking place at that location. That debate should not take place under the official Apartheid heading as it is very much secondary to the official historical use of the term in South Africa. If you would read the many archives at both Talk:Apartheid and Talk:History of South Africa in the Apartheid Era you would see that your recent editing of the page Apartheid is a perhaps unintentional hijacking of this topic. Again, I respectfully ask that you allow it to be returned to the previous status quo. Otherwise I've absolutely no doubt that a great many editors of the South African article will disagree with your move and see it as unilateral. Zaian 21:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)"[5] -- Clayoquot 03:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The "previous status quo" was without Homey's, Tutu's & Duke's Israeli apartheid. IOW, we are witnessing the hijacking in progress. Just curious, does anyone has the same problem with Bantustan? ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Reasonable and excellent solution. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 06:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose; see my comment quoted by Su-laine Yeo above. Zaian 08:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. --Leifern 10:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. -- Heptor talk 21:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. --Ian Pitchford 10:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Xed 06:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose The term is in common use, including inside Israel. There are both Israeli and Palestinian movements against what they describe as "Israeli Apartheid", there are books and articles on the subject, and it would be very odd not to be able to look the term up in Wikipedia because some people disagree with the term. Those who think the term inaccurate can make their case within the article, and on the discussion page. But the article itself, under its current title, should remain.RolandR 22:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 20:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per Humus sapiens's reply to Clayoquot. -- Avi 21:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I have no strong feelings on any of these issues; this proposal makes sense to me as a reader, given that the common thread between the articles to be merged is the application of the term and concept "apartheid" to a situation other than South Africa. --bainer (talk) 10:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. In what sense is gender apartheid/sexual apartheid alleged? Not every one would use the term, but no one on the planet would dispute the existence of laws that differ per gender. An article about "alleged" apartheid would basically be about Israel, so even Alleged Israeli apartheid would be a better name. Not that I support that, foreseeing Alleged War on Christmas, etc following close behind. JackyR | Talk 14:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposal by User:Bhouston

  • I favor a new main Apartheid article with sections on the origin with brief history of South Africa (with link to main article), a brief blurb on development of the crime of apartheid (with link to main article), and then it would briefly how the term has entered into public discourse in a non-scientific way with list of examples.
  • Jayjg is against on principle the existence of the article Israeli apartheid - I see the article as legitimate since it discusses something that is talked about in various places, especially if it covers many different POVs in a neutral fashion.
  • Apartheid (disambiguation) can stay in IMO -- it would be better to list in that the various sexual apartheid, gender apartheid, religious apartheid forms -- mostly because it would be scientificially improper to try to fit them into an apartheid article more than just a brief mention in the public discourse section -- it would be OR to link them unless reputable did, right now they only share the term apartheid -- also, normally such a page would not be contentious but it is because of the Israeli apartheid that the dab is now politically charged. Jayjg is emotional about the current topic and thus his suggestions are based more on trying to achieve a political end, not how best to cover a topic in Wikipedia -- which is unfortunate. --Ben Houston 00:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Bhouston, do you think you could make your proposal based on its merits alone, rather than being a proposal about your bad faith and uncivil assumptions about me? Claims such as "Jayjg is emotional about the current topic and thus his suggestions are based more on trying to achieve a political end, not how best to cover a topic in Wikipedia -- which is unfortunate." are both untrue and a violation of policy. They have no place anywhere on Wikipedia, and certainly not here, which is where we're supposed to be having a serious discussion. Jayjg (talk) 02:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Kettle, pot? You said just today that the Apartheid outside of South Africa "is the main article, the other is a stub which exists for political purposes only" ([6]) That comment of yours doesn't seem to be assuming good faith either does it? It seems like you hold others to standards you do not hold yourself too. --Ben Houston 02:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
        • I haven't referred to any specific editors, I definitely haven't speculated about their emotional states, and I certainly haven't made that comment on this page. Please take this page (and policy) seriously. Jayjg (talk) 03:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
We all know that there's a number of agendas here, so no need for self righteousness from any side. --Coroebus 17:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, but even more importantly there's no need for Ben's egregious policy violations which he has now extended to claims of Zionist conspiracies. Jayjg (talk) 11:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I didn't mention any Zionist conspiracies, that is a mischaracterization from User:Humus sapiens intended to defame me and distract from the accurate content of what I said. --Ben Houston 21:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to proposed retention of "Israeli Apartheid" as separate article, per all my other comments. 6SJ7 20:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - "talked about in various places" is a euphemism for "fringe minority". ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - The Guardian, Desmond Tutu, Meretz, etc, isn't "fringe minority". Article20 00:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support this is also acceptable. Homey 00:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. This is probably the fairest outcome. CJCurrie 01:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There is no way the genuine item (South African apartheid) should be relegated to just a brief introduction on the page Apartheid. Zaian 08:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support, can you spell out how your proposal differs from Kim's? --Coroebus 20:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • My first oppose here. South African apartheid is without any doubt the most important article. -- Heptor talk 21:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Heptor kind of obvious that SA is the main issue. Zeq 21:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The proposal is aimed at giving another tribune to the fringe minority campaigning over Israeli, sexual, gender, and other invented apartheids. This is not to mention Bhouston's attack on Jayjg. Pecher Talk 11:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per Tutu - Xed 06:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. --Ian Pitchford 20:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal by User:Humus sapiens

I modified Jayjg's proposal to meet the requirements by Zaian and Su-Laine Yeo.

  • Support as nom (standing on the shoulders of giants) - this would be my second choice after Jayjg's proposal. I am strongly against a separate article titled Israeli Apartheid because it is disgustingly offensive (by design), just as Judeofascism or Zionazi, and just as the former, it should say "This page has been deleted, and should not be re-created without a good reason" or just as the latter, it should redirect to a neutral title. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support as far as the naming of the South African articles go. Abstain (with respect) from the debate around the Israeli Apartheid article. Zaian 10:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - POV suggestion. Analogy of Israeli apartheid is well established in scholarly works, journalism and political discourse both amongst Jewish Israelis and between Israel and critics. This certainly isn't the case with neologisms such as Judeofascism and Zionazi. Homey 11:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Note that allegations of apartheid in Israel are well established, actual existence of an apartheid is disputed to say the least. -- Heptor talk 17:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - unless someone deletes New anti-Semitism (advocate piece for the far-right), Race and Intelligence (advocate piece for racists), Christian Zionism (it's not really Zionism if it's about converting/killing Jews when the apocalypse comes), War on terror (more like war for the sake of war), Axis of evil (countries can't be evil, only people) - all of which I find "disgustingly offensive". Article20 11:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Article20, this is not the right place to vent your grievances. In any case, two wrongs don't make it right. ←Humus sapiens ну? 19:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. CJCurrie 11:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and my past comments. I think Jay's proposal is the most logical, but if this is not acceptable because of the desire to "insulate" the Apartheid-in-South-Africa article from the debate over Israel, I can support this as second-best. 6SJ7 17:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose, not sure about trying to dismember the Israeli apartheid article, can you spell out how your proposal differs from Kim's and Bhouston's? --Coroebus 20:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support - everything in the proposal sounds like something I can support except for the insistence that the Israeli Apartheid article be merged or discontinued. It seems arbitrary, and improper, to discontinue this article when it has real coherent content. I will support your if you modify it to allow for the continued existence of the Israeli Apartheid article (potentially renamed as "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid" or something similar.) --Ben Houston 21:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. As a compromise, I could agree to keep it as a separate article - on the condition of being neutrally titled (not sure "Allegations of ..." is the best, but it is definitely better than the current offensive title). Unfortunately, it is clear by now that certain editors are here only to besmirch Israel and unfortunately, they don't meet much resistance on these pages. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Humus, if you are serious about your compromise then you should modify your proposal accordingly so people know what they are voting on. As for your comments about the motivations of "certain editors", read WP:AGF. Homey 06:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Though in my opinion Allegations of apartheid - should be called Apartheid (epithet). -- tasc wordsdeeds 07:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Another sensible proposal. -- Heptor talk 21:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Very good proposal. Pecher Talk 14:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

*Oppose - merging Israeli apartheid not practical. Homey 15:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)struck out accidental second voteHomey 20:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Humus, I notice that some people are voting on your second proposal but not on your first - it's not clear whether you are presenting two proposals or if the revised proposal below is not being presented instead of your first one. If it's the latter could you please clearly indicate (maybe by striking out) that this first proposal has been withdrawn? If not could you please clearly state that this first proposal is still in play?Homey 15:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
... And I notice that you voted against his first proposal twice, I presume that you tried to vote against the second proposal? Apparently, Humus's compromise is an attempt for a settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions. -- Heptor talk 18:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
My mistake - though, if this proposal has been withdrawn then it hardly matters. Humus, can you please clarify?Homey 18:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
No, it wasn't withdrawn. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - obfuscation. - Xed 17:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Distinct concepts need to be discussed in dedicated articles. --Ian Pitchford 20:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, second choice. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Revised proposal by User:Humus sapiens

Per request, I am spelling out a compromise.

  • Support - This would be my third choice. As I wrote above, Israeli Apartheid is an unacceptable title. It's a disgrace that it was and still is kept for this long. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Reluctant acquiescence, meaning I support this only if neither Humus' first proposal, Jay's nor Su-Laine's are adopted. 6SJ7 04:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - a good compromise. --Ben Houston 04:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Much respect for Humus for spelling out this compromise. Article20 05:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - sensiable and as reasonable as Jayjg. Any one of those will work to resolve the issue. What is more important is what i said all along: The article about 'israeli apartheid" itself (under any name) need to be NPOV and describe who uses it and why and arguments about the analogy (both why those who think it exist and why those who think it is mis placed) should have equal space in the article. Zeq 05:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unrelated concepts. --Ian Pitchford 10:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Second choice compared to the above. Pecher Talk 14:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose for moral reasons. - Xed 06:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Semi-support Second choice compared to mine below. Clayoquot 22:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support A good compromise. -- Heptor talk 18:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose As per reasons above for opposing Jayjg's proposal. RolandR 22:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, third choice. HS is making every attempt to accommodate and compromise with the "other" side of this issue, but this spirit of compromise, fairness, and NPOV, is unfortunately not being reciprocated. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support proposal 1, 2, 3 and 5 but Oppose proposal 4 as I think gender apartheid in particular is sustainable as its own article. I could support proposal 4 if you modified it to allow that article to stand on its own. Homey 04:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose There should be a main article on apartheid, and crime of apartheid is a good starting point. Redirecting this to the an article on the crimes of a specific time or place implies that's the only possible meaning of the term, and this whole discussion proves that's not the case, not to mention the dictionary, Britannica's, etc. Kendrick7 19:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Gatoclass

Since everyone seems to be jumping on the bandwagon with their own proposals I thought I might as well add my own as well, so here they are:

(1). I propose that the Apartheid article be either formally or informally made into a disambiguation page laying emphasis on the "History of Apartheid in South Africa" article, followed by links to all the other apartheid topics, such as Crime of Apartheid, Apartheid outside South Africa, Israeli Apartheid, Global Apartheid, Gender Apartheid, Sexual Apartheid etc. Seems to me this is the obvious way to deal with this topic.

(2). I propose that the Global/Gender/Sexual apartheid articles, which are little more than stubs as they are, could be easily merged into the "Apartheid outside South Africa" article and deleted as separate articles, and therefore should be.

(3). I propose that the "Israeli Apartheid" article is too large and complex a topic to fit comfortably into the "Apartheid outside South Africa" article or indeed any other, and therefore must remain a separate topic, with no more than a brief reference to it in the "Apartheid outside South Africa" article. Quite frankly, I think it's completely unrealistic and impractical to try and shoehorn this already quite long article into another one, where it's going to completely unbalance the rest of the contents, so I think it's time this idea was dropped.

If users disagree with any of my proposals, could they please include some sort of reason why they disagree so discussion can continue.

Agree/Disagree with (1):

Agree Gatoclass 03:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Disagree. Apartheid is a South African phenomena. Therefore it should be name of the article.-- tasc wordsdeeds 08:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree with having it be a dab page. An article is needed to explain the concept of apartheid in general: the dictionary confirms that it has meaning outside of a South African context; whether it's appropriate to use it outside of such a context is a matter of POV, and Wikipedia should not weigh in on such an issue, but simply report on it neutrally. What is currently "Apartheid outside of South Africa" should be broadened to a general article about all the common uses of the word apartheid, and moved to apartheid: it will functionally be a disambiguation page, since it will provide links to all the relevant articles, but it will be much more useful than a real dab page since it will also explain the different uses, and be able to provide references and context for each usage. -Silence 15:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree, per Tasc and my other comments on this page. I also disagree with Silence's suggestion that also makes apartheid essentially a disambiguation page, rather than being the primary article about South African apartheid. Zaian 17:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree per all above. Pecher Talk 11:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree Zeq 07:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 23:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree/Disagree with (2):

Agree Gatoclass 03:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Disagree Apartheid outside of SA - bad name. Implying that Apartheid outside of SA existed. -- tasc wordsdeeds 08:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
That's an argument against the current name of the article, not an argument against merging the three articles mentioned into the article currently called "Apartheid outside of South Africa". Gatoclass 10:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree, except that "Apartheid outside of South Africa" should be moved to just Apartheid. For one, it's shorter, simpler, and easier to access. For another, it doesn't imply that apartheid exists outside of South Africa, which is just one POV among several. For a third, "sexual/gender apartheid" isn't necessarily exclusively "outside of South Africa"—gender discrimination can occur everywhere in the world, including South Africa. We avoid all potential complications and problems by simply moving "Apartheid outside of South Africa" to "Apartheid" and providing an explanation and link in the very first sentence of that article that the term's most legitimate and uncontroversial usage is in reference to the historical South Africa article. -Silence 15:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: please do not lose sight of the fact that apartheid in South Africa is the main article, as it is very much more significant than other uses of the term. Therefore the South African apartheid article should be what someone finds if they go to Apartheid; this name should not be hijacked to become a disambiguation or generic page with merely a link to History of South Africa in the apartheid era. It should be the other way round, with the main South African article providing a link to the page on other uses of the term. I could introduce accusations of cultural imperialism, belittling the suffering of our African brothers and sisters, etc, but I'll leave those to your imagination ;-) Zaian 17:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
this name should not be hijacked to become a disambiguation or generic page with merely a link to History of South Africa in the apartheid era.
I didn't suggest it should be Zaian. What I suggested is that "apartheid" should take one to a defacto dab page that lays emphasis on the Apartheid in South Africa article.
However, I think one could probably also make a case for linking "apartheid" directly to the "Apartheid in SA" page, with the disambiguation link at the top of that page. That seems to be the way things are handled in at least some other articles I've seen, so it could arguably be used here as well. It would not be my preferred choice though. Personally, I think any word or phrase that has multiple entries should link to a dab page first, but I'm not sure if this approach conforms to Wiki style. Gatoclass 10:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree. These concepts are not closely related enough to be dealt with in a single article. --Ian Pitchford 11:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree on condition that "Apartheid outside of South Africa" is moved to a better and grammatically correct title, for example "Apartheid (political epithet)". Pecher Talk 11:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Semi-agree only on condition that the article merged into be named "Allegations of Apartheid". --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 23:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree/Disagree with (3):

Agree Gatoclass 03:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Strongly oppose parts 1 and 3 of this proposal for same reasons as above. "Israeli apartheid" can and should be cut down to a reasonable size and made part of another article per proposal of Humus. 6SJ7 06:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
And it "should be cut down" in size because...? Gatoclass 06:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Because it's just a political epithet? -- tasc wordsdeeds 08:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
It may be "just a political epithet" from your POV, but from the POV of those who employ the term, it's a political reality.
But in any case, that is beside the point. The point is that the arguments in support of the notion of Israeli apartheid are multiple and complex and cannot be summed up in a paragraph or two, and likewise, neither can the arguments against. You can't just squeeze this subject under a generic heading, because it's bound to keep expanding beyond the brief summary that such an approach would necessitate.
That's why I say it's simply unrealistic to try and deal with it that way. Unrealistic, and artificial, because if this particular subject didn't happen to give offence to some people, I don't believe that anyone would be arguing for a minute that a subject of this complexity should not be dealt with under its own heading. Gatoclass 10:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
If this particular subject did not "give offense," I doubt the article would exist in the first place. Its entire purpose is to offend, and to propagandize. And I don't see what's really so complex about it. Some people have found a word that they are using to beat Israel over the head, and other people are objecting to it. It all sort of pales in importance next to the actual fighting that is going on over there right now. 6SJ7 14:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry 6S, but I think it's just nonsense to say the subject only exists "to give offence". The comparison between Israel and apartheid SA has been used by historians, academics, writers, journalists, politicians and people of note, you can't just pretend it's an invention by some Wikipedian designed to "give offence".
The concept of Israel as an apartheid state is one that has a significant degree of currency in public discourse, if you are not aware of this then I can only assume it's because you haven't been paying much attention to what critics of Israel have to say. Gatoclass 02:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree -- tasc wordsdeeds 08:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I don't care one way or the other; whichever is the more effective way of presenting the relevant information should be used. I don't see why we can't have at least a paragraph or two on it in the "outside South Africa" article, accompanied by a link to Israeli apartheid for more detailed coverage. -Silence 15:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree Silence that there should be a paragraph about Israeli apartheid in the "apartheid outside SA" page, with a link to the larger article. All I'm arguing for in this proposal is that "Israeli apartheid" needs to be kept as a dedicated article, and not merged into another article while the dedicated article is then deleted. Gatoclass 10:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. Israel's status as an ethnocracy is complex and needs to be discussed in a dedicated article. --Ian Pitchford 11:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree. The article is devoted to a non-existent phenomenon and must be gone. Pecher Talk 11:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree, let's not give in to racists. - Xed 06:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree per Pecher and 6SJ7. Zeq 07:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree RolandR 22:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree, the article is the soapbox of a self-proclaimed activist and its size disproportionate, needs to be reduced and merged into Allegations of Apartheid or some such. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 23:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. Homey 04:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposal by Su-Laine (User:Su-laine.yeo)

Please see the rationale section I've put on the Talk page.

I propose that the articles link to each other as follows:



  • Support - Systemic Discrimination in Israel and the Occupied Territories can deal with how the older Palestinians regularly discriminate against the teenagers. It could also be a useful place to explore issues regarding the gay community within the Druze community. However, the Crime of apartheid article should be merged with Apartheid (political epithet) as it deals with the concept of apartheid outside of its original (South African) meaning. You also wrote on the talk page; "I find it truly surreal that Israel's 2005 withdrawal from the Gaza strip is being given as an example of apartheid." to which I can only agree. The Palestinians have their airport and their sea harbours and during the holidays they can invite the cousins from the West Bank. They have their country now - and absolutely no reason to complain. Article20 00:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
For the record, I think the Palestians have good reasons to complain. What I specifically disagreed with is the idea that the withdrawal in 2005 was apartheid.Clayoquot 01:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as has been said ad nauseum parthenticals should only be used for purposes of disimbiguation. As well, while some see the term as an epithet, others do not, for the article to take a stand in its title is POV.Homey 00:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Disambiguation is called for because this article is about the secondary rather than the primary meaning of the term. It is consistent with Fascist (epithet). "If "Apartheid (political epithet)" was called "Apartheid (political term)" or "Modern uses of the term "apartheid" " would you still object? Regarding discrimination against people other than Palestinians in Israel, sure why not have the article include it. Clayoquot 00:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
describing the term apartheid as an "epithet" is POV and completely contradicts the fact that "apartheid" has been recognised as a crime in international law, specifically in the Rome Statute that established the International Criminal Court. Article 20 also hits on an interesting point - "systemic discrimination" can refer to discrimination against gays and lesbians, women, secular Jews, religious Jews etc not just the treatment of PalestiniansHomey 00:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, Homey, the problem with a heading like this is that it's going to create a dog's breakfast of an entry. I've been reviewing some of the articles on Israel in the last few days and there are already a plethora of them that do nothing but utterly obfuscate the very issues they were designed to elucidate, and Wiki certainly doesn't need another one. Gatoclass 04:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The term "apartheid" is sometimes used in the strict sense of international law, and often in the colloquial sense of "discrimination reminiscent of South Africa." It has both formal and informal meanings. When used informally, I think it meets the definition of an epithet but I'm flexible on whether we call it that in the article title. I've given some alternatives. Clayoquot 08:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
And we shouldn't dismiss the meaning under international law by putting "epithet" in the title. For all we know, for instance, "gender apartheid" may result in a case being made against offenders under international law or a petition to the ICC or ICJ may be made accusing countries that ban same-sex marriage of practicing "sexual apartheid".Homey 18:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to get into a discussion on the likelihood of "gender apartheid" or "sexual apartheid" being recognized in international law. I have made it clear that a) there are several different usages of the word "apartheid," one of them being an epithet, and b) I am willing to compromise by using a different term instead of "epithet." I have asked you whether using a different term would address your objection. Clayoquot 03:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support as one of the acceptable alternatives. I'd probably rank it about tied with Humus's first proposal, behind Jay's, and ahead of Humus's second proposal. 6SJ7 23:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - 6SJ7 said it well. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose as discussed above. RolandR 22:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support, I would differentiate between allegations and epithet, not sure epithet is the proper fit, but I am willing to consider this an alternative. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 23:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

so we have this discussion and propsals and ...

Is anything from this discussion ever made it to the article ? Zeq 14:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

No, because litterally everything ends up in a no-consensus. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
So is this the reason to keep things as they are ?? after all the same "no-consensus" is about the current name , shape and content. Zeq 14:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
There is no consensus and we are not going to get one and to pretend otherwise is dishonest. For weeks, we've been kept hostage to activists (I am trying to be polite here) who are interested only in namecalling and inflammatory soapboxing. This cannot go on forever. I am moving the article Israeli Apartheid to Allegations of Israeli apartheid because that is what it is: allegations. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
As they say in wikipedia: be bold . well done. Zeq 20:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Unless it results in WP:POINT, which this does. Anyway, it opens the option for more articles about Israeli apartheid dealing with the aspects that are not allegations but scientific studies and related stuff. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Go right ahead. Zeq 21:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Then please, go create such an article, which deals not with allegations but with "scientific studies and related stuff." Humus is correct, this article is currently about allegations of Israeli apartheid, not about the term, nor about "scientific studies and related stuff." Bibigon 21:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Humus, please move the disputed article back to "Israeli apartheid" until you can win support for your position. How many people do you think will be willing to devote their spare time to Wikipedia: The Pro-Likud Blog as opposed to Wikipedia: The Multilingual Free Encyclopedia? --Ian Pitchford 21:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I find it unhealthy to keep pretending that an offensive political slogan may serve as a proper encyclopedic title. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate that your views are strongly and sincerely held, but unilateral actions of this kind will generate a great deal of disruption and controversy. Please reconsider and move the article back before things get out of hand. --Ian Pitchford 21:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I think things were disrupted, controversial and out-of-hand already. The question is, is Wikipedia going to be an encyclopedia, or a joke? Renaming this article is one tiny step away from joke and toward encyclopedia. 6SJ7 21:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Ian, Such an accusation is a violation of WP:NPA (I think any one called a likud fan is an insolt) and WP:AGF - please appologize ASAP. Humus does not desrve this attack from you. Zeq 21:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Ian, "Unilateral actions of this kind will generate a great deal of disruption and controversy." - you are a bit late. This has been going on weeks now, with no end in sight and no compromose acceptable. Read the article and tell me that "allegations" is incorrect. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Bad move. We have an official request for move poll in progress. Doing a unilateral move at this point is vandalism. --John Nagle 21:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Go ahead, report me. I think that keeping it for this long under offensive title was wrong. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

While I appreciate that some people don't like the title "Israeli apartheid" - I have some reservations about it myself - there is no precedent I can see on Wiki for prefacing article names with "Allegations of". Are we now going to change "New Anti-semitism" to "Allegations of new antisemitism"? "Islamofascism" to "Allegations of Islamofascism"? Maybe atheists can rename "God" to "Allegations of God"?

I mean, once you start to name articles this way, there is no limit to the number of articles which could be prefaced this way. In other words, it's a redundancy, it sets a bad precedent, and it shouldn't be allowed to stand.

Is there some way a dispute like this can be moved to arbitration? Maybe this is a case that is only likely to be settled in such a way. Gatoclass 07:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The move/revert war issue for Israeli Apartheid has been referred to arbitration. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Move and revert warring at Israeli Apartheid --John Nagle 07:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks John. Unfortunately it appears your referral is only in regards to the edit warring, rather than a decision on the content of the article itself. I guess there's no way to have content itself arbitrated then? Gatoclass 15:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
There are a few "Allegations of..." articles, e.g. Allegations of war crimes against U.S. officials. If its current title were War crimes of the United States I wonder if we'd be having the same argument over it that we're having now.Clayoquot 07:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

There's also an entry called American terrorism. It isn't called "Allegations of American terrorism" even though the charge is highly contentious. Gatoclass 15:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference, I think. "Israeli apartheid" is a widely-used political slogan or epithet (see RINO, Dominionism/Christianism or political correctness for comparable examples) in a way that "War crimes of the United States" isn't. We have numerous articles on pejorative political terms and Category:Political slogans which take a simple approach - describing neutrally what the slogan relates to, who uses it, where, when, how and why. The present article actually deals with two distinct issues: the nature of the slogan and whether it's justified in practice. I feel that this would be better dealt with by splitting it into two articles, one dealing narrowly with the slogan itself, the other (call it e.g. Allegations of discrimination in Israel) with the substantive issue raised by the slogan.
I agree entirely with Gatoclass's comments - it is indeed a horrible precedent. None of its proponents have explained why we should treat this one article differently from all the other articles on pejorative political terms or political slogans. Unfortunately, as Kim van der Linde has said, "various editors are just not willing to see anything different than their own opinion." Even more unfortunately, since some of these editors (on both sides) are administrators, they've effectively abandoned the principle of NPOV that they're supposed to be defending. -- ChrisO 08:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
"Israeli apartheid" is not the slogan; "apartheid" is the slogan and it is applied to Israel. Many, if not the majority, of people quoted as using the term in the article are not quoted as using the phrase "Israeli apartheid"; they are attributed with things like drawing "an explicit analogy between apartheid and current Israeli policies." If I deleted most of the quotes of people who didn't use "Israeli apartheid" as an entire phrase, would you accept that edit? Clayoquot 15:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been trying to come up with some sort of compromise title for a while and not having much luck. However, I thought of a new one tonight. There is after all no page called "Zionist racism", but the page is called "Zionism and racism" which is an eminently neutral method of treating such a contentious subject. So how about taking this as the model and simply calling the article "Israel and apartheid"? It doesn't imply Israel is an apartheid state, neither does it set a negative precedent with the "Allegations of" prefix. Would anyone on either side of the fence be prepared to consider this as a compromise solution? Gatoclass 15:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice idea. But I fear it would (should?) produce a lovely article about Israel's dealing with the former apartheid regime in South Africa. --Dweller 15:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, good point. It's ambiguous, isn't it? Oh well, back to the drawing board I guess. Gatoclass 15:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Anyone here ready to NPOVify the title Accusations against Israel of war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada? ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposal by User:Bill Levinson: link "Israel Apartheid" and "Islamic Apartheid"

The issue under discussion here seems to be whether a title like "Israel Apartheid" meets Wikipedia's standards for a NPOV title in a scholarly reference. Since it is on record that Islam is used by many countries like Saudi Arabia and autonomous governments like the Palestinian Authority to justify apartheid-like practices, the term "Islamic Apartheid" is at least equally descriptive of these practices if not more so. It is accordingly reasonable to conclude that, if "Israel Apartheid" meets Wikipedia standards, then so does "Islamic Apartheid" and both titles should be allowed to stand as they are. If "Islamic Apartheid" does not meet Wikipedia standards, then neither does "Israel Apartheid" and both titles should be deleted or modified, and/or the material underneath merged into other articles. (Qualification of both with "Allegations of" also would work.) I would personally find any of these three alternatives acceptable as long as there is consistency in whatever standard the Wikipedia community chooses to apply. Bill Levinson 17:42 UTC 8 July 2006

Interestingly, the "Islamic apartheid" problem is a news issue in Malaysia [7]. There could be a good article in that. Malaysia has both sizable Islamic and non-Islamic populations, so they can have that type of conflict. Saudi Arabia has a different problem - the country is Islamic, citizens must be Islamic, and everyone else is a guest worker who can't stay too long. See Theocracy and Islamic republic, which have more to say on that subject. --John Nagle 17:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes Bill, but do you actually have any reputable sources that use the phrase "Islamic apartheid"? Somehow I doubt it. "Islamic apartheid" gets a grand total of 750 hits on Google. "Israeli apartheid" gets 262,000. The former obviously qualifies as a fringe notion that has no place on Wiki. Gatoclass 17:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Add another 525 for "Muslim Apartheid" Bill Levinson 20:42 UTC 8 July 2006
I have to remind ourselves that Apartheid involves occupation, forced removals with resistance practiced by the opressed side, etc... Your idea -Islamic apartheid is related just to descrimination and nothing else. -- Szvest 17:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
South Africa did not practice forced removals of Black people, it only relegated them to second-class citizenship. This is exactly what militant Islamic nations do to women and/or non-Islamic residents. Institutionalized discrimination on the basis of race, sex, or religion is apartheid. Bill Levinson 20:42 UTC 8 July 2006
I think I'd support the idea of an article on "Islamic apartheid" if there were enough reputable sources which had employed the term. But with a grand total of 750 Google hits, it appears to be a pretty marginal idea. Gatoclass 17:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Though i am not a fan of google hits (due to mirrors and repeated listings), i must say that i agree w/ you. -- Szvest 17:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I also agree with Gatoclass and FayssalF/Szvest. --(Mingus ah um 21:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC))

Bill said: "South Africa did not practice forced removals of Black people".

Actually, it did. Some by turning up with bulldozers, some by designating people citizens of bantustans and then passing laws against these "foreigners". (District Six, Cape Town, History of South Africa in the apartheid era#Forced removals) JackyR | Talk 14:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposal by User:Kendrick7

Apartheid should just be the crime of apartheid article. Is there any honest disagreement that apartheid is a crime? I don't have a dog in this hunt; my general concern is that the reader clinking on a link to apartheid should get its encylopedic definition.

By way of an analogous comparison, look at the article on constitution

  • It doesn't redirect to an article on the 'History of the Draco constitution in ancient Athens', even though that was perhaps the 'orginal' constitution. So why should apartheid redirect to South African Apartheid?
  • Constitution has 'other uses' at the top (for the U.S. Constitution), which makes perfect sense. Most people refering to the Constitution mean the U.S. constitution; likewise, many people that talk about "the" Apartheid mean the one that occured in South Africa. But it wouldn't be right for people clicking on constitution to have to go to U.S. Constition then follow a link to constitution (disambigution) and then search for an article called constitution (outside of the U.S.) or types of constitutions. Anyone who created such a confusing hodgepodge of links would be accused of some strange pro-American POV of the "if English was good enough for Jesus" sort, right?

Costitution is a word; it means something. Apartheid does too, and it has been codified in law, and I hope we can agree on that. I've gone ahead and made the Apartheid redirect to the crime of apartheid. But, like I said, I don't see anyone arguing apartheid isn't a crime, so I don't really see the need for the phrase "crime of" in the title.

Comment: South African apartheid is not one among many equal "apartheids", it is the original use of the term and was the official term for the SA government's policy until very recently, and is still by far the most important historic use of the term. Although the word is used in other contexts, these have not yet "stuck" in the sense in which the word "constitution" has stuck outside ancient Greece. It is far from becoming a completely generic term and it will take a long time before the South African origins fade into the background. For this reason, I support Apartheid redirecting to the article about South African apartheid and I therefore Oppose your proposed change to the redirect. I think you may have missed the debates that led to the page Crime of apartheid - it has a strictly-defined purpose regarding the definition of apartheid in a particular statute of the International Criminal Court, and is not at all intended as a generic article about apartheid. Zaian 15:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Reply: I simply disagree that apartheid "is far from becoming a completely generic term." Here's an excerpt from an op-ed in today's Los Angeles Times dealing with the local police department, emphasis added:
Given the LAPD's history, this is a revolutionary vision. It also is the right vision for officer safety and the future well-being of the city — and for better insulation against police corruption. But to become a reality, it requires L.A. to end once and for all what every major city in the United States has practiced over the years: public safety apartheid. This two-tier, separate and unequal reality in Los Angeles means that in some neighborhoods people can walk their dogs at night without fear, while in others parents keep their children indoors for fear of drive-by shootings.
If its use was so far from becoming generic, I shouldn't be able to open the pages of the second largest US newspaper on any given Sunday and see the word used in its generic sense. Kendrick7 12:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
We don't disagree by much. It's used rhetorically often enough, but I think that it hasn't become a completely generic term where the original use fades into the background. I think someone looking for Apartheid in an encyclopedia is most likely to be looking for the South African use, and the rest can easily be covered by the link to "other uses" at the top of the page. Zaian 14:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we disagree by much either. What we seem to have on this topic is one historical/facutal definition, one legal/factual definition, then a bunch of pages that stand accused in the larger discussion, at worst, of various levels of soapbox-ism, or at best, somewhat mysnomered efforts to explain certain general memes. I believe there's something to be said for not lumping either definition in with the rest. So, how about this for a compromise -- Apartheid redirects to South African Apartheid but we give the first link-out to the legal definitions in crime of apartheid, and make the disambiguation page a second choice. The crime of apartheid article timidly doesn't even define it until halfway thorugh the article; so I'd give it a once over if that doesn't uncan too many worms, and babysit it to keep it from becoming a soap box itself. Then in 2011 when someone is arrested for apartheid and it's on the front page of the LA Times, we can argue this again. But in the mean time, I'd be happy. What do you think? Kendrick7 10:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


Proposal by User:Grim Reaper2 Dutch

Apartheid, it acknowledges the difference. It belongs to the Dutch and South-African history. That the UN describes it as a crime in 2002 which is not directly related to South-Africa doesn't change the fact that apartheid is only directly related to the Dutch and South-African history. American history also has a chapter of racial segregation, what can be called Apartheid. That other country's use the same methods as the Apartheid regime in South-Africa did, can be classified as attempts of racial segregation by the state, it can be linked to the Apartheid regime in South-Africa, as a classical example of a states racial policy gone wrong. That the UN has broken the link of the Apartheid regime of South-Africa with the state crime of policies like Apartheid doesn't mean that the UN is right. The UN is governed by politicians. Other suppressed groups want to use the word Apartheid to describe their situation. But because the South-African Apartheid regime is no longer in place it is not.Grim Reaper2 12:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

First post-arbitration proposal (by User:6SJ7)

In light of the decision of the ArbComm that discussions take place on this page, and the fact that some of the proposals above (and on the associated talk page) have been implemented, others rejected and others hanging in limbo, and the fact that new users have become interested and perhaps old ones disinterested in this subject since the arbitration began, I propose that the entire contents of this page (and the talk page) be archived so that we may start over with new proposals and discussions. Of course, any of the old proposals could be repeated if people still want to propose them. 6SJ7 23:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)