Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Apartheid/Archived discussion up to June 23, 2006

message: I made my proposal, based on policies, the relative importance of terms, and the way users will use these pages at the article space. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal of [[User:KimvdLinde]]

message: Dunno if you've given up with this business, but I think your structure is ok, but would prefer global apartheid to be redirected and moved to another article since I think it is an interesting idea that needs exploring.  As for deleting the contents of the other apartheid articles, I'm less sure of that, I'd prefer a merge of well sourced bits into your catch-all article.  My only reservations are that I think this would just represent a further battlefield in the 'Israeli apartheid' conflict, it wouldn't actually resolve anything, but I haven't got any better ideas --Coroebus 23:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by [[User:Coroebus]]

message: I'm offering here a fresh approach to the discussion about non-South-African apartheid. I hope that the following approach will help us reach real consensus on a framework for structure and terminology. This framework should make it easier to decide which articles Wikipedia should have, and how they should link to each other. 
The set of questions below is a highly structured way of organizing the discussion. I think structure will be helpful, and I suggest that we work through them in order. Let's start by discussing what we want Wikipedia users to be able to learn from Wikipedia, and then look for the best words to help them learn that. Starting with words, rather than goals, is not working.
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to act as mediator; I'm a participant like everyone else. Clayoquot07:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Homey, you posted the above comment in three pages. I'm only going to reply in one.) If this the only problem you have with the above proposal then I'm delighted. If you have any other issues with the proposal, including with the other three terms I offered as alternatives to "government discrimination," you can save everyone time by stating them now. Clayoquot16:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So then do you agree to remove the neologism "government discrimination" and use the term "apartheid" instead? It's rather unfortunate that you do not deal with the neologism question. Homey 09:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Me not "dealing with" your neologism question is a choice I've made, not something unfortunate. I am not going down that path for the following reasons: 1) Leifern already answered you, below and 2) I think I've made it clear that if one of the four terms I proposed doesn't work, we can use any of the other three or any other standard term. If you don't like one of the terms I proposed, I think it would be constructive if you could suggest something else that would work for you. Clayoquot 16:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see Leifern addressing the question of your term being a neologism, he dodges the issue by accusing Israeli apartheid of begging the question. 1) That you make the "choice" not to respond suggests you have no answer. 2) I think I've made it clear why none of your proposed terms work, either because they are too vague or because they are neologisms. Homey 16:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: What I'm proposing is that we go through a process for eventually agreeing on what the whole set of articles will look like. Once we agree on that, the issue of what to move, delete, or merge will be much easier. If the "antis" you're referring to don't like the proposal, I'm sure we'll hear from them. What I'd like to know from you is what you think ;). What do you think the titles should be? Clayoquot 09:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with Homey, I don't like the titles.  I prefer Kim's suggestion. --Coroebus 07:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think this is an honorable and honest attempt, so my compliments to Su-Laine. I think there is a need in Wikipedia for articles on institutional, systematic, or governmental discrimination of various governments and regimes. Homey, a descriptive term is not a neologism any more than "not a neologism" is a neologism. I wouldn't mind a whole series of articles that examined discrimination as a civil rights issue in all countries - certainly Norway, the United States, and any number of countries have something to answer for. My preference would be Institutional discrimination as governments have a tendency to tacitly accept discrimination even when they aren't sponsoring it themselves. --Leifern 17:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks! Clayoquot 09:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Structure and Terminology Guidelines

message: The following is an example of how we could use the terminology and structure guidelines. I'm not sure if it is helpful to include this example before we at least agree on goals and standard terminology. However, I've reluctantly included it to help clarify my proposal, and I hope it doesn't become too much of a distraction. 
*History of apartheid in South Africa - as is
*Government discrimination - an article describing the general phenomenon of government discrimination, with some country-specific examples. Much of Apartheid outside of South Africa can go in here.
*Government discrimination in Israel and the Occupied Territories
*Government discrimination in (name of country or region)
*Crime of apartheid - a good new page
*Apartheid (disambiguation)
I propose that the articles link to each other as follows:
*"Apartheid" in Wikipedia search should redirect to History of apartheid in South Africa as it does now.
*History of apartheid in South Africa should have the link to the disambiguation page as it does now.
**Apartheid (disambiguation) should include links to History of apartheid in South Africa Crime of apartheid, and Apartheid wall. It should also briefly explain that "apartheid" is sometimes used to mean government discrimination, and link to Government discrimination.
*Government discrimination should link to all country-specific pages on government discrimination.
* "Israeli apartheid" in Wikipedia search should redirect to Government discrimination in Israel and the Occupied Territories
*There should be links between Government discrimination and articles such as Discrimination and Racial Segregation.
We might also consider a new Wikiproject or series on discrimination.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Su-laine.yeo  (talk • contribs) 
*In general this is a good proposal, however as Humus pointed out there are pleanty of articles about Israel and the Palestinian territories. see for example extensive covergae here: Arab_citizens_of_Israel#Discrimination  so no need for a special article. Zeq 07:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Homey, you posted the above comment in three pages. I'm only going to reply in one.) If this the only problem you have with the above proposal then I'm delighted. If you have any other issues with the proposal, including with the other three terms I offered as alternatives to "government discrimination," you can save everyone time by stating them now. Clayoquot16:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So then do you agree to remove the neologism "government discrimination" and use the term "apartheid" instead? It's rather unfortunate that you do not deal with the neologism question. Homey 09:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Me not "dealing with" your neologism question is a choice I've made, not something unfortunate. I am not going down that path for the following reasons: 1) Leifern already answered you, below and 2) I think I've made it clear that if one of the four terms I proposed doesn't work, we can use any of the other three or any other standard term. If you don't like one of the terms I proposed, I think it would be constructive if you could suggest something else that would work for you. Clayoquot 16:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see Leifern addressing the question of your term being a neologism, he dodges the issue by accusing Israeli apartheid of begging the question. 1) That you make the "choice" not to respond suggests you have no answer. 2) I think I've made it clear why none of your proposed terms work, either because they are too vague or because they are neologisms. Homey 16:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: What I'm proposing is that we go through a process for eventually agreeing on what the whole set of articles will look like. Once we agree on that, the issue of what to move, delete, or merge will be much easier. If the "antis" you're referring to don't like the proposal, I'm sure we'll hear from them. What I'd like to know from you is what you think ;). What do you think the titles should be? Clayoquot 09:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with Homey, I don't like the titles.  I prefer Kim's suggestion. --Coroebus 07:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think this is an honorable and honest attempt, so my compliments to Su-Laine. I think there is a need in Wikipedia for articles on institutional, systematic, or governmental discrimination of various governments and regimes. Homey, a descriptive term is not a neologism any more than "not a neologism" is a neologism. I wouldn't mind a whole series of articles that examined discrimination as a civil rights issue in all countries - certainly Norway, the United States, and any number of countries have something to answer for. My preference would be Institutional discrimination as governments have a tendency to tacitly accept discrimination even when they aren't sponsoring it themselves. --Leifern 17:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks! Clayoquot 09:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Example of pages and links

message: Boycott_of_Israel is the right place to merge " use of the term apartheid in the context of Israeli-Palestine conflict"   In this article we should discuss:
*Who orgenize the "south africa style" boycott
*their goals
*their methods (such as using the word apartheid) 
Zeq 05:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The cat is out of the bag