Talk:Allegations of apartheid/Archive 2

message: "Saudi Arabia denies citizenship not only to Jews and Christians but also to other non-Muslims and they are all not permitted to reside permanently in the country." 
The problem with this statement is that it is misleading. Saudi Arabia denies citizenship to everyone not originally from a Saudi Arabia, Jewish, Christian, Moslem, Arab, non-Arab. Secondly, the saudiinstitute link doesn't work. 
Saudi Arabia's discriminatory citizenship laws are comparable to many other countries in the region such as U.A.E. but all over the world. Japan for example. A more NPOV statement about discriminatory citizenship laws all over the world  should replace the misleading statement above. 
"Saudi Arabia's discriminatory practices against women and non-Muslim minorities can also be described as forms of apartheid" 
Does apartheid include discrimination against women? If that is the case then that should be clearly stated somewhere defining what apartheid is. Discrimination against women is a world-wide problem. I don't think its relevant to this article. Yodakii 03:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people refer to Saudi Arabia's policies towards women as "Gender apartheid", and Saudi Arabia's restrictions on women are unique. Links describing the issue:      Saudi Arabia's repression of religious minorities has also been described as "apartheid".  More links:   Link using both:  Your other point doesn't deal with the residency issue. Jayjg (talk) 04:05, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the links. I think "gender apartheid" or "sexual apartheid" should be explained in the article. About Saudi Arabia's discriminatory laws, they also include residency rights. Many non-Arab, non-Moslems live and work in Saudi Arabia. Their permits and their childrens' and spouses' have residency permits so long as they are working in the country. They are denied permanent residency just as Arab, Moslem immigrants are denied it. After the first Gulf war many non-Saudi families with children born and raised in that country were forced to leave when they lost their jobs.Yodakii 04:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

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

message: OK.  I thoroughly supported removing this stuff from the apartheid article, but it's just been sitting here gathering dust pretty much ever since.  Thanks, Yodakii, for bringing it to my attention.  :-)  I've alphabetized the countries mentioned in the article, which, as much as I might dislike it, puts Israel prominently on the top of the list.  I also reduced the prominence of the US, since having its own section as opposed to "the rest of the world" seemed like inappropriate emphasis.  I would have used H2 style text, but that would have ended up making the individual sections sometimes ridiculously short, so I went with H3 (3 equal signs on each end of the subsection titles, for those who didn't catch the HTML speak there. :-p)  
That said,  I've slapped an  tag on this article, and probably should have thrown on a  for good measure, but these are my gripes, most of which are actually in the article as HTML comments as well.
#Controversially, arguments are sometimes made that the past or present actions of other nations are analogous to apartheid in South Africa, or constitute apartheid under the definition adopted in international law.
#: Where is apartheid defined in international law?  Could we get a brief description of it, as well as a citation for this?  It would be really helpful for our readers if we could present them with that description so that they can decide for themselves how accurate the allegations people are making of apartheid elsewhere really are.
#Critics of Israel argue that its treatment of Palestinians is discriminatory and a form of apartheid, and refer to it as as a racist and/or an Apartheid state. Israel and its supporters argue that this comparison is ungrounded and unfair. The Israeli West Bank barrier is often referred to by critics as the "Apartheid wall".
#: Who are these critics?  Where do they say this?  Why do they say this.  What reasons do Israel and "its supporters" (which just sounds all wrong, but we can worry about style fixing after we get some facts together) have for saying these allegations are ungrounded?  Any ... unfair?  Who calls that stupid fence "the Apartheid wall", and why?  Any citations to go with this?
#The State of Jordan's Constitution denies Jews citizenship. (note:  I keep correcting this and someone keeps putting it back. The Jordanian constitution doesn't define citizenship standards.  The Law of Nationality of 1954 granted citizenship to everyone living in certain territories, but with regard to the West Bank, excluded Jews on the basis that they were all granted citizenship in the new Israeli state.  There is no other exclusion of Jews from Jordanian nationality law.)
#:This section has been commented out for far too long.  If it's not true, it should be excised from the article, or clarification should be made that the allegation is simply untrue. 
#Saudi Arabia denies citizenship not only to Jews and Christians but also to other non-Muslims and they are all not permitted to reside permanently in the country.    Saudi Arabia's discriminatory practices against women and non-Muslim minorities can also be described as forms of apartheid (see also  for Human Rights Watch report). 
#: Yodakii makes a good point here about the inequality of women being "gender apartheid".  As nonsensical as that qualification of the term sounds, it should be made clear, as well as why the allegations are made.  In this respect, Saudi Arabia is not alone.  Afghanistan under the Taliban was even more strict in its oppression of women (although that's not mentioned in this article at all).  The thing about non-muslims being not permitted to reside permanently in the country should also be qualified and clarified.
#Some Basques in Spain have argued that the Navarrese laws that do not grant official status to the Basque language are a form of apartheid.  Supporters of Batasuna also call its illegalization "apartheid".
#:Could we possibly get someone to do an article on the Navarrese laws so that the link can be sent there instead of to Navarre, which is just not the right place to be sending it.  That's like having Jim Crow point to United States.  Could we possibly get a citation for supporters of Batasuna calling its illegalization "apartheid"?  I changed "outlaw" to "illegalization" there, since I assume that's what it was supposed to mean... OK... I'm going to just go ahead and change that link.  It'll turn it the horrible , but at least it won't send people to Navarra anymore, and perhaps will induce someone to actually write an article for it. 
#The US section is such a mess I felt nauseous reading it.  It discusses a not-so-incredibly-pretty part of US history, but it does so in a yellow journalistic style that just--has to go:Interracial sex and marriage were outlawed.
This is true of many southern states of the US at the time, marriages between whites and 'negros' (and some other 'races') were prohibited...go to  06:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to fix this article 

message: I have made several changes to the intro to make it more NPOV and remove less important and extranous material.  From the first sentence, I removed the phrase "once referred only to", which implies that it is correct to use it to refer to other things now.  It is better to say that it "commonly" refers to South African apartheid.  The word "only" is unnecessary and most likely inaccurate as well, since "apartheid" was a word in Afrikaans (and possibly Dutch as well?) before it was ever used to refer to racial separation and discrimination.  I also removed the second sentence, which refers to the "crime of apartheid."  There is no indication in this article (or any other) than any nation has been formally charged with this crime, so it seems to be of secondary importance, and any event it is fully covered in the first section after the intro.  I also have removed the third sentence:  The term has also come into general use to refer to any policy or practice involving the discriminatory separation of different groups.  The statement about "general use" is POV and unverified, and I think, is contrary to the facts.  It is not in "general use".  It is in use by some people, which is made clear in what remains of the intro.  6SJ7 18:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes to intro

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

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

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

message: Many people hold different opinions about the arab-israeli conflict. Why is the opinion of  Archbishop emeritus Desmond Tutu of special importance? After all, the encyclopedia should concentrate on presentin facts, not opinions.-- Heptor  talk 14:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh?? Firstly, Desmond Tutu does not belong to the Catholic Church to my knowledge (hey, he´s married!) Secondly, how many people won the Nobel Peace Prize for their fight against Apartheid? (Answer: Tutu, Mandela, de Klerk (that is: laureates still alive)). Isn´t the views (on Apartheid) of these persons exactly of "special importance"? Regards, Huldra 04:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that Desmond Tutu's opinions on this subject are any more relevant than those of, say, Britney Spears. Opinions from scholars who are experts on racial segregation are relevant, of course, but Desmond Tutu is certainly not one of such scholars. PecherTalk 21:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine. That would also mean that the opinion of a Holocost survivor, say, Elie Wiesel, is no more relevant to an article on the Holocost that Britney Spears opinion is? Regards, Huldra 23:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That would mean that Elie Wiesel is no more relevant to an article on the Rwandan Genocide or the cultural revolution in China than Britney Spears' opinion is  Heptor  talk 00:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archbishop on Israel 

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

message: Okey, I've heard many weird accusations against Israel here on Wikipedia, but "Israel has established [...] a cum discrimination regime"? This SO takes the cake! 
 Heptor  talk 23:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cum discrimination regime 

message: Can someone give 1 source to the idea that what happens in France can be qualified as apartheid or even discrimination ? Christophe Greffe 08:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly, these are actually Muslims, not the French government, who are accused of apartheid in The Times article. I will not remove the section for awhile, so that everyone could have fun. That's one more piece of evidence that the article is a biased uncleanable mess. Pecher Talk 10:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am removing it as it is one person's opinion piece, and no other sources are provided. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 15:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it as it was completely POV and silly. Pecher, please Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Satyagit 19:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  apartheid in France 

message: The article is now essentially a collection of quotes in which a political epithet "apartheid" was applied to countries other than South Africa. In this respect, the article violates WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, which says Wikipedia articles are not "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms or persons. If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote." Pecher Talk 09:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed this article should be merged into existing artiicles, I have started to do that. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 15:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Violation of [[WP:NOT]]

message: Insofar all the content from the article was merged into other articles, I have left only a redirect to List of political epithets#Apartheid. Pecher Talk 16:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it does not redirect directly to the intended section, I changed the redirect to Racial segregation. Pecher Talk 17:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I've removed the redirect. I've found this article to be fascinating and don't get the very recent feverish editing pace and, well, extreme eagerness to redirect this article. This article could be kept with brief descriptions of the alleged "apartheid" in each country followed by a link to the relevant articles with more details. I submit that the word apartheid, insofar as it means apartness and segregation, needn't and isn't always purely based on race. SWalter 19:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Switched to Segregation. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 19:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes the segregation article you've redirected to indeed covers more than race. But it can be argued that apartheid can also include separation and discrimination by other factors, such as class or language. Earlier edits of this article have indicated this as well. Those factors aren't listed in the segregation article and therefore I don't think it's an appropriate redirect. SWalter 20:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Can be argued" doesn't sound particularly convincing. Apartheid is a term used in a very specific context, i.e. racial segregation in South Africa. Modern politicians occasionally stretch it too far, emptying it of any meaning, and that is why the term is on the List of political epithets. Please refrain from trying to impose your tastes, not backed by sources, on the rest of the community. Igniting a revert war is not a good way to start your work at Wikipedia. Pecher Talk 20:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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

message: There was a consensus last February to merge this article with racial segregation and, indeed, most of the text in the recreated article is also in that article. Given that consensus, what is the justification for now recreating the article?Homey 23:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is clearly retaliation for your Israeli apartheid (phrase) article.  --Deodar 23:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been some strange editing in the Israeli section in this article, see my comment in February ( above: "Archbishop on Israel")  There was (last autumn?) a vote  about deleting the article, and the result was "no consensus". I do not know where the consensus to merge was made, but  a redir to Segregation was made here:  by PinchasC, and most of the material went into the racial segregation article. Strangely, the whole Israel-section was "lost" in the transfer. I salvaged it here: . I guess that inf. should be coordinated with the Israeli apartheid article. Regards, Huldra 21:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: A meag has been placed here and on "Israeli apartheid," both of which direct to this talk page.  So, I would like to make a proposal in response to this tag.  In light of the existence of this article, "Israeli apartheid," the apartheid-disambiguation page and the global/gender/sexual apartheid articles (I think that's all of them), here is what I propose:  Rename this article to something like "Allegations of apartheid outside South Africa," then merge all of the above-mentioned articles into it.  (I realize that in effect this would result in deletion of the "disambiguation" page, but in light of this article it is really duplicative anyway.)  This would greatly streamline the whole ridiculous mess that has been created in the last week, and still allow some small, lonely corner of Wikipedia for the allegation of apartheid by Israel -- but clearly labeled as "epithets" in an article about "allegations."   6SJ7 03:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there might be some sense in 6SJ7's proposal, although I agree with Homey that perhaps the truly figurative uses of 'apartheid' mightn't fit.  But the allegations article (which would have a redirect from 'Israeli apartheid' of course) would need to be well enough sourced, and deal with the issue at hand, rather than be a grab-bag of commentary about segregation in various countries.  And finally, and probably unlikely, we'd need to get people (you know who you are) to agree not to immediately try and merge or redirect the new article. --Coroebus 17:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global renaming/merger proposal 

message: Discussion here. Article20 06:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal by [[User:6SJ7|6SJ7]]: ''Hafrada'' -> ''Apartheid outside South Africa'' 

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

message: It doesn't make any sense to say that 'apartheid' is an epithet and then to go on and define it under international law (no that is not an invitation to remove the international law section).  Therefore the intro must allude to 'apartheid' being more than just an epithet, surely we can come to some kind of compromise here. --Coroebus 19:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've got a point. If Apartheid is a crime, then "Israeli Apartheid" is an accusation, not an epithet - more or less like "Coroebus's Raping Spree" -- Heptor  talk 19:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More epithets 

message: Be careful about editing this article Zeq - if Israeli apartheid (forgotten whether it's (epithet) or (phrase) at the moment) is merged into this article then you're editing the definitive version, and you've been banned from editing the original version already.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by HOTR (talk • contribs). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coroebus (talk • contribs)  
:Do you mean a "derivative version"? You may want to inquire the ArbCom for clarification about that. Pecher Talk 08:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No I meant definitive, because if the merge is undertaken the original will be deleted and the one here will be the only (and thus definitive) version.  There's no need to go grass up Zeq, I was just cautioning him not to get carried away. --Coroebus 08:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not at all worried. Any ban is to prevent disruiption (not to exclude a specific content by a specific individual editor) so if my edits go into that article this in not at all a violation of the ban. In any case, the ban on me editing is completly unfounded but for now it does not bother me. My edits are reasonable and if there is any conculsion that should be concluded here is that the probation need to end. It is impossible to create a situation in which reasonable edits by one person are not allowed while similar (or even more  unreasoanable) edits by another are allowed. The idea behind WP:probation was not to to go all the way to ArbCom if there is a good cause (like disruption, edit war etc) but since I did not edited any of the articles I was banned from in a way that is different from any other editor the ban is unjustified. Zeq 08:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Zeq

message: The "International law" section was just a copy of History of South Africa in the apartheid era#International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, and General Assembly resolutions have nothing to do with International law.  I've cut the section down the the part that actually discusses International law, and provided a reference to the relevant section in the other article. Jayjg (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: and the Israel section in your version was just a copy of Israeli apartheid and the whole article was taken out of racial segregation. Your point?Homey 01:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

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

text: Makes sense. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "International law" section 

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

message: Ok,  everyone, especially silence seems to have good points. 
How about having a subsection within the apartheid article about Allegations of Apartheid outside South Africa. Here is what the opening paragraph would look like:
"The term apartheid is most commonly used in reference to the official policy of political, legal, and economic racial discrimination against nonwhites formerly practiced in the Republic of South Africa. However, it has also come into general usage as a term for any policy or practice involving the separation of different groups, especially where racial segregation is involved." Allegations of apartheid compare the actions of various nations to those of South Africa under apartheid, especially in relation to their treatment of groups who are perceived to be discriminated against. Because there is little international agreement on how to establish standards for what constitutes officially sanctioned apartheid, the use of the term 'apartheid' outside of the South African context is considered by many as purely a political epithet to advance a political agenda against the country or society the allegation is aimed against. This section describes the various uses for the term apartheid throughout the world.
Then we can have everything on one page. Comments?  Guy Montag 03:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise

message: Please work this out. Way way too much discussion through edit summaries here. Calm down a bit and work this out. --Woohookitty(meow) 07:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Funcky. With permission, I will remove the second copy tonight. If someone objects, let me know. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does occasionally happen that a simple edit causes the entire page to reduplicate itself. I haven't figured out exactly what causes it, but I have seen it happen before. Bearcat 19:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: For some strange reason the various Apartheid accusations have been sorted into various original research categories that are both unhelpful and inaccurate.  For example, Saudi Arabia is classified under "gender apartheid", but half the references are to repression of religious minorities. Brazil is listed under "racial apartheid", but the article is quite clear that it is about "social apartheid" not "racial", and that this is more about social class than anything else.  These POV titles and categories have to go. Jayjg (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  But I was just trying to get some better organization that a flat list.  Please help out where you can.  Best.  --Deodar 23:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see what the issue is with it being organized by country, as before; there aren't that many of them, about a dozen. Jayjg (talk) 23:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there are patterns.  Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Iran are very similar in that they are gender.  Ireland is clearly religious.  Maybe the problem is I tried to fully classify all of them -- there should be a mixed cat.  --Deodar 23:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Saudi Arabia is also about religion, as pointed out above.  In any event, the categories are original research, and they don't help. Jayjg (talk) 23:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe a table would be useful at the start of the article since tables can handle easily one-to-many mapping?  --Deodar 01:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:NOR|Original research]] categorizations 

message: The section on Australia begins by saying that "there is no existing Australian government policy that segregates Aborigines", but then goes on to claim that some have "characterize[d] the situation as apartheid". But a review of the associated links demonstrates no such thing. One of them is about supposed disability apartheid, and doesn't refer to aborigines at all. The other two only talk about the prospect of an apartheid system perhaps taking hold in Australia at some future time.
The basic premise then, that some folks have characterized Australia as an apartheid system is completely unsupported, and therefore the whole section should go. Gatoclass 02:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Australia

message: I invite all concerned editors to Wikipedia:Central discussions/Apartheid where I've put a proposal for structure and terminology guidelines. Now with a thrilling set of questions too! Su-Laine Yeo 08:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Structure and Terminology Guidelines, with new poll 

message: As it looks like things have cooled down somewhat.  -- Samir   धर्म 05:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that it's unprotected, proposing reorganization to clean up the many messy apartheid articles: eliminate apartheid (disambiguation) as unnecessary, move Apartheid outside of South Africa to Apartheid, and use the newly-moved article's lead section to explain and link to the word's major usages (including Apartheid in South Africa). -Silence 08:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good suggestion. Zeq 13:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Silence, I think it was you who wrote a fairly detailed proposal for how to structure these articles. I think it was in your user pages somewhere, but I can't find it anymore. If it was from you, could you please tell us again where it is? Su-Laine Yeo 06:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

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

message: Can I point out that you have not taken part in the considerable discussions over the future of this family of articles, while no consensus has been reached it is not appreciated for you to make unilateral decsions as to what is and is not the 'main' article versus a stub.  At this stage, with discussions still ongoing, Homey banned, and most editors concentrating on the Israeli apartheid article contents it would be premature to either merge or attempt to declare the version you WP:OWN as pre-eminent  --Coroebus 22:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't own any articles. People can add whatever they want to Israeli apartheid, but that doesn't mean I can't add stuff here. Is there some special rule about not adding relevant material to the exact article it is relevant to? Jayjg (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and by the way, I didn't return the material to the article, User:Silence did . Jayjg (talk) 22:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't pretend you don't know what I'm talking about, I refer you to this edit removing reference to the article Israeli Apartheid from the Israeli section and your summary "no, this is the main article, that's a stub". --Coroebus 18:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire stub was in this article, there's no point in calling the other one the "main" when it exists here.  This is the main article, of course, which discusses the all-too-common use of "Apartheid" as a pejorative epithet to vilify various countries.  And Homey did just fine when he was blocked, he managed to "find" help. Jayjg (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When there is an attempt at mediation on the other article, an attempt at a consensus version, discussion of aceptable sources and a sandbox version, and when the previous version is protected - that is evidence that it is the main version. --Coroebus 20:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: There's no need for a debate, I'm just asking not to take unilateral action on such a controversial article.  In particular, there is no special rule about adding relevant material, but it is extremely rude (and also untrue) to make declarations about what is, and isn't, the 'real' Israeli apartheid article. I've said this to Jayjg before.  Also, I'm looking at slimming down the article over at Israeli apartheid and inviting discussions.  Maybe it could be moved if it ended up shorter, with agreement from other editors --Coroebus 07:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What, and deleting it from here isn't unilateral action? Jayjg (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well when they include a link to the article everyone else is editing it is not quite so unilateral as you. --Coroebus 20:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: I disagree, in fact on the contrary, I think there is probably scope for enlarging the article on Israeli apartheid - which is another reason why I don't see any point in trying to shoehorn that entire article into this one. A short entry here with a link to the main entry for those who are interested is all that's required here IMO. Gatoclass 03:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW, I note that someone has already seen the need to shorten the entry on Israel in this article, since it was clearly unbalancing the text as it was. It's now conforming more or less to my own view of how to handle the subject - a short entry here with a link to the main article for those who wish to acquaint themselves better with the details of that particular controversy. Gatoclass 03:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the main article, the other is a stub which exists for political purposes only. Jayjg (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Says who, all the editors taking part in discussions over the other article, or just you? --Coroebus 20:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Says me and quite a number of editors, but for now the discussion has been centralized elsewhere. Jayjg (talk) 23:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Just to be clear - the discussion is now occuring here: Wikipedia:Central discussions/Apartheid  --Deodar 02:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israeli apartheid section 

message: Do you want this article to be renamed "Allegations of apartheid outside South Africa"? Please vote and comment here: Wikipedia:Central discussions/Apartheid. Thanks. Su-Laine Yeo 05:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll on renaming the article