Talk:Apartheid wall

message: This article was nominated for deletion; the result was a decision to merge and redirect to Israeli West Bank barrier; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apartheid wall for details. The merger remains to be carried out, and will be left to those with more experience working on these articles. bd2412 T 03:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD result

message: Redirects to a tag in the middle of an article don't work.  It's a known bug.   I'd like to get it fixed, because it's incredibly useful in dealing with lists of fancruft.   --John Nagle 02:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can't redirect to the middle of an article 

message: 'Apartheid' translates as separation; thus I suggest this redirects to Separation barrier —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.165.169.20  (talk) 
hey man, look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apartheid wall. There has been a strong consensus. Moreover, only this barrier is recognized as a apartheid wall Nielswik(talk) 15:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literal meaning 

message: This should be at worst a disambiguation page. This search only returns 20,300 hits (and even most of those seem to still be refering to the West Bank barrier), while searching on the term itself returns 475,000 hits. That clarifies the use of the term is primarily for the West Bank barrier. -- Kendrick7talk 18:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But Israel is in the main list so there's no problem, a person searching for Israel will easily find it there. Amoruso 05:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  redirect 

message: There has been a voting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apartheid wall, and the result was merge and redir to Israeli west bank barrier. I'm wondering why people keep changing it. --Nielswik(talk) 08:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like the usual suspects changed it, despite the AfD decision.  I'll change it back.
--John Nagle 04:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep your tiresome personal attacks to yourself. First, AfDs don't decide content. Second, Allegations of Israeli apartheid didn't exist then, and as this title reflects one of the allegations, a redirect to that page is clearly appropriate. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can request a deletion review if you don't like the AfD decision, but unilaterally changing it is inappropriate, especially for an admin. --John Nagle 21:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  redir 

message: well per new discussion in allegations of apartheid i'm now contesting it there's no reason it shouldn't refer to all others barriers. Sometimes they're refereed as this too and Israel is mentioned there anyway. Amoruso 05:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) Do you have any references that show this term being used for other separation barriers or is your assertion original research? 2) The article this page now redirects to makes no mention of apartheid in it at all, seems very odd and 3) I looked at discussion page for Allegations of apartheid and didn't see anything about this page. Did I miss it? There was a heavy consensus for this redirect after much debate and you have now changed it and then declared that change a "proposal"... Normally it would be considered good faith to discuss a controversial proposal like that prior to implementing it. --MattWright (talk) 05:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm discussing it now... I'm not engaging in edit-wars over it. I can change articles if I used talk and see if there's objection to my change. The issue in general is being discussed now in the talk page of that article. As for other references - sure, first of all the term apartheid wall sometimes refers to apartheid in general  Secondly, it often relates to the wall between Morocoo and Spain and Europe - A new wave of Africans seeking to illegally enter the EU has caused a spike in deaths at the EU's "apartheid wall" in North Africa: At least five people have been killed during a mass attempt by migrants to get into the Spanish enclave of Ceuta in North Africa. "Three died on the Moroccan side of the border and two on the Spanish side," said Spanish deputy prime minister Maria Teresa Fernandez de la Vega.  As to your 3rd point, that can be added to the main article but clearly the term can be generic and should not be classified to one, it's highly inappropriate. Since there was actually apartheid in Botswana it's not suprising that their wall is termed often as apartheid wall too  - why not redirect there ? makes more sense. Cheers, Amoruso 06:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: redir changed proposed

message: A recent change converted the page to a redirect to Allegations of Israeli Apartheid, which is aginst the decision of a previous AfD.  Please don't do that.  If you want to make such a drastic change, propose an AfD again.  Thanks. --John Nagle 17:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, please don't make the article into a redirect without going through an AfD. Editors, please watch for misleading edit comments on this article. Thanks. --John Nagle 19:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous nomination was a straw man nomination by a straw man sockpuppet; as such, the AfD is tainted. In any event, the consensus on the AfD was to re-direct the article, not a disambiguation page or various other content. It's now being re-directed to a useful article, one that actually discusses this use, and includes some of the same material that was in the original "Apartheid wall" article. And yes, editors, please watch for misleading edit summaries, especially ones that claim the previous AfD decision was something other than turning this into a re-direct. Jayjg (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the result from that AfD (and I quote from above on this page) was a decision to merge and redirect to Israeli West Bank barrier.  In fact, the page Israeli apartheid (phrase) (which now redirects to Allegations of Israeli apartheid) was around at that time, but editors decided the redirect was more appropriate to Israeli West Bank barrier.  So why do you insist on going against the decision and redirecting elsewhere? If people search on this term, they are clearly looking for the barrier, and the barrier article even has a section on the term. --MattWright (talk) 05:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section in the West Bank barrier article discussing the "Apartheid" issue is basically a redirect to the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article. The AfD decision was taken before the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article existed. It's clearly more relevant to the topic, and actually has some of the sources etc. used in the original Apartheid wall article. Jayjg (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The AfD result at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Apartheid_wall was "The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Israeli West Bank barrier. I will leave it to those more experienced working on these articles to carry out the merge. BD2412 T 03:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the result was "merge and redirect", why are you doing the opposite? Please respect the AfD decision, rather than invoking it, then doing the exact opposite of the decision. I consider your continuing defiance of the AfD decision to be simple vandalism at this point, so I will be using the admin rollback from now on; I'm informing you of this per WP:REVERT#Rollback. Jayjg (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  was previously disciplined in his 2006 arbitration for misuse of admin authority in this same editing dispute. "Administrators admonished -- All involved administrators are admonished not use their administrative tools without prior discussion and consensus, and to avoid using them so as to continue an editing dispute. Humus sapiens, ChrisO, Kim van der Linde, SlimVirgin, and Jayjg are reminded to use mediation and other dispute resolution procedures sooner when conflicts occur."  See also his  2005 arbitration.  We seem to have to go through this about once a year.  --John Nagle 21:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: John, what "admin authority" have I "misused"? Please be explicit. Jayjg (talk) 01:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I can understand Matt's point, but why would anyone think that the AfD asked for a disambiguation page, rather than the redirect that it seemed to have requested. As for where to redirect, I agree with Jayjg on this one, as Israeli West Bank barrier's section on "apartheid opinions" consists of two lines and a link to Allegations of Israeli apartheid. TewfikTalk 19:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  By the logic to make "Apartheid wall" a redir to Israeli West Bank barrier, the content of Allegations of Israeli apartheid (which is a POV fork started by banned user Homey) should be merged into the "WB barrier" article as well. You can't have it both ways. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Had to revert unauthorized change 

message: Recently, a couple editors added a bunch of other tags to this article, and then when I tagged it as a , they objected.  Since they are new to the edit dispute, I wanted to make sure they understand why I tagged this as a disambig.  I understand it is not in the most common format of disambig, but it does seem appropriate in this case.  Editors were warring over which of two articles to redirect to, and although I could have placed it in list form, this prose sentence makes a lot more sense and leads directly to the two articles discussing the topic.  There should not be additional material added to this article, as it is more appropriate in one of the other two articles, where the statements are also already sourced.  Furthermore, this article already had an AfD of which the result was merge & redirect, so consensus does not want a long article here. Hope that explains my reasoning. --MattWright (talk) 14:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the disambig referring to two pages. But I think point form (as above) would be better. The sentence is very awkward prose actually and the list format seems to be the standard at other disambig pages. Tiamat 18:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The language is a bit awkward.  Look back at Gurch, 18:55, 5 July 2007 for some better language that says essentially the same thing.  We're back to where we were a month ago, except that the language is slightly worse.  --John Nagle 05:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only problem I see there is the stub tag, asking for expansion, when all we really want is a disambig type page.  What do you think of list form? I agree the sentence I came up with can be hard to parse. --MattWright (talk) 07:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go back to the Gurch version of 5 July, but drop the "stub" tag.  The problem with list form is that they're not really alternatives; they're multiple articles on the same subject.  But I don't have strong feelings one way or the other.  I'm inclined not to mess with this much for now.  We're going into an arbitration on this general subject at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Allegations of apartheid, which may affect this and some other relaed issues. --John Nagle 19:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found this article recently, and was about to add a stub tag, but after reading the discussion here decided not to. However, I did add the 'Orphan' tag; for such a heavily-disputed article, this doesn't have many incoming links, not even from allegations of Israeli apartheid itself! You'd think that if this was a term used in such discussions, that page would actually mention it somewhere... Terraxos 17:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is actually designed not to produce internal links to it. It was supposed to be a redirect, but due to a lot of dispute, it has morphed into a dual redirect into two topics, with a very small disambig sentence. Article that do discuss this term, which allegations of Israeli apartheid does in several places, link to the appropriate location. is that acceptable to you? Because it took a while to reach that compromise. --MattWright (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought we settled this via AfD back in 2007, but someone changed it to redirect to a more pro-Israel article again. --John Nagle (talk) 04:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it was re-directed to a more informative article. I'm not sure why you think the 2007 AfD "settled" that it should redirect to "Israeli West Bank barrier", much less why it would rule content today. Jayjg (talk) 23:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This needs commentary from other than the usual suspects. The issue is: should Apartheid wall redirect to Israeli West Bank Barrier or Allegations of Israeli Apartheid.  --John Nagle (talk) 04:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you think the Israel and the apartheid analogy article is more "pro-Israel", and what does that have to do with article content? What do you mean when you say "the usual suspects", and what does that have to do with article content? Jayjg (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation page...