Talk:Apartheid (disambiguation)

message: I think it is time to have a poll. Poll is ended on 23:09 (UTC) June 4 The poll seems to be not very popular, but it looks like a consensus emerging on the talk page. I have unportected the article abakharev 23:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll 

message: Return:
*Israeli apartheid is a term used by some critics of Israel's policies towards the Palestinians.  	
*The apartheid wall is a term used by the same critics to describe the Israeli West Bank barrier being built to separate Israel from the West Bank.
====Support====
#Reluctantly support, would support removing the items back, if the articles themselves would be renamed abakharev 23:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal 1

message: #Reluctantly support, would support removing the items back, if the articles themselves would be renamed abakharev 23:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: #Consensus seems pretty clear on this issue. I don't see why a straw poll is necessary. --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:m:Polls are evil]]

message: I've read some of the discussion here, especially Abakharev's comments. My question is, do we need this disambiguation page at all? The term "Apartheid" refers to the South African regime. There is no ambiguity in that - even in phrases like "Israeli Apartheid" or "Basque Apartheid" or "Global Apartheid" the word "Apartheid" refers to the South African regime. I suggest that we simply put this disambiguation up for AfD. Possibly with a note in the Apartheid article that some has used the word "Apartheid" as a pejorative epithet, but I am not sure this is notable enough for the article. -- Heptor  talk 09:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it may be that the existence of this disambiguation page is in fact wrong. From Wikipedia:Disambiguation: "Lists of articles of which the disambiguated term forms only a part of the article title don't belong here. Disambiguation pages are not search indices. Do not add links that merely contain part of the page title (where there is no significant risk of confusion)." This seems to apply here. Given that, I would support deletion on an AfD for this page. That doesn't mean I'm reversing my position on the Israeli links above though - as long as the article is, rightly or wrongly, a list of articles which contain the word 'apartheid', it should contain all of them. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: So just because a few other disambiguation pages made a similar mistake this one should as well? It is clear that guidelines are supposed to be followed.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation? 

message: I have nominated the article to AfD per User:Heptor, User:Samuel_Blanning and User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg. I really do not see any real purposes of the article rather to incite the edit wars abakharev 06:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD 

message: I notice that certain overzealous editors are trying to bend the rules under the guise of NPOV or by accusing others in vandalism. This should not be tolerated, the rules are for all of us to follow. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Humus, do you honestly not see your edits yesterday as overzealously POV and one-sided?Homey 03:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No. As I said elsewhere, this Cold War period political epithet was slapped together in order to demonize Israel. Serious neutral encyclopedias should expose propaganda rather than promote it. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  I have restored neutral wording. Either NPOV text or the POV tag, you cannot he it both ways. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creative usage of [[WP:RULES]] 

message: I've cleaned up the article to abide by Wikipedia guidelines on Disambiguation pages, specifically:
*Minimal prose
*No wikilinks except to those articles being disambiguated Fagstein 06:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: Can this edit argued to be anything but vandalism? Bertilvidet 08:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the policy which is cited in edit summary and decide for yourself. Zeq 08:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By now, you should be aware that the term apartheid is used in several contexts - regardless of your persoanl approval of the uses - and there is thus indeed a significant risk of confusion. Bertilvidet 08:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, I am not here to argue with you because wikipedia is not a discussion board. You should be aware of the relevant Wikipedia policy and now that you are you know your edit had violated it. Suggest you self revert. Zeq 08:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is obviously not vandalism, if you scroll above there is adequate justification for its removal, and the guidlines about it are clear, the only reason it is still usually there is because of the tenaciousness of a few editors.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Hi.  To help clarify the overall argument I created a Crime of apartheid article that deals with just the international law aspects.  It does not mention Israel, btw.  I think it would be appropriate to add to this dab, probably in the form of something like:
* Apartheid, crime of, a crime against humanity recognied by international criminal law.
--Ben Houston 03:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent suggestion. Thanks Ben. Su-laine.yeo 05:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add [[Crime of apartheid]] to dab list 

message: Since all of the various AfDs have finished, with no concensus being reached in any of them, it seems appropriately time to try and get this disambiguation page back to working again.
We may not (and probably do not) agree that some of the article listed on this page are worthy articles.  That doesn't mean that it should be argued over whether or not they are to be included.  However, what we can do is make sure that when the articles are listed, they are done so in a very NPOV manner, so that this page can be appropriate neutral.
I've moved my suggestion from one of the above section here, with some of the suggested modifications made.  There didn't seem to be too much disagreement with it, and if we can modify it so that it can appease everyone, we will have made a great deal of progress.
 The Apartheid was a system of racial segregation that was enforced in South Africa from 1948 to 1991.
 Apartheid may also refer to:
 * Crime of apartheid,  a criminal act characterized in as a "crime against humanity" in international law
 * Apartheid outside of South Africa, a description of events compared to the South African apartheid
 * Israeli apartheid (epithet), a term used by some to compare policies of the Israeli government to that of the South African apartheid
 * Global apartheid, a term used by some to describe the "First World's" relationship to the "Third World"
 * Gender apartheid, a term used by some to describe gender-based discrimination
 * Sexual apartheid, a term used by some to describe sexual orientation discrimination
 * The apartheid wall, a term used by some in context of the Israeli West Bank barrier
-- Natalya 14:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Natalya, The Apartheid outside of South Africa AfD is still in progress, and article titles are not yet final. There is a lot of discussion still happening for Apartheid outside of South Africa and Israeli apartheid (epithet). It will probably be difficult to decide how these articles should be represented on a disambiguation page until they're a bit more stable. I don't object to anyone trying; I just think it will be hard. I appreciate your taking initiative :) Su-laine.yeo 06:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out, Su-laine.yeo!  Feeling a bit silly for not noticing, waiting will definitly be a good thing. :) -- Natalya 21:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfDs are finished, lets get working 

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 15:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Centralised discussion 

message: There is no aricle on Apartheid wall but Homey sitill insists on keeping it in the disambig. Suddenly, no respect for consensus, Homey? ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a consensus version of this article? When was that? Su-Laine Yeo 02:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: On disambiguation pages, there does not necessarily have to be an article solely on the subject for the subject to be listed.  In the suggestion above, the term is mentioned, and then the article which contains it is linked to.  That way, the term is still mentioned, but the correct article is linked to.  This is a frequent occurance on disambiguation pages.  For mention in the Manual of Style, see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#URL_anchor_notation -- Natalya 13:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That being said, I'm not sure if the way it is currently portrayed on the page (linking directly to apartheid wall) is the best choice with so much tension going on.  By linking to the correct section of Israeli West Bank barrier, it both puts the link in a less-controversial context, and takes the reader directly to the part of the article referring to the term.  Thoughts? (don't want to change it unless there is support) -- Natalya 03:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has been renamed, it is ridiculous to maintain the previous title here. Should we show old article names on other disambiguation pages as well?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: HOTR, while I do think the article should be linked to, if you read my previous paragraphs, I say that the best way is probably not the way that it is now.  Linking to apartheid wall does not link to any particular section of Israeli West Bank barrier.  I'm going to go ahead and be bold and change the entry to the way suggested above.  That way, the correct article is linked to, and it is not controversial.  Please, if anyone feels it should be different, discuss it here first!  This page was protected for a while while heated discussions ensued, lets not do that again. -- Natalya 11:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apartheid Wall again 

message:  
SlimVirgin (talk) 01:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfM 

message: Below is a copy of a conversation I have had with Homey. He suggested that Natalya comment here. I feel that adding the wall is redundant to the article, as described below, and that unless we are willing to add every example of every form of every action that has been alledged to be apartheid, it is the equivalent of "cherry-picking" a particular issue. My opinion is more fully described in the conversation below. Of course, I always reserve the right to be mistaken or convinced by reasoned and reasonable discourse 8-) . -- Avi 19:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't the entire subject of apartheid as it relates to non-SOuth-African countries under a RfAR? Also, doesn't the fact that Allegations of Israeli apartheid is listed on the page, and Apartheid Wall is mentioned prominently in that article, make adding it to the disamb redundant? It's already there as a part of Allegations of Israeli apartheid? -- Avi 16:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: But that does not change the fact that adding the wall specifically is redundant, or why does it in your opinion? -- Avi 18:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: As I said Allegations of Israeli apartheid is listed and the apartheid wall is both mentioned prominently in that article, as well as being an example of Allegations of Israeli apartheid. Is the idea to list every example of every allegation of every type of action referred to as apartheid on that page? What about civil unions and same-sex marriage laws? The reductio ad absurdum can go on. Why do you feel there is something special and unique about the wall? -- Avi 19:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, but no one has answered the issue that it is taken care of by Allegations of Israeli apartheid. Are we to list same-sex marriage as well as an example of sexual apartheid? Please see talk
No because that is dealt with primarily in the sexual apartheid article whereas the concept of an apartheid wall is dealt with primairly in the West Bank barrier article whose link you keep removing. Please self-revert.Homey 19:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, but no one has answered the issue that it is taken care of by Allegations of Israeli apartheid.
I did a) it's dealt with in passing 13 paragraphs into that article b) the main place it is dealt with is Israeli West Bank barrier where it has its own section. It is this link you keep removing. Conversely, the same-sex marriage/apartheid issue is primarily dealt with in Sexual apartheid to which there is already a link in the disambig page. Homey 19:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is supposed to be a disambiguation page, a place that points the reader to the right place if they type in a term that can mean several things. If Israeli apartheid can conceivably mean something real, then apartheid wall is definitely a political epithet. Besides, Arbcom deals with conduct not content, so it doesn't really matter whether it's redundant or not. --Leifern 19:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: "a place that points the reader to the right place if they type in a term that can mean several things". Yes, and the "right place" for apartheid wall is the section in Israeli West Bank barrier which Natalya linked to. Homey 20:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Avi, I agree with what you have done in moving the "Apartheid wall" material to the "Allegations of..." article, with only a small summary remaining in the "barrier" article.  Since it appears that the "Allegations of..." article will (unfortunately) remain as a separate article, at least this move keeps most of the  POV propaganda together in one place instead of being spread far and wide.  As a result, I think the "apartheid wall" mention needs to be removed from this disambiguation page.   6SJ7 20:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Avi, obviously your problem was that you did something with an "apartheid" article without getting permission from the person who thinks he owns them.  6SJ7 21:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This idea was never even considered before, and under the circumstances it is appropriate.  It is your action that is unilateral.  Please self-revert.  6SJ7 20:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Apartheid Wall was properly turned into a redir. A redir has no place in a disambig. Homey, find another platform for soapboxing. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On disambiguation pages, there does not necessarily have to be an article solely on the subject for the subject to be listed.  In the suggestion above, the term is mentioned, and then the article which contains it is linked to.  That way, the term is still mentioned, but the correct article is linked to.  This is a frequent occurance on disambiguation pages.  For mention in the Manual of Style, see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#URL_anchor_notation -- Natalya 13:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Thanks for the pointer, but I don't see what this has to do with this disambiguation page, except that when whatever is decided there is instantiated in one or more articles, we would edit the dab page to reflect reality.  --MCB 22:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Certainly; if that were to occur, a link to Allegations of Israeli apartheid would be sufficient. -- Natalya 00:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we all agree the article should be unprotected. Zeq 12:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The decision has to be made at Allegations of Israeli apartheid has to be made before we can agree, however. -- Natalya 22:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Which is the point I have been trying to make on all these various talk pages :-) -- Avi 16:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am glad we all agree and the article can be unprotected. Zeq 17:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd hope that we could enact a decision once it's unprotected, but we need to wait and see what article is decided to be the main article for "apartheid wall". -- Natalya 22:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why isn't the wall redundant to the article? 

message: 1) What does the RFA have to do with including apartheid wall in the disambig page?
2) I can AGF but that doesn't change the fact that no credible reason has been given for removing the link. Homey 15:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't the entire subject of apartheid as it relates to non-SOuth-African countries under a RfAR? Also, doesn't the fact that Allegations of Israeli apartheid is listed on the page, and Apartheid Wall is mentioned prominently in that article, make adding it to the disamb redundant? It's already there as a part of Allegations of Israeli apartheid? -- Avi 16:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: But that does not change the fact that adding the wall specifically is redundant, or why does it in your opinion? -- Avi 18:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: As I said Allegations of Israeli apartheid is listed and the apartheid wall is both mentioned prominently in that article, as well as being an example of Allegations of Israeli apartheid. Is the idea to list every example of every allegation of every type of action referred to as apartheid on that page? What about civil unions and same-sex marriage laws? The reductio ad absurdum can go on. Why do you feel there is something special and unique about the wall? -- Avi 19:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conversation

message: :Yes, but no one has answered the issue that it is taken care of by Allegations of Israeli apartheid. Are we to list same-sex marriage as well as an example of sexual apartheid? Please see talk
No because that is dealt with primarily in the sexual apartheid article whereas the concept of an apartheid wall is dealt with primairly in the West Bank barrier article whose link you keep removing. Please self-revert.Homey 19:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but no one has answered the issue that it is taken care of by Allegations of Israeli apartheid.
I did a) it's dealt with in passing 13 paragraphs into that article b) the main place it is dealt with is Israeli West Bank barrier where it has its own section. It is this link you keep removing. Conversely, the same-sex marriage/apartheid issue is primarily dealt with in Sexual apartheid to which there is already a link in the disambig page. Homey 19:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is supposed to be a disambiguation page, a place that points the reader to the right place if they type in a term that can mean several things. If Israeli apartheid can conceivably mean something real, then apartheid wall is definitely a political epithet. Besides, Arbcom deals with conduct not content, so it doesn't really matter whether it's redundant or not. --Leifern 19:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: "a place that points the reader to the right place if they type in a term that can mean several things". Yes, and the "right place" for apartheid wall is the section in Israeli West Bank barrier which Natalya linked to. Homey 20:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Avi, I agree with what you have done in moving the "Apartheid wall" material to the "Allegations of..." article, with only a small summary remaining in the "barrier" article.  Since it appears that the "Allegations of..." article will (unfortunately) remain as a separate article, at least this move keeps most of the  POV propaganda together in one place instead of being spread far and wide.  As a result, I think the "apartheid wall" mention needs to be removed from this disambiguation page.   6SJ7 20:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Avi, obviously your problem was that you did something with an "apartheid" article without getting permission from the person who thinks he owns them.  6SJ7 21:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This idea was never even considered before, and under the circumstances it is appropriate.  It is your action that is unilateral.  Please self-revert.  6SJ7 20:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Apartheid Wall was properly turned into a redir. A redir has no place in a disambig. Homey, find another platform for soapboxing. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On disambiguation pages, there does not necessarily have to be an article solely on the subject for the subject to be listed.  In the suggestion above, the term is mentioned, and then the article which contains it is linked to.  That way, the term is still mentioned, but the correct article is linked to.  This is a frequent occurance on disambiguation pages.  For mention in the Manual of Style, see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#URL_anchor_notation -- Natalya 13:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments/Responses

message: Please discuss here: Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid#Making this article the primary article for "Apartheid wall" or not?
:*Thanks for the pointer, but I don't see what this has to do with this disambiguation page, except that when whatever is decided there is instantiated in one or more articles, we would edit the dab page to reflect reality.  --MCB 22:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly; if that were to occur, a link to Allegations of Israeli apartheid would be sufficient. -- Natalya 00:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we all agree the article should be unprotected. Zeq 12:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The decision has to be made at Allegations of Israeli apartheid has to be made before we can agree, however. -- Natalya 22:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Which is the point I have been trying to make on all these various talk pages :-) -- Avi 16:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am glad we all agree and the article can be unprotected. Zeq 17:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd hope that we could enact a decision once it's unprotected, but we need to wait and see what article is decided to be the main article for "apartheid wall". -- Natalya 22:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on moving the bulk of the "Apartheid wall" entry to [[Allegations of Israeli apartheid]] 

message: I know I've mentioned disambiguation page formatting before, but I just want to make it clear.  Since this page is located at Apartheid (disambiguation), the article at Apartheid is considered the primary topic.  Since Apartheid redirects to History of South Africa in the apartheid era, that article is the primary topic.  In disambiguation pages, when there is a primary topic, it is linked to above the rest of the entries, bolded, and in a complete sentence.  See MoS:DP#Linking_to_a_primary_topic for more information. -- Natalya 11:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting per [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)]] 

message: The section heading about says it all.  I am having great difficulty seeing what purpose this page serves.  As some have pointed out in the past, it is not really a disambiguation page at all -- it does not clarify meanings among the same or similar terms.  (So please excuse the somewhat sarcastic edit summary that I just wrote, as I know that people have noticed this; I wish edit summaries were edit-able.)  The Allegations of apartheid article serves the same purpose as this page, and is far preferable, since it is a substantive article.  All this page really does is to proliferate the word "apartheid" on Wikipedia without adding any actual content.  What does anyone else think?  6SJ7 06:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it seems like the only logical step.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no Allegations of apartheid article anymore, so the concerns raised above are moot. Clearly, there is more than one article on Wikipedia with the word "Apartheid" in the title. Accordingly, this page should be a disambig that lists all those articles. Redirecting to Apartheid in South Africa misleads the reader into thinking that is the only case of apartheid or only use to which the word can be put which is obviously untrue. Accordinly I've restored the page's contents. Tiamuttalk 12:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: What purpose does this page serve?