Jump to content

Talk:Apartheid

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleApartheid was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 1, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
March 20, 2006Good article nomineeListed
November 3, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 6, 2004, February 2, 2005, November 6, 2005, February 2, 2006, April 27, 2006, November 6, 2006, February 2, 2007, April 27, 2007, November 6, 2007, and February 2, 2015.
Current status: Delisted good article

Page title

[edit]

Why is this page not titled: Apartheid in South Africa? The title 'Apartheid' would mean 'the concept of Apartheid' since it is non specific. Just as the page for 'Colonization' is not specific to colonization in any country Truth-proven (talk) 13:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support apartheid has been defined by the International Criminal Court based on UN guidelines, Amnesty International, and many other international organizations to be more than just one historical instance (such as "Segregation," which sends users to a disambiguation page instead of directly to "Racial segregation in the United States"). This would solve the "see also" problem, since only articles related to the South African version of apartheid would be relevant. Catboy69 (talk) 11:56 PM, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose - unlike "Segregation", the term "Apartheid" was originally coined in South Africa to refer to the system imposed in South Africa, making this the "original" apartheid. The page Crime of apartheid refers to the broader subsequent use. Having said that, this is a topic that has been discussed before with varying outcomes, and it needs to be discussed properly before any page move is made. Zaian (talk) 06:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Country" infobox

[edit]

A user added a "country" infobox to this article recently. I have reverted it based on WP:BRD so it can be discussed here. Zaian (talk) 06:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a previous discussion about this at Talk:Apartheid/Archive_9#Inappropriate use of the country infobox. Zaian (talk) 09:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 October 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Apartheid → South Africa and apartheid – The page should be standardized to fit with other pages such as Israel and apartheid. Amnesty International identifies apartheid as "enforced racial segregation, and the domination and oppression of one racial group by another" and applies the definition to countries beyond South Africa.[1] The ICC also defines apartheid as "systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group..." [2] The Human Rights Watch also defines apartheid as a "universal legal term" as opposed to the history of just one country.[3][4] There is also growing consensus that Jim Crow laws in the American South constituted apartheid. [5][6][7] The term is increasingly being used to describe the crime of apartheid and not South African apartheid. It would make the most sense to send Apartheid to the disambiguation page directly and not to South Africa. That way the page move does not bury Apartheid in South Africa but clarifies it.

References

  1. ^ https://www.amnestyusa.org/campaigns/end-apartheid/
  2. ^ https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/RS-Eng.pdf
  3. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-56898864
  4. ^ https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution
  5. ^ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/freedom-riders-jim-crow-laws/
  6. ^ https://abcnews.go.com/International/apartheid-jim-crow-george-floyds-death-reverberated-africa/story?id=71556630
  7. ^ https://www.wsj.com/articles/apartheid-in-america-1461884503
– Catboy69 (talk) 14:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Most results in Google Books refer to the South African system. Britannica also refers to the South African apartheid as just "apartheid".[1] While I think that at some point in the future that may change, for now it seems as though "Apartheid" as a proper noun refers most commonly to the long-lasting South African system, which itself was the origin of the word. estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
support the general topic is the primary usage—blindlynx 21:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per WP:Common names. The very word Apartheid is rooted in the racist policies of South Africa, and is addressed by everyone as such. People don't distinguish Apartheids apart from each other, as there is THE case of Apartheid that everyone knows when they hear it. Sure, some countries have had policies that have been compared to apartheid, and if you want to note criticism in the article, okay. But, the comparisons that people make should not change the title of the definitive case of Apartheid. Same reason why the article for Philadelphia isn't labelled Philadelphia (Pennsylvania), to distinguish it from Philly, Alabama. It is the city you think of when you hear the name Philadelphia. EytanMelech (talk) 01:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The system and the word itself originates in South Africa.Fagerbakke (talk) 01:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. The South African system is the primary topic for Apartheid. O.N.R. (talk) 01:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. That’s not how the word, alone, is generally used. This is like trying to abstract “the Holocaust” Zanahary (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It’s a term particular to a specific situation in South Africa. Secondary and contemporary usages can be mentioned in primary article, but it is a specific historical term.Mistamystery (talk) 03:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. Please remember Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Pg 6475 TM 04:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. Wikipedia serves as an encyclopedia, not a social media platform for expressing political views. The claim of apartheid in Israel is contested, at best. The primary topic of Apartheid is, and there's no question about it, South African Apartheid. Please don't confuse our readers with fringe political views. Thank you LUC995 (talk) 05:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The word "Apartheid" was originally coined in South Africa to refer to the system imposed in South Africa, making this the "original" apartheid. The page Crime of apartheid refers to the broader subsequent use. Zaian (talk) 06:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:Commonname. When mainstream sources talk about apartheid (without caveats), they are referring to pre-1994 South Africa, where the system and the word itself comes from. Dovidroth (talk) 08:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Apartheid or "apart hood" is a South African term, which is where the ideology was created and refined. It has subsequently been (mis)attributed to other places/events, but this does not stop the South African usage being the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. - Arjayay (talk) 10:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Discussion of apartheid as a general concept outside South Africa is already well covered under crime of apartheid. No need to fork this article. --Katangais (talk) 17:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed! Zanahary (talk) 20:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose is a South African word and institution, whereas other uses are more novel. Geschichte (talk) 08:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not just South Africa

[edit]

Given the recent legal ruling re Israel, editors are starting to drop sentences about it into the lead (as a pending change reviewer I’ve rejected 2 or 3 because unsourced). So now would be a good time to start talking about how this is going to develop here:

  • one article covering Apartheid anywhere
  • this article is renamed to cover South Africa only and a fresh article covers Israel

I realise that this was discussed a few months ago, immediately above. But things have moved on. Thoughts? Nick Levine (talk) 05:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly this article could use a split between "Apartheid" as in the practice and other countries that have practiced it/have been accused of practicing it, and "Apartheid South Africa"/"First Republic of South Africa" as in the regime that existed between 1961 and 1997. Pescavelho (talk) 11:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really 🤨 41.114.152.221 (talk) 18:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline will glue Apartheid to South Africa for a long time to come, the set of sources changes much slower than reality. There is Israeli apartheid, and for other countries accused of it, or historically subject to it like Namibia, we should wait and see if an article is being developed, and if it sticks. For now I think Israeli apartheid should be included in the disambiguation notice at the top of the article. --Pgallert (talk) 06:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
imo this article should be split into "Apartheid" as in the practice itself and include other instances where countries have practiced it or have been accused of practicing it (though there should be a focus on South Africa for obvious reasons), and "Republic of South Africa under Apartheid", "Republic of South Africa (1961-1994)" (though South Africa's current constitution was only adopted in 1997) or even "First Republic of South Africa", which could have a focus on the period of South Africa's history as a republic when Apartheid was in effect. And yes, I know the Republic of South Africa under Apartheid and the modern Republic of South Africa are the same country with a different constitution. However, there is a precedent for compartmentalizing periods of a country's history like this. See the separate pages for the First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Republic of Korea. Pescavelho (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was one Republic of South Africa from 1961 to 1983, and another Republic established by the constitution of 1983 which was superseded by the constitution of 1994. So we would need a page for the 1961-83 Republic, and another one for the 1983-94 Republic if we’re speaking in strictly constitutional terms. Additionally, an article already exists for the general Crime of apartheid as defined under international law; ergo, a further split of this article would be redundant to that. --Katangais (talk) 22:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of France (and I assume South Korea) it is normal for historians to refer to the First, Second, Third, etc. Republics. I have never seen that kind of usage by historians about South Africa and Wikipedia shouldn't be inventing it. Returning to the original topic, I agree that the split of articles apartheid vs crime of apartheid correctly handles the distinction between the South African and international contexts. - htonl (talk) 06:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of there being two separate articles for the "Libyan Arab Republic" and "Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya", there's a single page about "Libya under Gaddafi", because this is a case where there appears to be a break of continuity where there really isn't one in the grand scheme of things. "Apartheid South Africa" would work but the problem is that Apartheid had its origins in the Union of South Africa following the National Party's victory (and arguably earlier, there was segregation, but Apartheid in the South African context is specifically understood as the National Party policy).
Honestly, part of the reason I'm adamant about making separate articles for Apartheid as in the crime, and "Republic of South Africa under apartheid", is the fact that it's a bit jarring, and I know this is rather subjective, to, for instance, go into the South African Border War page, click on the main belligerent's name, and be greeted with a page that's ostensibly about the Rainbow Nation. Pescavelho (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 October 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus is that its manifestation in South Africa is the primary topic. A hatnote linking to Crime of apartheid (and possibly Israeli apartheid) may be justified, but that is an editorial decision outwith the move request. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apartheid → Apartheid in South Africa – For the reason Nick Levine stated above and since the United Nations has accepted the apartheid as a term in and of itself and as general crime that can be committed anywhere outside SA, it just doesn't make any sense to keep the article subject bound to the historical event in SA. I mean, the Holocaust was the reason to make laws against genocides but it doesn't make sense to make the article Genocide bound to Holocaust and another one called Crime of genocide for all other genocides! ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 17:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose this is the clear WP:Primary topic. Google scholar gives 895,000 hits for “apartheid south africa”, 149,000 for “apartheid israel”. The article Crime of apartheid is for the general phenomenon.
Kowal2701 (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If all genocides were called holocausts, and named after the Jewish one, of course Holocaust would be on the Jewish one. Kowal2701 (talk) 18:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - far and away the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. "Apartheid" was originally used to describe the system in South Africa. I do actually find the nominator's rationale incredibly interesting as they make comparisons with The Holocaust and Genocide. Much like "Apartheid", "Holocaust" is not exclusively used to refer to The Holocaust, but at some points in history has been used as an equivalent or similar term to "genocide". And unlike "Apartheid", "Holocaust" was used before The Holocaust to refer to other genocides, such as the Armenian genocide. I don't really have an argumentative point with that, I just found it an interesting comparison that was made. estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a compromise may be to put In recent decades the term has taken on a more general meaning as it has been applied to different contexts, having been incorporated into international law as the crime of apartheid in 2002. towards the end of the lead. And then a small section in the body on the different contexts it’s been applied to Kowal2701 (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But as Arjayay has said, this is a slippery slope to diluting the topic. Kowal2701 (talk) 21:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't see a need to mention it in the lede when it's already linked above the prose in a WP:HATNOTE. estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point Kowal2701 (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While there are many statements regarding "apartheid in the country x" such as "Apartheid in Malaysia", "Apartheid in Israel", etc., they are never included in any official documents aside from South Africa itself, and "Apartheid" remains more specific to South African system officially. Therefore, it's still a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC counting by long-term significance. 103.111.100.82 (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about apartheid in South Africa. For apartheid as defined in international law, see Crime of apartheid. For apartheid involving Palestinians, see Israeli apartheid. For other uses, see Apartheid (disambiguation).
Source code:
{{About|apartheid in South Africa|apartheid as defined in international law|Crime of apartheid|apartheid involving Palestinians|Israeli apartheid|other uses}}
waddie96 ★ (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Per my comments during the last RM, discussion of apartheid as a general concept is already well-covered under crime of apartheid. There's no need to fork this article. The genocide/crime of genocide analogy is not effective here, because while "apartheid" is similarly a specific crime as defined under international law, it is also the historic name of specific legislative system (which genocide is not). Furthermore, moving the current article to Apartheid in South Africa blatantly ignores the fact that this system also existed in Namibia. --Katangais (talk) 03:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. Mellk (talk) 09:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Apartheid&oldid=1258972238"