Jump to content

Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Apartheid/Archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Various proposals and consensus voting on them is occuring at the main project page at Wikipedia:Central discussions/Apartheid see also the bottom of this talk page for polls on renaming Israeli Apartheid

This page brings together the discussion about the folowing pages:


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename.

Poll: Rename "Israeli apartheid" article to "Allegations of Israeli apartheid"

This poll is listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves, with a start date of 26 June 2006. --John Nagle 03:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Question: Are you in favour of changing the article title Israeli apartheid to Allegations of Israeli apartheid?Clayoquot 06:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose because one would have to add "allegations" to every contentious topic. Would anyone accept or "allegations of armenian genocide" No! Even though 30% of Americans think there was a conspiracy. Changing this name would set a precident for changing all contentious articles to "allegations."

Also, this is petty bickering. An article is NPOV because it shows both sides of the argument in the article, not in the title.--Dr.Worm 05:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Caution Is this a poll on whether to rename, or on whether to take a poll? The way this is stated, that's not clear. There's a risk of people agreeing to have a poll, and have their votes misinterpreted as approval for a rename. --John Nagle 06:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Good point. I've refactored the page to make it clear that this is a poll on whether to rename. The two people who've already voted are obviously in favour of renaming.Clayoquot06:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Death tax, pro-life, Cheese-eating surrender monkeys, Loch Ness Monster, etc. are not likely to be interpreted, by a reasonable reader, as being undisputed facts. "Israeli apartheid" could be interpreted more literally, and that's why I think it needs a qualifier. Clayoquot07:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment In Israel, discrimination occurs despite equality in law; it is extensive, it is buttressed by custom, but it is not remotely comparable with the South African panoply of discrimination enforced by parliamentary legislation. The difference is fundamental. Zeq 08:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly Agree The whole article deals with the argument whether or not there is aprathied in Israel. The title, presenting the apartheid's existence as undisputed presents only one POV and does not allude to the article's actual contents which persents both POVs and does not charactrize the "apartheid" but deals with the allegations to Apartheid. Thus the suggested title is both NPOV and also fits the contents of the article better and therefore the rename is a very good idea.Tal :) 12:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC). Rewrote my arguments below. Tal :) 07:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Pragmatic is how I see it too. I think there are much deeper issues of how to structure this information. Renaming this article would take away a big pain point in the meantime.Clayoquot23:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
But it also places a judgement on the truthfullness of the article.
  • Oppose. First, renaming it to that name would free the way of a second article that deals with for example the scholary opinion about this topic, which is not an allegation or accusation but an analysis. And I think that is not warranted. Second, I think that this issue should be dealt with in a wider sense, dealing with all apartheid articles. Third, the article is not stable yet, and it is unclear what the exact content of this article should be, and setting the name already to a title like this is setting limitations to the article content. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC
I don't understand your first point. Regarding respectively the second and third points, requiring Wikipedia editors to act in concert across a large set of articles to change any specific article seems unjustifiably onerous, and those limitations are precisely those that should exist to maintain NPOV. Nysin 10:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
What "scholarly opinion?" Just because scholars hold an opinion doesn't make it more legitimate or true. I can compare anything with anything and come up with similarities. Is Norway a communist state? Is there an upstate New York gulag? And so on and so on. --Leifern 20:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
That's interesting, Homey, you favored the same suggestion here. 6SJ7 22:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I've been persuaded by the argument against. Homey 21:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • As it currently stands, the article states it is about the expression "Israeli apartheid"; suggest, therefore, it is either kept as is, with "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" a section within; or renamed to Allegations of Israeli apartheid, with "Israeli apartheid" explained within. Latter seems preferable. Regards, David Kernow 12:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. If it is a politically contrived phrase, as even some of the opponents of this suggestion concede, we as editors should stive to make it NPOV, not proliferate POV article names based on the bad precedent of similarly contrived, badly named articles that already exist (e.g: death tax) Isarig 15:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree per Tal, as a stopgap measure, as I think the ultimate resolution should be a merger of this article into another. By the way, why is this taking place on the talk page and the other polls are being taken on the "Central Discussions" page itself? This is another example of the confusing fragmentation I have been talking about. 6SJ7 20:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC) Never mind that last comment, now I see the tag on the article's talk page and the "redirect" to this page lower down on the talk page, so it's not so confusing after all. 6SJ7 21:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible oppose. "Allegations" is nonsense to disclaim an article in its own title. The body can discuss who uses the term, and in what contexts. LotLE×talk 08:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. "Israeli Apartheid" is not what the article is about. The article specifically deals with allegations of Israeli Apartheid, and as such, that is the most reasonable title. The entire article is pro and con arguments about the existence of the very subject. Another way of saying this is "Allegations."
It's worth noting that comparisons between this and articles such Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys are rather empty, given that the Cheese eating article is about the phrase itself, rather than being a discussion of the allegations that the French really are cheese eating surrender monkeys. Were the Cheese article about that, as in, if it were a collection of opinions that the French were cheese eating, and opinions that the French were not, then "Allegations of the French being Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys" would be a more appropriate title. Currently however, such perjorative terms are not labeled allegations of, because they're about the terms themselves, not the substantive arguments behind the validity, or lack thereof, of those terms.
I think there is an argument to be made for having a seperate Israel Apartheid article which deals with the term itself, similar to articles about other perjorative terms, but this article, with the current text, fits far better as "Allegations of." Bibigon 01:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly agree the current headline is POV as it already alluds to an existing apartheid, while this allegation is actually very much disputed (as seen in the article itself), thus "allegations of..." is much more fitting and NPOV. furthermore, I think think that in the future we should consider making a new article titled "Accusations of Ethnic/Religious Discrimination in Israel" in which there will be a section devoted to allegations of Israeli apartheid , which will be presented as a way to interpret the discrimination as an alleged apartheid policy lead by the government. The criticism against this interpretation will of course also appear under this section. The reason I'm suggesting this is because I get the feeling that the dispute in the article is not centered on the facts (although there is dispute about that too) but mainly on the interpretation of the facts (the "hafada" section in the current article is a good example of this). Thus, an article dealing with ethnic/religious discrimination in Israel and the different ways to interpret it (including as aparthied) will better emphasize the essence of the dispute here, and will put the whole issue in context. Tal :) 07:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. The current title, regardless of other political prejoratives' article titles, frames the policies and actions of Israel and its citizens in an inherently POV manner; by use of the word "Apartheid" it undermines even well-reasoned opposition by an emotional appeal and a dubious argument by analogy, both of which constitute logical fallacies that should be avoided. Nysin 10:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree per Ben Houston and Nysin. -- Heptor talk 17:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose If someone, on any side of the issue, comes to Wikipedia looking for information they are going to type in "Israeli Apartheid". Not 'Allegations of...' or 'Dispute about...' or whatever. Just the basic term. The page should be at the most commonly used name of the thing. That is 'Naming Conventions 101'. There are tons of articles in Wikipedia on controversial topics. Neutral point of view requires that we explain all sides of the dispute, not that we excise the fact that the world outside Wikipedia does not exist in a 'NPOV' state. --CBD 10:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. "Israeli Apartheid" is a blatant POV, offensive and non-encyclopedic title. It sends a clear message to the reader that such a policy really exists, while it doesn't. The typical reader will simply get the message and, in most cases, will not bother reading the actual article (which describes allegations) - since the title by itself says it all. The "allegations..." prefix makes it less POV and better reflects its actual contents. Noon 13:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. The title commits the classical fallacy of begging the question, and the allegations meet enough dispute that any NPOV article can not simply accept the premise. --Leifern 14:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Just a list of a few other articles which would need to be renamed if the 'NPOV applies to article titles' philosophy advocated by virtually everyone saying 'agree' here were actually carried forward; Pro-choice, Pro-life, Compassionate conservatism, Same-sex marriage, White pride, Queer, Nigger, et cetera. Anyone want to tell me those terms are 'neutral point of view'? They aren't... but then they aren't supposed to be. The content of articles has to be neutral... the titles have to reflect the real world, which is anything but. Those terms, like 'Israeli apartheid', exist in the real world and we have articles on them... named just as they are in the world. Because that is where people will be looking for them. The fact that people disagree with the accuracy of a phrase and/or find it offensive shouldn't be a reason to 'mis-file' the presentation of those facts somewhere (anywhere) other than at the common term used by the proponents of the view. --CBD 15:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment CBD, you seem to have a misunderstanding of the difference between an article on a term, and an article on a concept. This article deals with the concept of Israeli Apartheid, and the allegations surrounding it. Pro choice, compassionate conservatism, White Pride, Queer, and Nigger are about the terms themselves, not about the concepts or ideas. None of those articles give the debates about the legitimacy of the claims surrounding the terms. The Same-sex marriage article does, but that's not an article on a perjorative term, so it's a different matter anyways. When we have a perjorative term as an article title, we restrict the article to being about the term itself. Given that the article here is not restricted to being about the term, but covers the debates, a more accurate description would be "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid." Just as the article on "Nigger" does not actually go in depth as to the merits of African Americans, the article on "Israeli Apartheid" should not go into the merits of the Apartheid analogy. Given that it does, having this article be called "Israeli Apartheid" is clearly inappropriate.
As a result, I believe perhaps there should be two separate pages. The first to deal with ‘Israeli Apartheid’ the term, which would do no more than detail the term. The second to deal with ‘Allegations of Israeli Apartheid’, which would deal with the substance behind these allegations, and present the various arguments on both sides of this issue. Bibigon 15:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
CBD, a better analogy would be articles using the name of a person or entity coupled with a POV accusation. Sticking to nonsense, try "Kermit was Jack the Ripper", "Miss Piggy, embezzler" or "Fozzy Bear, rapist". Assuming none of those charges could be reasonably verified (e.g. Miss Piggy had been convicted of that charge in 1978), we wouldn't allow it. --Dweller 16:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
But Bibigon, why is it different from New anti-semitism, or Islamofascism or American terrorism? All those articles discuss not only the term but the validity of the term, ie the arguments for and against the concept. Also I think CBD has a very good point when he says that an encyclopedia should go with the most obvious usage. "Israeli apartheid" gets 483,000 hits on Google. It might be worth considering that if the Wiki article is renamed to anything other than "Israeli apartheid", then it might drop considerably in the search list, meaning that users who search the term will find themselves reading mostly pieces written by its proponents instead of the Wiki entry which contains arguments both for and against. Gatoclass 16:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
New anti-semitism is not a perjorative term, thus the analogy is somewhat flat there. American terrorism is almost entirely a discussion of the term itself, not of the validity of the term itself. There is however a strong argument to be made for removing the 'Criticism of the term' section, given that the criticisms aren't so much about the term, but about the concept. Islamofascism is similarly about the term itself, describing it as a neoligism and a political epithet, and focusing entirely on the term itself. Even the criticism section is focused on a criticism of the term. The article does not go into the depths of Islamism, Islamic Fundamentalism, or Islamic extremist terrorism.
Thus, none of those three examples are analagous to the Israeli Apartheid article. Two are almost entirely about the term itself, and the third is not a perjorative term. The Israeli Apartheid article is almost entirely about the concept, with relatively little of the article being about the term itself. Bibigon 16:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, what if someone created an article called "Gipsy Thievery"? I'm not sure the community would be very happy about that. --Dweller 20:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree , Taking the word "Apartheid" and applying it to Israel is clearly a loaded attempt to conjure up images of the white South African regime. If someone wants to show that Israel has been accused of maintaining a policy of forced segregation, that is one thing, but to take a word completely out of its context in order to use it the way "apartheid" is being used is completely innappropriate, it only makes it worse that people are trying to use the title to make the accusations look official and indisputable.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - In fact, i am neither supporting nor rejecting the idea. However, if we'd agree on it than we should accept the fact that hundreds if not thousands of articles in Wikipedia are to be treated the same way (say those articles are to be moved to Allegations of X, Y, etc... -- Szvest 10:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™
  • Agree per several people above.--Brownlee 11:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree more npov gidonb 12:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree more NPOV. I want to add that I am highly critical of Israeli policy. I wish that this article drew more on real research, e.g. by Ian Lustick, than so much original research and editorializing. Be that as it may, while many have made informal comparisons between SA apartheid and Israeli policies, apartheid is historically specific and not an Israeli policy. This article is not about an Israeli policy or set of policies (they exist and have been the object of research by historians and political scientists and that reasearch belongs in an encyclopedia), it is an article about popular allegations. Thus, the title. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. Term Apartheid is innovative when applied outside its context of racial segregation in an Afrikaans-speaking country. Most Israelis and Palestinians speak no Afrikaans and the term has been applied by English-language media. Also, this is not a race issue. It is a political issue. JFW | T@lk 18:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Poll: Rename "Apartheid outside of South Africa" article to "Allegations of apartheid outside South Africa"

Agree in order to stay consistant with "alligations" decision --Dr.Worm 05:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree Clayoquot04:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC) I also prefer the shorter "Allegations of apartheid" suggested below.Clayoquot16:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC) "List of apartheid allegations" works for me too. Clayoquot04:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree this seeems more NPOV title. Keep the re-direct from original name. Zeq 03:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Silence, I think this is an honest misunderstanding on your part. There are two poll questions, and he voted "Agree" to each one separately. I'm going to refactor this page again to make it more clear that there are two questions. My fault for not formatting the poll properly in the first place. Clayoquot06:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
My bad, sorry. It seemed to be a single poll in its previous format. -Silence 06:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Inconsistent and not NPOV ('allegations' usually implies falsehood, whereas simply 'Israeli apartheid' neither implies truth nor falsehood, because tens of thousands of Wikipedia article titles refer to nonexistent thinsg). Until we change homosexual agenda to allegations of homosexual agenda, extraterrestrial life to allegations of extraterrestrial life, etc., this is a fairly poor rename option, though I'll agree that it's the second-best option available, after simply "Israeli apartheid". By the way, since I was directed here from the "Apartheid outside South Africa" page on the false pretense that this is a general vote for all the apartheid-related articles, strong oppose to moving that article to "Allegations of...", since the proper name for that article is simply Apartheid, a general page about the term itself and its major uses. -Silence 06:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Agree if this is the only option, although I'm totally confused about what's going on. There's no such thing as "Israeli apartheid," except that it's used as an insult by pro-Palestinian activists and neo-Nazis, and so it should be Israeli apartheid (term), or better still it should be merged into an article called Apartheid (term), which lists every country this accusation has been made of, or it could be called Use of the term Apartheid outside South Africa. It seems this whole Apartheid mess was started because someone wanted to create a stick to beat Israel with. That's not what Wikipedia's about, so we should try to find an across-the-board solution that takes the stick out of people's hands. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
There is a little-known Wikipedia policy, so obscure that I haven't been able to find it tonight, forbidding use of parentheses except for disambiguation purposes. Yup, it's a policy and not a guideline.Clayoquot06:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Apartheid outside of South Africa is really a directory page now, with various disputes listed. It doesn't really need a rename. --John Nagle 06:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, for much the same reasons as Silence above. It's redundant to add "allegations of" to this or probably any other article, since the article itself will be discussing the pro's and con's of the term. Gatoclass 06:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems this whole Apartheid mess was started because someone wanted to create a stick to beat Israel with. That's not what Wikipedia's about, so we should try to find an across-the-board solution that takes the stick out of people's hands - SlimVirgin
Well yes, it is a term invented to beat Israel with, but that's no reason not to include it in Wiki. The fact is, it's a term that is extant, that has been used by numerous critics of Israel, including academics, historians, writers, newspaper columnists etc etc. so Wiki can hardly pretend it doesn't exist.
Therefore it's quite appropriate that the article exists on Wiki, all that needs to be done is ensure that the views of both proponents and opponents of the term are properly canvassed within the article itself. Gatoclass 07:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
No, I meant that the articles had been created in order to have a stick to beat Israel with. That's why it has all become so convoluted, because people are thinking ideologically instead of using common sense. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, redundant --Coroebus 17:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Although I don't mind SV's suggestion. --Coroebus 16:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Information of this article should be condensed and merged into a proper main Apartheid article. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Based on Occam razor Slim's name seesm the most simple and appropriate. Zeq 06:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose per Silence. Article20 21:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - Needlessly lengthy name - Xed 06:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Strongest possible oppose. Don't put editorializing right in the title of an article. See numerous other examples of (possibly) pejorative terms that don't get caveats in title. LotLE×talk 08:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Agree. "Israeli Apartheid" is a deliberately-inflammatory phrase that was developed for propaganda purposes, noting the principle that whoever controls the language of a conflict controls the conflict. Comparisons to South Africa are simply an extension of this. Bill Levinson 17:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I Agree that the article, if it deserves to avoid outright deletion, needs a different name...without having read to see whether anyone's brought this up or not already, the article at its current location was excised from Apartheid (where it really didn't belong either). (Much of my sentiment about the article itself, large parts of which are relevant to this discussion as a whole, can be found on its talk page.) I think probably Allegations of apartheid is probably a better choice, since not only was apartheid only ever a reality (at least by that name) in South Africa, but the country is/should not be immune to allegations of apartheid just because apartheid is no longer the law of the land there. The article was begun because it was agreed that the apartheid article should focus exclusively on what apartheid really was. Tomertalk 00:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Huldra 19:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree without the "allegations," it implies that the apartheid exists. This is simply not NPOV. -- Where 17:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible oppose with the word "allegation" it implies (before you even have a chance to read the article) that it doesn't exist. Shall we put "allegations of" in front of all articles that are disputed? PerDaniel 22:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose several key figures have used this term in this context (so it needs an article) and it is wrong to put "allegations" in front of any contravercial concept. --Musaabdulrashid 03:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Extraterrestrial life and homosexual agenda

While the first article does noy insult anyone (if it exist or not) it highlights right at the intro that such life may not exist. The 2nd artickle is even a better one:

  • It describe the term as a term that is derogative, who use it and why.

so, to all those who oppose (based on comparsion to homosexual agenda) since your objection to the "allegation" name was in good faith you should now continue to look at these articles as an example and describe the term Israeli apartheid for waht it is: A term that is used as propeganda aahansit Israel and that most people think does not exist in reality (after all, despite the occupation and the descrimination there are no apartheid laws in israel in the same way that they were in South Africa - and this, my fellow editors, makes all the difference. Zeq 15:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposals, time frame etc

Lets get some things somewhat more organized. At the main page, lets have the proposals, and lets have the discussion about them here at the talk page. Every proposal can be edited by the proposer until s/he is satisfied. (I will do some change when I am back home). Lets try to get the proposal finished say by July 7. After that, we can start a larger straw poll (for a week) in which we can see which proposals are liked by people and which are not, so that we can start moving on. I think this is going to work better than endless discussions, and is an easier way to get the input of all editors, instead of the regular few that engage in the extended discussions. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Informing people about the poll

Has a link to the merger proposals been placed on the Wikipedia page on mergers (I don't remember where that page is). Homey 17:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Note the link to Wikipedia:Requested moves at the top of the rename poll. It's in the list of requested moves (look under June 26th), now going through the official "controversial move" process. --John Nagle 18:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, would it be permissable to contact all the people who have edited the various apartheid articles or have expressed interest in them via the various AFDs and inform them of the poll? Only a small group of editors have expressed their views thus far and it's important to have a wide community consensus represented.Homey 17:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The poll move, and move back

An anon, 72.60.226.29 (talk · contribs) moved the polls from Wikipedia talk:Central discussions/Apartheid to Wikipedia:Central discussions/Apartheid. That lost the edit history, which is needed for vote checking, so I reverted the page at Wikipedia talk:Central discussions/Apartheid and edited Wikipedia:Central discussions/Apartheid to explain what happened. I'm still cleaning this up. Please check that all the votes and links are correct. Thanks. --John Nagle 04:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's all back the way it was now. The anon left things in kind of a mess, with the poll detached from the official "Requested moves" page that makes it official. Check my work, please. --John Nagle 04:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No consensus

Well after three weeks of proposals and counter-proposals, it seems we are no nearer to finding a consensus than we were before. Is anyone else feeling that this exercise is rather futile? If so, what's the next step? Are these issues moved toward arbitration? Or do we try to hammer out some sort of compromise on this talk page? Gatoclass 15:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is one of wikipedia most basic policies. Articles that can not reach NPOV should be deleted. Zeq 16:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The official rename poll at Wikipedia talk:Central discussions/Apartheid#Poll: Rename "Israeli apartheid" article to "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" is binding, because it was listed through the Wikipedia:Requested moves process. This works like AfD; after five days, any uninvolved admin can close the poll. (The other polls are straw polls, because nobody actually listed them at Wikipedia:Requested moves). That's then a done deal, and we go on from there. --John Nagle 16:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • This poll is at 13:11 - seems like a "consensus" not to decide. Why should one name has priority over the other when the comunity is so split in the middle ? Zeq 16:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim said she was going to post a more detailed proposal so let's wait for that. Homey 18:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim asked to aim for July 7 to get proposals in. She has plenty of experience with controversial issues and knows they take time. Clayoquot18:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

In that case, in the interim the article should be taken off-line. If a dispute is going to take awhile to resolve, then readers should not see garbage like this article in the meantime. 6SJ7 00:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Israeli apartheid is the original name of the article and there's never been a consensus to change the name to anything else.Homey 19:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Where is the rule that there has to be a consensus, rather than a majority, to make a decision like this? It doesn't make sense to require a consensus to rename an article, or even to delete an article, when there is no requirement for a consensus to create and name an article in the first place. I realize that a "consensus" is required to delete an article, and this is not the place to try to change that rule, but Wikipedia will never have any credibility until it is changed. As for renaming an article, I've never seen a rule defining the vote required. Where is it? 6SJ7 20:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
It's near the top of Wikipedia:Requested moves, which works pretty much like AfD. --John Nagle 20:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, in that case, "consensus" is a misnomer. "Consensus" means unanimous or nearly unanimous and the meaning of the word doesn't change just because a page on Wikipedia says it does. Sixty percent is a type of "supermajority" but it is not a "consensus." 6SJ7 00:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

In practice at wikipedia consenseus means a 2/3 majority.Homey 00:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Not according to Wikipedia:Requested moves, which says 60 percent, which is less than a 2/3 majority. Even if it were 2/3, "consensus" would be a misnomer. 6SJ7 00:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, well in any case it doesn't need to be unanimous - let's not get into a semantic argument, whether Wikipedia's definintion of the term is correct or not, we understand it to mean something over 60%.Homey 00:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC) Homey 00:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Rationale for the Proposal by Su-Laine

Discussing the term "Apartheid"

OK, I've finally gotten my head around the fact that people really think it's important to have the term "apartheid" used rather than a term like "discrimination." I'm also finally convinced that having an article about contemporary usage of the term is warranted.

  • The article should cover who uses the term "apartheid" as an analogy to South African apartheid, and what they mean by it.
  • It should discuss the history of the term and the fact that it has come to be applied to many different phenomena.
  • It should discuss criticisms of using the term outside of its original (South African) meaning. (E.g. "Cheapens the real one" is a common criticism).
  • Include a few typical examples to illustrate use of the term.

Something incredibly absent so far, unless I've missed it, is a discussion of what the people who use this term actually mean by it. We certainly know what countries and institutions they apply it to, and who they say the victims of apartheid are, but that still leaves the question of what the term means. There is no standard operational definition of apartheid except as given in Crime of apartheid or old South African lawbooks.

In a few days, I plan to add the following to the Apartheid (political epithet) article:

Colloquially, the term "apartheid" usually means systemic discrimination which in some way is reminiscent of the apartheid era of South Africa.
It is used to describe situations in which some, but rarely all, of the following features of South African apartheid are present:
  • Enshrinement of discrimination in law
  • Segregation enforced by police or military
  • Small, poor-quality areas of land allotted to the oppressed population
  • In areas where the oppressed population mixes with the oppressing population, artificial separation of population members through separate transportation systems, schools, parks, etc.
  • Widespread lack of access to education, jobs, and government services amongst the oppressed population
  • Oppression of a majority population by a minority population.
  • Violent suppression of civil protest
  • Discrimination based on race rather than other aspects of identity
However, the term "apartheid" is often used without alleging that any of the above practices occur to a significant degree. It is often used to indicate that the discrimination taking place is analogous to the South African example in less tangible ways, such as:
  • Perceived similarity in the oppressors' ways of thinking and sense of morality
  • Perceived as having a similar spritual significance for humanity
  • Long, difficult struggle to end the oppression
  • Perceived as being possible to overcome through international efforts

From the perspective of someone studying language, the appearance of the phrases "gender apartheid" "Israeli apartheid" "Canada's apartheid" etc. are manifestations of the same linguistic phenomenon. They are simply different contexts in which the same term is used, and the meaning is pretty much the same in each context: "Discrimination that for some reason reminds me of South Africa". The people who use one "____ apartheid" phrase are likely to use others, and the people who criticize use of "_______ apartheid" phrases usually criticize them all. It seems clear to me that one article on modern colloquial usage of the term "apartheid" can cover the term nicely.

Discussing allegations of apartheid

I have major concerns with using these articles to discuss whether the use of the term "apartheid" is justifiably applied to a particular situation. Here they are:

Quality objections

As I've described above, the term "apartheid" does not have a consistent definition and is often used poetically to describe intanglible phenomena. The Israeli apartheid article doesn't even attempt to provide a definition. I don't think it is acceptable for an article to consist of a discussion of whether an undefined term applies to a particular set of events.

I find it truly surreal that Israel's 2005 withdrawal from the Gaza strip is being given as an example of apartheid. But I am also not surprised, as by leaving "apartheid" undefined you leave it open to describing just about anything.

With respect to the Israeli apartheid article, tremendous efforts that have been put into this article and I respect its impressive collection of facts. But there is no way that a discussion of whether a state practices x can ever meet Wikipedia's quality standards unless it includes a clear definition of what x is, and uses the term according to that definition. You can have an encyclopedia-worthy discussion of whether Israel has practiced genocide or war crimes or colonialism because those terms, although their applications are often disputed, have definitions.

By the way, comparing a state's practices to apartheid is not the same thing as saying that the state actually practices apartheid or is even headed in that direction. The fact that a comparison has taken pleace simply means that the person doing the comparison thinks there are some similarities or perhaps a lot of similarities. The vast majority of people who have been compared to Hitler are not alleged to be mass murderers.

Other objections

I have a big problem with centering a discussion on the question of whether a slanted political term is valid, even if its definition is clear. The problems I see are as follows:

  • Unless we get some guidelines in place, I'm pretty sure there will soon be hundreds of articles on political terms, mostly started by people who think the term deserves to be used more. Wikipedia will start to look like a campus bulletin board or a downtown telephone pole. Do you want to see articles on terms like "abortuary"? Me neither.
  • They give the reader a narrow view of the subject. I find that reading the current Apartheid outside of South Africa article is depressing rather than illuminating. There is nothing to help me understand the root causes of the events described, the complexities of the problem, or possible solutions. Adding counter-arguments makes the article more neutral, but it still does not really help the reader come to an understanding.
  • Unswayed readers avoid these articles. Perhaps others would disagree, but my experience is that people avoid reading inflammatory texts that they disagree with. Some people enjoy reading inflammatory texts that they agree with. The beauty of Wikipedia's best coverage of controversial issues is that they describe viewpoints that you usually see expressed in angry rhetoric, in calmer tones. I can stand reading them even if I disagree. Do you really think that many people who even slightly favour right-wing Israeli policies are going to read a Wikipedia article called "Israeli apartheid"?
  • Slanted political terms perpetuate the existing, polarized ways of looking at an subject, with each side pushing for use of its own vocabulary. Neutral language and holistic coverage of subjects empower the reader to interpret a subject in new ways, rather than simply choosing one politicial camp over another. Wikipedia is a place for well-organized, fact-based coverage of subjects, not a logbook of who said what about whom.

Model

Cheese-eating surrender monkeys is a good example of an article that discusses a term but not the phenomenon referred to by the term. The article doesn't try to present arguments on whether French people are actually cheese-eating surrender monkeys.

The apartheid (beyond South Africa) articles have an identity crisis: they are defended as being about terms, but they are increasingly about phenomena.

Summary

  • Yes, discuss all common, informal meanings of the term "apartheid." One article will suffice.
  • It's fine to mention that some people think a particular society's practices remind them of South Africa. It's futile to actually discuss whether something should remind people of something else.
  • I don't like centering discussion around political terms, but if we must do it, at least give a clear definition of the term. Clayoquot21:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

I don't like centering discussion around political terms, but if we must do it, at least give a clear definition of the term.

There's already a clear definition of the term under "Crimes of Apartheid". But a broad working definition of the term is also not hard to come by - the apartheid outside SA article, for example, defines apartheid broadly as "any policy or practice involving the discriminatory separation of different groups." I see no problem here.

The definition under Crime of apartheid and the broad working definition you give are completely different. I asked for one clear definition and you just gave two! Clayoquot07:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

discuss all common, informal meanings of the term "apartheid." One article will suffice.

I'm sorry, but who are you to pre-emptively decide for everyone that "one article will suffice"? It seems transparently obvious to me that one article will not suffice, given the wealth of material from reputable sources that can already be found for the "Israeli apartheid" article.

The problem I have with your attitude, and with the attitude of those who take your position, is that you seem intent on finding some way of censoring, or marginalizing, views you apparently find objectionable. If you can't find a way to excise the topic altogether, you want to chop it down to no more than a few words in a generic article dealing with many other applications of the term. Quite frankly, I regard these attempts to artificially limit the size of an entry to satisfy a certain political agenda as fundamentally dishonest. The place to voice your objections to the term - or more correctly, to voice the objections of reputable sources to the term - is the article itself, not in politically motivated attempts to stifle discussion of the term in the first place.

Indeed, I have to wonder what people like you are so afraid of. If the arguments against the notion of Israeli apartheid are sound, why is it not sufficient to let them speak for themselves, in a full and frank discussion in the article itself, so that everyone who reads them can make up his or her own mind? Isn't that a sufficently fair process for you? It's regarded as the right and proper approach for every other article on Wiki. Why should this one be an exception? Gatoclass 07:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Gatoclass, I think you've completely missed my point about what I think should be in the one article. The one article should be for discussing the term, not the specific events that the term is applied to. As I've tried to make clear, the events deserve to be covered in a great deal of depth, but under neutral, well-defined terms such as "discrimination." I have never said that Israeli apartheid should be merged with Apartheid outside of South Africa, so I don't know what you mean by "people like you." I've given several reasons why discussing whether Israeli apartheid exists is simply a bad idea for an article. Since when is saying something is a bad idea censorship? Clayoquot07:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
The definition under Crime of apartheid and the broad working definition you give are completely different. I asked for one clear definition and you just gave two! Su-Laine Yeo 07:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
No they are not "completely different". One is the specific criminal definition of the term. The other is a broad working definition which can be found in more or less similar form in any dictionary. They obviously have points of contact, but in any article about apartheid in general, obviously the broad definition is the one to use.
As I've tried to make clear, the events deserve to be covered in a great deal of depth, but under neutral, well-defined terms such as "discrimination."
The charge that Israel is an apartheid state is a specific charge with specific arguments and counter-arguments. The charge is extant and employed by scholars and academics in the field. They aren't merely making a charge of "discrimination", they are making a charge of apartheid - in the criminal meaning of the term. And that is a much more serious charge than mere "discrimination".
As to whether or not this topic deserves separate treatment, the only criteria for a decision in that regard would seem to me to be whether the topic can be adequately dealt with as part of a larger topic, and I don't believe it can be. Gatoclass 09:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
The colloquial definition is substantially broader than the legal one, with one difference being that the legal definition applies specifically to race, whereas the colloquial definition gets applied to many things (with more coming every month, it seems). If the colloquial definition is "any policy or practice involving the discriminatory separation of different groups," then why do these policies and practices need to be discussed under the term "apartheid"?
How does this sound: I would welcome an article that analyzes whether Israel's practices meet the definition of crime of apartheid. That could be a valuable, important, good-quality article. What I have a problem with is the current approach of the article which is basically a list of people who have used the term "apartheid" to apply to Israel, labelling them all as "proponents of the phrase" as if they all had the same beliefs, and not saying what those beliefs are. The legal definition of "apartheid" is a good framework to hang an article on; the colloquial definition is not. What do you think?Clayoquot07:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
How does this sound: I would welcome an article that analyzes whether Israel's practices meet the definition of crime of apartheid. That could be a valuable, important, good-quality article.
That sounds too much like a case of original research to me. We have to work from secondary sources, that is, what reputable sources have had to say on the topic.
Also I disagree with the notion that the current article is "basically a list of people who have used the term "apartheid" to apply to Israel." I think the current article does canvas what varying people have had to say on the matter - both pro and con.
It may not be perfect, but it's certainly a lot more readable than some of the other articles on Israel-Palestine, some of which are pretty appalling. Gatoclass 11:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I honestly don't understand why you would think an article analyzing whether crime of apartheid applies to Israel would have to be original research. You just said yourself that "scholars and academics in the field... are making a charge of apartheid - in the criminal meaning of the term."
Here is an article that I think is organized in a way that we should emulate, although we can improve on the actual content significantly: http://www.monabaker.com/pMachine/more.php?id=A2024_0_1_0_M .
Regarding the quality of the current article, I'll just respectfully agree to disagree. I'd like to hear from more people too. Ladies and gentlemen, what do you think? Clayoquot06:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
If you want to know my view of what this article should become it can be seen in my comment on the rename poll. Tal :) 07:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I honestly don't understand why you would think an article analyzing whether crime of apartheid applies to Israel would have to be original research. You just said yourself that "scholars and academics in the field... are making a charge of apartheid - in the criminal meaning of the term." - Su Laine.
Wikipedians are forbidden from coming up with their own arguments - that qualifies as original research. We are only supposed to quote from the arguments that reputable sources themselves have advanced. So the only way it wouldn't be original research is if you could find a number of reputable sources that actually compare Israeli policies to the crimes listed in the apartheid statute.
Such an approach, though, would be neither desirable nor useful since it would artificially limit discussion of the term "Israeli apartheid" to pieces that have specifically used the Rome statute as a reference point.
As for my comments about these sources making a charge of apartheid in the "criminal" sense of the term, I didn't mean they've necessarily done so in a formal sense, I simply meant that their arguments are best understood in that context. However, that is just my opinion, and my opinion doesn't qualify for inclusion in a Wiki article.
Regarding the quality of the current article, I'll just respectfully agree to disagree. - Su-Laine
I'm not saying it's perfect. It is, after all, a pretty new article, and it's already come a long way from its humble origins[1]. How about giving it some time to mature?
Apart from which, as I said before, it's streets ahead of some of the other articles on the Israel-Palestinian conflict. If you don't believe me, go and have a read of Zionism and racism, a blatant apologia for the Israeli POV, or Terrorism against Israel, a totally one-sided litany of unsubstantiated allegations sourced almost entirely from Israeli or Zionist groups, or Views of the Arab-Israeli conflict, a turgid mess that would be likely to leave any reader far more confused about the conflict than before he began.
In fact I have to wonder, why such a hue and cry over the Israeli apartheid article when there are so many others on the Arab-Israeli conflict that are clearly far more in need of attention? Gatoclass 13:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

so we have this discussion and ...

Is anything from this discussion ever made it to the article ? Zeq 14:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

{{RFMF}} SlimVirgin (talk) 07:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't find it on the indicated page Bill Levinson 05:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The mediation was declined by the Mediation Committee, I thought there was a note on this page to that effect. The Mediation Committee referred the dispute to the Arbitration Committee, but it is not clear (at least to me) what effect that has. Unless there has been a new request for mediation that I do not know about; anything is possible with these articles. 6SJ7 16:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
There will be most likely a "binding mediation" as soon as the ArbCom case has been concluded. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

First post-arbitration proposal (by User:6SJ7)

This is a cross-post of my posting on the main discussion page (since this talk page is actually a talk page for another talk page)

In light of the decision of the ArbComm that discussions take place on this page, and the fact that some of the proposals above (and on the associated talk page) have been implemented, others rejected and others hanging in limbo, and the fact that new users have become interested and perhaps old ones disinterested in this subject since the arbitration began, I propose that the entire contents of this page (and the talk page) be archived so that we may start over with new proposals and discussions. Of course, any of the old proposals could be repeated if people still want to propose them. 6SJ7 23:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Apartheid/Archive1&oldid=1138412885"