Talk:Allegations of apartheid/Archive 3

RfM

{{RFMF}} SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Rationale for splitting Tourist apartheid in Cuba into its own article

• The article is 49 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size. (as of this edit)
• The section is quite decent in terms of sources and overall structure and could stand alone.
• It would be nice to put the appropriate categories on the section such as Category:Cuba and Category:Cuban society and Category:Tourism_in_Cuba.
• It would be appropriate to better integrate it into Cuba-related articles (such as Tourism_in_Cuba) since it has more in common with Cuba that it has with apartheid.
• Of course a small blurb should stay with a pointer to the main article.

--Deodar 15:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That is sensible.Homey 15:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments on that section, which I wrote. In my view, this article isn't all that big yet, and certain sections (that I haven't written) aren't properly sourced, particularly the one on Northern Ireland, so it might get smaller. However, since you've raised the issue, do you think Allegations of Israeli apartheid also be "better integrated" into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict articles, since it has more to do with Israel than with Apartheid? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, I am all for coherency across articles. Integration, in my vocabulary, does not mean merging -- it means smartly separating content by topic such that one can navigate a domain of knowledge with ease. Thus Tourism in Cuba would take into account that there is significant criticism of the way tourists are kept away from real Cuban life and point people to the appropriate article that deals with it in depth if they are interested. The Tourism apartheid article would show awareness of the Tourism in Cuba article with content appropriately distributed. Thus I guess, if you can explain what you mean by "better integrated" in the context of the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article and the rest of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict articles, I can better respond. --Deodar 22:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems obvious to me that the whole "Israeli Apartheid" thing is really part of Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or some related propaganda-war article. Regarding a new article, even if one made sense, wouldn't the title have to be something more neutral? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the Cuba section should remain in this article to address the apartheid topic in one place. Nice Job btw, Jayjg. Very well sourced. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 22:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I actually think the Cuba apartheid section, which thankfully is just about the best sourced Cuban related piece of work I have come across on first encounter since my time at wikipedia, should have it's own article.

1. It can be integrated more with the Tourism in Cuba article in the fashion that I believe Bhouston is inferring.
2. It allows for discussion and work on the specific subject matter of that article only - Cuba is a complicated place, and I have no doubt that some points will need to be addressed and discussed. It's also on my long Cuba to-do list. It would make life easier if it had it's own place.
3. It can be linked from here with the usual summary style and "See main article".

Just my thoughts. Good work on both the section and the communication between the pages.--Zleitzen 00:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I mentioned the existence of this new section on Talk:Tourism_in_Cuba, Wikipedia:WikiProject Cuba, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cuba. This is what Zleitzen is refering to about communication between pages. --Deodar 02:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be somewhat disproportionate to have a Tourism in Cuba article that is 4/5th about "Tourism apartheid". It is quite long for an entry in this article however so it would be logical to spin it off. As Ben mentions, if we spin off the article we can add it to various Cuba categories where as adding Apartheid outside of South Africa to, Category:Cuba, Category:Cuban society and Category:Tourism_in_Cuba wouldn't make much sense. Homey 04:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The "tourism apartheid" issue does represent a large part of the story about Cuban tourism, though you are correct that at present it would slightly dominate the meagre present page. For now it would be right to seperate from this page it if you feel the section is too large now, leaving a sourced summary here based on Jayjg's research - and I'll take a look at the Tourism page over the next week or so, and try to pad it out with more info. Then it may be an idea to merge the Cuban apartheid and tourism pages together, when there is more equal weight given to other areas. I hope I've made sense?--Zleitzen 05:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I can just shake my head at the torture to which we're putting the term "apartheid" here - I am against apartheid, I am against the way Cuba treats its people and students, but soon everything that involves any separation can be charaterized as apartheid. Corporate apartheid, when executives have their own suite in office buildings, religious apartheid when men and women sit separately in religious services, etc. Seems to me we should focus on the relevant phenomena, rather than trying to label it with an overused term. --Leifern 14:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Leifern, I respect your opinion, but we should document the debate as it occurs in reliable sources, not reframe it to meet our sensibilities and our own preferred terms (because that would consistute original research.) --Deodar 14:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)--Deodar 14:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The fundamental problem is that people can compare any practice - legitimate, warranted, moral, or not - with "apartheid" without worrying too much about the validity of the comparison; then if it gets picked up by popular culture, there is a justification for creating a Wikipedia article about it. In the process, both the actual phenomenon of apartheid and the practices compared with it lose currency and precision. --Leifern 21:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I have created a neutrally titled, "allegations of" article, which I propose we make the main article, and then scale back the Cuba discussion on this article space. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, can we change the name of this to Tourism apartheid in Cuba pronto, the title Allegations of apartheid in Cuba is misleading in the extreme. We're talking about exclusive hotels here, not townships and racial segregation. --Zleitzen 19:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I still think the content should remain in this article as there are too many spinoffs going on, imo. Meanwhile, if others insist on moving content to its own article, it should be to a neutral title which means we make clear these are allegations not facts. I'm tied up and don't have a lot of time for WP today but I would like to keep tabs on this and weigh into the discussion. Thx. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 20:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I can accept the "Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba" name, but please keep in mind two things:

1) It is not just called tourist apartheid", but also "tourism apartheid" and sometimes "economic apartheid" and even "cuban apartheid", so "Allegations of apartheid in Cuba" was actually more accurate.

2) It is far more than just hotels; it is also things like restaurants, beaches and medical services. Please understand what Cubans themselves are saying: The cousin and his friends talked about the places they cannot go, the hotels and beaches, the discos that now require dollars. "It's like South Africa," the cousin's friend said. "It's apartheid," the cousin said. [1] They are indeed alleging it is the same thing. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Problems with "ICC disclaimer"

I just removed this paragraph:

"Nations that have not ratified nor acceded to the Rome Statute, and therefore are not subject to its terms, include the United States, Russia, China, India, Israel and every Arab country with the exception of Jordan. (See International Criminal Court#List of states party to the treaty)."

I posit that this statement is (1) inaccurate (the situation is better described here International_Criminal_Court#List_of_states_party_to_the_treaty which deals with the subtlies of signed verses ratification) and (2) the fact that it says "every Arab country with the exception of Jordan" smacks of POV -- why is this group of countries described by ethnicity and not the others?, (3) the list is horribly incomplete -- lots of African nations have not signed it either but those are not mentioned, (4) this isn't the appropriate place to deal with this secondary topic. --Deodar 15:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Cuba

I find it strange that the second largest section is about something that doesn't even fit the definition of apartheid given at the beginning. Which racial group is dominating ? The tourists ? I don't think so. Much of what is described as tourist apartheid in Cuba is little different to what happens in many countries - those with money have access to things that those without money don't. It is only really because this goes against the Cuban government's stated socialist principles - and because the US government pours money into propaganda against Cuba - that this has become an issue. -- Beardo 07:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Your conspiracy theory notwithstanding, the term "apartheid" has, as the article points out, come into "general use to refer to any policy or practice involving the discriminatory separation of different groups." That includes women, religious minorities, people with different sexual preferences, whole countries, etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

But don't you think that the terms risks becoming so loose as to denature its real meaning ? As I say, much of what is called "tourist apartheid" in Cuba is no different to most of the "first world" - a discrimination based on wealth. The richer have access to things that the poor can't get to. -- Beardo 17:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

In the case of Cuba it's not just the poor, it's any Cubans who are not part of the governing hierarchy. And yes, the term has been denatured of its real meaning; nowadays it's mostly just an epithet. Not much Wikipedia can do about that but report on it. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

That is not true, Jayjg, and betrays yet again your pushing of one POV. Any Cuban with money can eat in whatever restaurant they like, can shop where they like etc. Have you ever visited Cuba ? [Yes, I know that would be OR. Which is worse OR or POV ?] -- Beardo 22:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you prove what you're saying? If so, your observations are quite valuable. We're told that night-club bouncers in Cuba systematically block entrance to Cuban nationals - but do they ask for passports? If they're simply going by their own predujices, then the real state of affairs is "wealth apartheid", the same thing we live under. PalestineRemembered 12:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe the actual material on the page is presented in a POV way - the term is in widespread use and thus deserves to be explored. Though there are certainly opportunities here to broaden the viewpoint, including counter-point material and sources that refer to similar cases throughout the Caribbean. One of the problems that I believe Beardo is inferring here, Jayjg, is that many people, including some of the sources in the article have simply a misplaced view of a land they have never visited. That is not our problem of course, we need only report what they say. But special care should be taken at wikipedia on a unique circumstance, users such as Beardo - who probably knows Cuban life and society better than any source given on the page - and certainly more than myself are worth listening to when judging whether a page has POV issues. Though having claimed that there are issues, it is really his role to address them with sources a job that is easier said than done.

Beardo has touched upon some of the fundamental problems with the representation of Cuba on wikipedia. The high US demographic of Wikipedia editors - added to the magnitude of US sources on Cuba - divided by the travel restrictions on Americans visiting Cuba and deliberate misinformation put forth by US governments (this is not a conspiracy theory by the way it is acknowledged by the US government itself) - can create an unbalanced equation which is difficult to rectify.

As I say though, I don't think the material on this page is presented in a POV way. It merely catalogues the usage of a term in a neutral fashion, whether we agree with the term or not. But it would be interesting if the page carried opposing views. That is if they can be found.--Zleitzen 17:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd love it if they could be found as well; I certainly did my best to find them. If Beardo can find any sources commenting on "Tourist apartheid" from a different POV I wish he'd bring them forward. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Malaysian Women's status

Not that I agree with the plight of malaysian women, but that really isn't a type of apartheid. the afrikaner word Apartheid means seperateness. While women are disadvantaged and treated fairly poorly compaired to men, it is not a type of apartheid. Discrimination is a better word. I suggest we remove the malaysian section and find a more fitting article for it, because men and women don't live "apart" in Malaysia, it's just that women are treated inferior. Stevo D 03:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

oh, and the current title is kinda long and rediculous. how 'bout just claims of apartheid?

Opposing merger

• The phrase "Global Apartheid" is used by some on the left to describe the first-world's policies toward the third-world (which would presumably include South Africa, or at least most of that country). The concept cannot be said to exist "outside of South Africa".
• The concept of "sexual apartheid" is not limited by geographical location. I suspect that Mr. Zuma's accuser would be surprised to discover it does not exist in South Africa.

As a simple matter of logic, neither entry should be merged to this page. CJCurrie 22:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Apartheid describes a specific set of laws and practices implemented in South Africa. All these other uses describe various kinds of alleged discrimination outside the literal South African experience. Therefore the inclusion makes sense. However, you might want to rename this article to something else; I suggest Allegations of apartheid. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think "legally-established South African experience" reads better than "literal South African experience". In any event, I see no valid reason why "Global apartheid" and "Sexual apartheid" cannot remain distinct articles. CJCurrie 23:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

They were perma-stubs, part of a large concept, and, as has been explained long ago, "Sexual apartheid" meant different things, and things not described as "sexual apartheid" were included in there, and, in fact, the entire article was lifted from this very article in the first place. Just because I research and add information to this article, and HOTR then copies it to another stub, is not a reason that that stub should exist. If "Sexual apartheid" and "Gender apartheid" should be around, then you might as well have a separate article for every section on this page; why not have a Saudi apartheid article, for example - the information in there is considerably more detailed than the two merged stubs (one of which was all of three sentences). Jayjg ^(talk) 23:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to a Saudi apartheid article. In fact, I'd be happy to contribute to it. My point here, however, is simply that we shouldn't identify accusations of sexual and global apartheid in a geographically-specific way. CJCurrie 23:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Why on earth not? Why is a division based on sex or gender more logical than one based on practices of countries? As stated before, "Sexual apartheid" appears to mean completely different things; indeed, some see it as a synonym for gender apartheid, others as discrimination against lesbians and gays. And do you really assert that the treatment of women in the Anglican Church is in any way comparable to the treatment of women under the Taliban? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not making any such claim. Perhaps I should rephrase myself: I don't think we should list accusations of sexual or global apartheid on this page, as this page excludes a country where those concepts may be identified. CJCurrie 23:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with your contention, but regardless, a rename to Allegations of Apartheid would solve that in no time. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It would make most sense to have an article called Apartheid, which describes the apartheid system in South Africa, and another called Allegations of apartheid (global, sexual), which deals with situations where the term is being used loosely. The current situation is a mess. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is a grabbag of dissimilar things which have in common only the word "apartheid". It's practical function, therefore, is to hide rather than bring out into the open ie as a semi-hidden desository. This sort of format makes proper use of Cats awkward (what does it mean to have "Apartheid outside of South Africa" listed in the gender category. Why would anyone looking at that category check out this article under this title). The article should be broken up into component parts by theme (eg sexual apartheid, religious apartheid) or by country. Indeed, much of this article is already duplicated at sex segregation. The duplicated parts should be removed from this article and replaced by a link.

Indeed, as I recall, Jay advocated and helped implement the breaking up of this article into component parts and redirection of this article a year or so ago. That he has the opposite position today is curious. Perhaps he can explain why he now thinks he was wrong? 74.98.232.18 14:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The above is HOTR/Homey. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I am deleting the section on Malaysian women. if it was actually related to racial segregation (as the title apartheid suggests) then we shouldn't mention that here. maybe that could go under sexual segregation or status of women, but this article is in relation to race and or political motivation. since every ethnic group has a female half, I am deleting the Malaysian section.

BTW, The South African Experience sounds like an amusement park ride. Stevo D 04:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The section was properly referenced with reliable sources, I don't mean to be disrespectful but on wikipedia your opinion doesn't really matter.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Apartheid is a term used to villianize anyone you happen to think is discriminating against some identifiable group in some way. Racial, religious, ethnic, gender, sexual, economic, nuclear, etc., the term is used to describe all of those and more. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Israel section "critics of the term" sentence is poisoning the well

C'mon people. Saying here that people who use the phrase "Israel apartheid" support terrorism is certainly poisoning the well; this wouldn't pass muster on the main article for the section. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't say that. It implies that some who use the phrase support terrorism, which is undoubtedly the case. I have no doubt that the very people who strap on the bombs and head toward the discos and pizza places believe that the teenagers, young parents and babies they are about to slaughter are pillars of an apartheid state. 6SJ7 06:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow. That's great rhetoric. Zero to baby-killer in 6.0 seconds -- that could be a record! The POV bias here is obvious; if Israel stopped being an apartheid state, that bomber wouldn't need to be going off to slaughter those infants. You are putting the cart before the horse. Publically labelling someone an alcoholic might cause the cops to follow them home and arrest them for DUI too, but that doesn't mean the labeller supports drunk driving. Maybe it would get the person to admit they have a problem and stop doing that. -- Kendrick7^talk 09:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Your sarcastic tone does not help your argument in the least. You were the one the brought up terrorism, 6SJ7 was merely explaining the flaws in your previous statement. Your reaction was completly inappropriate and incivil.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't be sarcastic in the least. Bringing baby killing into an argument is well known as a winning rhetorical technique. Bravo, good show, etc. Although, it doesn't work particularly well on me; I for one much prefer discussion based upon reason and not base emotional appeals. -- Kendrick7^talk 11:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You are just making yourself look silly, 6SJ7 was making a valid point, nobody has said that everyone who uses the apartheid allegation supports terrorism, that was just a gratuitous strawman. However, it should be perfectly obvious that just every person who is considered a palestinian terrorist/militant probably supports the allegation.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine, fine, OK, we seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot. This sentence: Critics of the term argue that it is historically inaccurate, offensive, antisemitic, and a political epithet used as justification for terrorist attacks against Israel poisons the well. There's only criticism here, and it's all the most outlandish criticism which could be thrown at the term and conceivably stick. This section does not present anything resembling a WP:NPOV. The only way it could be any more POV would be for it to just come right out and say "People who use the term are Nazi baby-killers." -- Kendrick7^talk 11:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Please spare the hyperbole. The current phrasing is not even in the same ballpark as your "nazi baby-killer" comment. The reason that it says that "Critics of the term argue that it is historically inaccurate, offensive, antisemitic, and a political epithet used as justification for terrorist attacks against Israel" is simply because that is what critics of the term argue and we have presented reliable sources to back this up. As of yet, you have not been able to present reliable sources for your suggestions, nor has anyone come up with a valid and convincing argument for why the current article structure should be changed.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

In this context WP:NPOV is a reliable source. -- Kendrick7^talk 12:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the phrase "Critics of the term argue" makes the claim of "poisoning the well" irrelevant, since critics of the term actually do argue these things. Of course critics of the term are going to say things critical of the term, and calling it "poisoning the well" doesn't mean these statements shouldn't be in the article. 6SJ7 14:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh-huh, and I will find some German critics and add the ominous-sounding phrase or so the Germans would have us believe to the end of this sentence. After all, Germans would actually have us believe these things, so by your argument, that wouldn't be poisoning the well either. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Israel RFC

RFC as follows: Should the section on Israel contain the sentence Critics of the term argue that it is historically inaccurate, offensive, antisemitic, and a political epithet used as justification for terrorist attacks against Israel. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You must be familiar with WP:NPOV; in light of that, do you seriously think the summary should only include the claims of those making the charge, and not the arguments of those refuting it? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

All this contains is the criticism; there's no need for an unbalanced lead in to the main article and I am not alone in saying this poisons the well. Y'all seem to not be the ones unfamiliar with WP:NPOV. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The disputed sentence is quite obviously being used to delegitimize the analogy and its proponents. It might be possible to include a truncated (and less hyperbolic) sentence dealing with the perspective of critics, but leaving the sentence out entirely is equally valid. A simple description is all that we need. CJCurrie 07:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not rewrite arguments of your opponents. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I added an academic source to show that opposition to the term is the majority position of academics and journalists who have commented on it, which is why this criticism must stay. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The same source states that South Africans with experience of the apartheid system have applied it to Israel. I have added in words to that affect put have been reverted. I do not believe that the current version meets NPOV, it now reads as an attempt to discredit the use of the apartheid allegation in respect to Israeli policy, and that those who do are apologists for terrorism. I think that showing the term has been used by well-respected figures should be included. Catchpole 17:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to use Adam and Moogley as a source, you could add something closer to what they say about who uses the term. But if you start adding individual names, then in fairness we'd have to add names showing who has objected to it (and the ones objecting far outweigh the ones using it, both in numbers and in terms of their academic qualifications), and before you know it, we'll have the article right here. It's therefore best to stick to generalities. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well if you put down Melanie Phillips, I'll put down Desmond Tutu. Seriously, if you're going to label those who use the allegation as anti-semetic and apologists for terrorism you should make clear exactly how the allegation gained credibilty. How about this which acknowledges both the criticism and that the allegation has been made by respected international figures: Catchpole 22:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "Israeli apartheid" (or the terming of Israel an "apartheid state") has been used to criticize Israel's policies toward both Palestinians and Arab citizens of Israel. Proponents of this allegation include former Nobel peace laureate South African anti-apartheid leader Desmond Tutu [2]. However the majority of academics and journalists.....

Melanie Phillips is being used as a source in a footnote, not being named in the lead. If you want to add Desmond Tutu in a footnote, go ahead. You're trying to talk the allegation up by including Tutu, which in a sense is fair enough, but it means the other POV will have to include named adherents too, and then as I said above, before we know it, we're reproducing the article. Also, Tutu has compared so many things to apartheid, which would arguably need to be mentioned, but again we're into a length problem. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added a clarification saying that the treatment of Palestinians has been compared with the treatment of blacks in apartheid South Africa. This is not the same as saying Israel has a policy of apartheid. Catchpole 12:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The current wording is, if anything, even worse than before. I plan to challenge it at the earliest opportunity. CJCurrie 00:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been bold and have removed the criticism part to get rid of the POV part; there's a main article Allegations of Israeli apartheid were the controversy can be discussed at length. Qwertyus 19:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

... and my edits were all reverted, including those to other parts of the article. Thanks a lot. I've redone those and have replaced the NPOV tag with {{TotallyDisputed}}. The cited source only claims that 'The majority is incensed by the very analogy and deplores what it deems its propagandistic goals.' It does not present research or citations substantiating this claim, but just lists two examples. It does not state that criticism stands 'on the grounds that it is historically inaccurate, antisemitic propaganda, and a political epithet used to justify terrorist attacks against Israel'; these remarks are plucked together from a few other sources. Qwertyus 03:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Yet another strange revert. Because the section is supposed to be a 'very brief summary', notable proponents of the 'Israeli apartheid' thesis are not to be mentioned, yet the responses of anti-semitism and justification of terrorism remain (even though are hardly informative, since they are commonly used against just about any criticism of Israeli policy). The current 'summary' is a summary of responses, rather than a summary of the use of the terms. Qwertyus 15:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Adam and Moodley specifically state that majority of academics and journalists who have commented on the term deplore its use. That's exactly what the source says. The strange thing is, why on earth you would change that to "some"? "Some" is an inaccurate and misleading weasel word, "majority" is a direct quote. Are you deliberately misrepresenting the source? Jayjg ^(talk) 07:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Adam and Moodley do not make clear which majority this is. The majority in Anglophone countries? And how have they found this out? Qwertyus 10:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Qwertyus that the context of this majority is puzzling. Catchpole 11:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

They are experts in this very area of study; perhaps the only experts in the world. Your own POV or questions on the matter aren't really relevant; we simply quote what reliable sources have to say on the matter, we certainly don't insert our own POV that contradicts what reliable sources have said. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Experts have to be able to communicate their findings. If they are unable to do this, due to writing on behalf of an academic audience for example, we must look to try to interpret what they are saying. So if Adam and Moodley talk about a majority of academics and journalists who have used the term, they presumably have produced a summary establashing this, I do not know if it has been published, I have not located one at the link provided. But they then go onto list only two examples in support of this "majority" view, and many more examples of the two other minority views. Which I find puzzling. It may be self-evident to them that this is a majority, it does not look so cut and dried to this reader. Catchpole 22:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Please review WP:V, one of our fundamental content policies: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." We don't look at the work of academic experts, decide that we know better than them, and therefore modify their words to say something quite different from what they said. Please stop doing original research regarding the work of Adam and Moodley. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, please review WP:NOR. You keep inserting the claim that The use of the term has been the subject of a wider debate after the publication of Jimmy Carter's best-selling 2006 book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. After several challenges you finally provided a source, [3], but that source nowhere claims that "the term has been the subject of a wider debate" since Carter's book was published. You seem introducing an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source, something expressly forbidden by the WP:NOR policy. If you have a source that actually makes the claim you want to make, then we can discuss whether it is reasonable in a 3 sentence summary of the topic to add a fourth sentence intended merely to advertise Carter's recent book; but until then, please stop violating policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Now you are quibbling over semantics. The source says "Not only is the debate raging in America, but also in Israel and Palestine terroritories", so there is a debate occuring, which you do not deny. You seem to be objecting to the use of the word wider, which can be easily rectified. Reading the summary at present you would think that the issue is cut and dried and that anyone using the phrase is the boogeyman. Catchpole 10:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Introducing an entirely new concept is not "quibbling over semantics". The debate has been occurring for years, and what I'm objecting to is both original research, and to attempts to advertise Carter's book. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The current introduction ...

... is inaccurate, due to the universal passive voice in "is regarded". If someone doesn't change this, I'll be justified in putting up a disputed notice. CJCurrie 09:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't have so much trouble with the idea of rewording it, my only issue was with the words you replaced it with which I felt were at the very leat equally inaccurate.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I also object to your characterizations of my last edit as "making no sense". I feel that my reasoning was in fact pretty darn clear. Using the phrase "has been described" carries the connotation that it is a minority opinion, when it reality it is almost true by definition.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree; I don't believe "has been described" connotes a minority opinion. CJCurrie 09:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

In that case, could you please change the wording? CJCurrie 09:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know...thats kinda a lot of work for a friday :) - Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

"... has been described" does suggest that not many people have described it that way, whereas the only academics who have actually studied the use of the term closely say the majority of academic and journalistic commentators on the issue deplore its use. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Qwertyus

Can you explain why you made this edit? [4] The source does not say "some." The source says the majority of academics and journalists who have commented on the term. Why did you change it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is "academics and journalists which have commented on the term" is a subset of "academic and journalists". And if someone hasn't commented on it we do not know if they deplore it or not. "Academics and journalists which have commented on the term" has POV problems because academics and journalists who deplore the term are far likelier to comment on the term than those who do not regard the term as controversial. Catchpole 11:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

And because, as I've explained above, the context of the majority is missing. Qwertyus 17:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

What a bizarre answer; the source clearly states that it is a majority, not "some". Jayjg ^(talk) 18:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The Israel section

In light of the endless controversy over the brief "Israel" section in this article, and the constant contention over the "main" article Allegations of Israeli apartheid (of which this is supposed to be a summary), I wonder whether we really need this section at all. I realize that having a summary such as this is the normal practice, but I have to wonder whether it is worth it in this case. Why have the controversy going on in two places when it can be going on in just one? In fact, why magnify the controversy, as will inevitably occur (and has occurred) in the case of a summary that is only three or four sentences? As an example, there is enough contoversy over what to say about President Carter's book in the article about the book, and I am sure the book is mentioned in Allegations of Israeli apartheid, so why do we need to have yet another controversy, that is, whether the book is important enough to be mentioned in this brief summary? In this unusual case, wouldn't it be better just to have the cross-reference to the main article?

Recognizing that this proposal is probably contrary to some style guideline somewhere, I am not going to make this change unless there is a real consensus. I am trying to reduce controversy, not multiply it. 6SJ7 00:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the summary at present violates NPOV, however any attempt to modify this summary is reverted back to the contentious version. I would support having no summary, just a link to the article in question, in the light of this. Catchpole 10:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed and done. Why clutter the article with the POV tag and a contentious summary where there is a whole article which better explains the term. --Uncle Bungle 15:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I had hoped to get more comments on this, from a variety of viewpoints, but now I guess we will see what happens with it. It would be a sad commentary on Wikipedia if the only way to achieve consensus on a summary is to blank the summary, but that may very well be the case. As I said earlier, this topic is already the source of debate in the main article and several related articles, it does not need to be debated here as well. 6SJ7 17:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If/When the main article finds balance, it should be easy to summarize it here. --Uncle Bungle 20:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This solution seems to have stuck. Brilliant solution, Uncle Bungle. I'm off to cross out the RfC. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

... used to justify terrorism

Jay uncommented what I had commented out as not supported by the referenced source. I'll re-add the link to the article online, but here's the paragraphs I believe people are refering to:

There is a refusal to report the genocidal nature and intensity of the attacks being perpetrated against Israel. Instead, Israel’s attempt to defend itself and stop the terror is represented as a desire for vengeance or punishment—tapping into the ancient prejudice that the Jews are motivated by the doctrine of ‘an eye for an eye’—or sheer malice against the Palestinians.

Israel’s behaviour is equated—obscenely—with Nazi Germany or South Africa under apartheid, comparisons grotesquely at variance with the demonstrable facts. And, increasingly, people are saying that Israel should not exist at all, thus denying to the Jewish people alone the right of self-determination. When Israelis are terrorized by mass murder, outrage in Britain is muted on the grounds that ‘they had it coming’. Instead, more sympathy is expressed for the so-called ‘suicide bombers’ who have perpetrated the carnage, on the grounds that they are in ‘despair’ because of the way Israel has treated them. The gross imbalance and unfairness of these views can only be explained by antisemitic prejudice.

I don't see how you get from that to "[The phrase] has been ... used to justify terrorist attacks against Israel" without very generous reading between the lines. Of course quote mining won't solve the outstanding POV problem of only presenting the most outlandish critical view here. (Phillips hardly seems very academic here; how can you talk about the British attitude toward terrorism and not mention Ireland even in passing? And I don't see how she can say Palestinian attacks rise to the level of genocide. But I digress.) -- Kendrick7^talk 05:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

American Apartheid

The article is locked now but I think it should have some reference to the sociological study done by Massey and Denton in the book [http://www.amazon.com/American-Apartheid-Segregation-Making-Underclass/dp/0674018214/sr=8-1/qid=1171246132/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-4778978-4404765?ie=UTF8&s=books American Apartheid] 128.146.93.66 02:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Australia and other comments

This is a very interesting article. If you were to provide the lable of Apartheid to current Australian practices regarding the Aborigines then could you not also equally apply this tag to people who are from other low socio economic areas? The Aborigines receive a greater share of public money compared to the unemployed, migrants and other 'disadvantaged' groups. In reality it seems this article is just a piece of very biased social commentary. Whatever happened to the neutrality of WP? Ozdaren 01:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Lead

The lead here needs some work. It currently presents no actual introduction to anything in the article. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, made some changes. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Economics project?

Anyone make sence of the project listing up top here? I know there was a bot on the loose a while back adding this tag. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

I've put a POV tag on this article. I think it's long-overdue and don't know why I didn't notice it before. There are at least 14 countries and 3 religious groups here with allegations of apartheid cited, and essentially zero representation of arguments against the allegations. For many of these countries, the idea that the country practices or has practiced apartheid is the POV of a tiny minority. We've got the U.N. Sudanese representative saying, "Canada and New Zealand's support for the practices of slavery and apartheid are well known" and nothing which says anyone disagrees with him. Kla'quot 16:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should use sectional POV tags. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If you think sectional POV tags are better, than a tag on the whole article, go ahead. I have no preference either way. Kla'quot 05:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not just put a speedy delete tag on it?--Doc^g 23:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Because the last AfD closed as keep, and I think it's almost always bad to speedy an article if the community has expressed a wish to keep it. Take it to DRV if you wish to challenge Majorly's closure. I think it could have been closed as Delete. Kla'quot 01:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Iran

I substituted extremely controversial and POV quotation with NPOV description[5].--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 07:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The quote you replaced, was direct and about the situation of women in Iran. What you replaced it with, was a collection of different matters regarding women in Islamic Republic, a photo essay about Iranian women police?! What has "and 14 women being elected to the Islamic Consultative Assembly in 1996" got to do with gender separation laws in Iran?! this version isn't necessary that great. --Rayis 16:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

OK I have removed the less relevant info --Rayis 16:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That quotation is not reliable. Nobody says in Iran that woman are the source of all evil. On the other hand I can show you many positive quotations about women. It's completely a libel .--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 18:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That quotation is not verifiable:The page not found. Furthermore it's not reliable because its the idea of the writer and there are clear proofs against it.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 19:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There was no reason to revert my contributions, if you feel you needed to take out the quote, you can do that manually. Found correct source for the quote. --Rayis 22:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I put {{Totallydisputed}} tag on it because the quotation is against WP:A, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

LOL! How exactly?! can you explain? --Rayis 09:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a propaganda which has based on the speaker's idea. Using words like not treated as human beings, the source of all evil or brutally monitored and curtailed shows it's completely biased. I tried to find one source for her surprising claims but I couldn't because it's not an article. It is a speech as you can see. Just look at the last paragraph of that article:If you appreciate Phyllis Chesler's books and articles, please help by making a contribution to the Phyllis Chesler Organization. In these times, her courageous and independent voice depends upon your contribution. All donations are tax-deductible. Your generous contribution will help keep the fight against lies and propaganda alive. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 10:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No Sa. That means it is against propoganda, propoganda from Islamic Republic. How is it speaker's idea? Read the comments by Iranian women who started that 1 million campaign, a few of them are in jail now. Suprising? No. Stop your reverts just because you don't like that quote, it isn't too far from truth and it certainly isn't "propoganda", that's your POV. Leave it out and stop the reverts. --Rayis 16:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I think you misunderstood. It can be propaganda as well as Islamic Repoblic propaganda. I mean propaganda against propaganda. A reliable source should have references or be written by a knowledgeable scholar on the basis of definite facts. Using such words in the speech have made it libelous story.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 17:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I had to remove the section. It is a classic case of undue weight on a fringe view (using 'apartheid' to describe the differences), and then the tying in of supposedly related information that isn't actually addressing any allegation of apartheid. So the troublesome section is gone. The Behnam 16:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact, if there are other countries that have undue weight placed on trivial accusations they might need their sections removed too. The Behnam 16:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've re-added the section but with a real source and a more notable opinion (Akbar Ganji). Now we need to expand on his views and also add an opposing view, as these are rather severe allegations against a country. The Behnam 17:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I propose this one as a clear and neutral text:

Iran has also been accused of implementing a "gender apartheid" system at the behest of religious leaders.[6] In an article titled "Islamic gender apartheid". The impact on women of the Islamic Republic of Iran has been particularly mixed. One of the striking features of the Iranian revolution was the large scale participation of women — women from traditional backgrounds — in demonstrations.(Graham Iran (1980) p. 227.) Some of this liberating effect has continued on, with, for example, large numbers of women in the civil service and higher education,Adult education offers new opportunities and options to Iranian women and 14 women being elected to the Islamic Consultative Assembly in 1996. Also there are women in Police of Iran for dealing with crimes committed by women.Iran's thin black line On the other hand, the Islamic republic is ideologically committed to inequality for women in inheritance and other areas of the the civil code; and especially to segregation of the sexes. Everything from "schoolrooms to ski slopes to public buses" is strictly segregated. In the first years after revolution female who didn't covered all part of their body except hands and face — is subject to punishment of up to 70 lashes or 60 days imprisonment.(Wright, The Last Great Revolution (2000), p. 136.)--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 17:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's another posible rewrite:

Iran has also been accused of implementing a "gender apartheid" system at the behest of religious leaders. Feminist activist Phyllis Chesler has asserted "women in the Islamic world are not treated as human beings," article titled "Islamic gender apartheid" The Islamic republic has been ideologically committed to inequality for women in inheritance and other areas of the the civil code; and especially to segregation of the sexes. Everything from "schoolrooms to ski slopes to public buses" is strictly segregated. In the first years after the revolution females who didn't covered all part of their body except hands and face were subject to punishment of up to 70 lashes or 60 days imprisonment.(Wright, The Last Great Revolution (2000), p. 136.)

On the other hand, the revolution has never been without participation of, and advantages to women. Observers of the demonstrations leading up to the Iranian revolution noted the large scale participation of women — women from traditional backgrounds.(Graham Iran (1980) p. 227.) Some of this liberating effect has continued on, with, for example, large numbers of women in the civil service and higher education,Adult education offers new opportunities and options to Iranian women and a special section of women in Police of Iran for dealing with crimes committed by women.Iran's thin black lineIn 1996, 14 women being elected to the Islamic Consultative Assembly.-- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leroy65X (talk • contribs) 18:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

One problem I have with that text is "In the first years after the revolution females who didn't covered all part of their body except hands and face were subject to punishment of up to 70 lashes or 60 days imprisonment."

because that implies that it is no longer the case, but today if a woman is to show her body parts (besides hands and face) in public she is still "punished" --Rayis 22:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

At present you can find women who show some part of their hair and body without any punishment, even if they were punished as you told before.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not legal by the laws of the state. That's like saying some people steal and get away with it --Rayis 10:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

In the Islamic republic it can't be legal by the laws. Islam doesn't support egalitarian idea in the case of gender. It doesn't mean that everything are against women. For example men should buy for their wives and children their necessities while women can work and save their money for themselves.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 14:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Former Soviet Union

This section needs to stick to the 'allegations' instead of focusing on the political epithet, as the epithet isn't talking the same 'apartheid' as this article is covering. Hence there should be more about the condition of whatever minorities. The Behnam 17:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Canada and New Zealand

I've removed the following paragraph as I believe it is the POV of a tiny minority and its due weight is negligible:

In response to the embarrassment caused by Canadian and New Zealand criticism of the human rights situation in Sudan at the U.N., Sudanese representative Mohamed Ali Mohammed Saeed claimed that "Canada and New Zealand's support for the practices of slavery and apartheid are well known".

Kla'quot 03:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I support removing this nonsense -we also need to remove it from NZ. I tried to fix it rather than delete before only because I'm a Canadian living in NZ and I thought someone might call foul ;) It worth noting that slavery was abolished before either country's independence. See Act Against Slavery and Slavery_Abolition_Act. As for "support for apartheid", which addresses the topic of the article, both countries were instrumental in kicking South Africa out of the Commonwealth because of it, and supported sanctions. <<-armon->> 12:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

New apartheid wall in Baghdad

Story just hitting the wires today; the U.S. is contructing a wall around a Sunni neighborhood in the capital and the Sunnis aren't happy. I don't know if anyone had called it apartheid yet, but it's a something to keep an eye on. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"Yet"? I find that pretty funny. But, by all means, let's keep an eye on the situation and make sure that not a single use of the word "apartheid", by anyone, fails to get reported on Wikipedia. The encyclopedia could not survive without a complete catalogue of the use of this word. Also, I wonder, doesn't the Arabic language have a word for "separation" so that they (and all of us) don't have to use the corresponding word in Afrikaans, a language spoken by a tiny fraction of the world's population? It's a good thing that Afrikaans is there, because apparently it is the only language in the world, including English, with a word for that concept. (Although I hate to have to do so, past experience tells me that I'd better announce that the preceding is sarcasm, with the exception of the one purely rhetorical question in the middle there.) 6SJ7 21:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

let's keep an eye on the situation and make sure that not a single use of the word "apartheid", by anyone, fails to get reported on Wikipedia. Why quit when we're ahead? -- Kendrick7^talk 22:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Meaning of the word "Apartheid"

The 2002 treaty establishing the International Criminal Court defines crime of apartheid and refers to "committed in the context of an institutionalised regime". "Institutionalised" in this sense means a national system that 'permanently' links citizens to an ethnic or religious group (eg giving them different identity cards, South African style). I don't see any reference to this central practise in this article and fear we're encouraging abuse of the term, with consequent blurring of the criminal definition. (The same thing happens if we use the word apartheid for gender discrimination, I'd be very surprised if the ICC intended that to be a crime). Nor do I see much in the way of linkage to "separate development", wherein the policy is intended to maintain differences/discriminations. The lead needs to be much more specific. Allegations of apartheid may have been made against many societies, but our article should indicate when the word is used in a criminal sense, and when it's just an epithet. PalestineRemembered 08:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the normative use by sources of "apartheid" outside of its original use in South Africa is as an analogy, not as a defined crime. The ICC indeed defines it as a crime: however the ICC doesn't cover the totally of the world, and hence it is part of the use of apartheid, but not its only definitive use. There is certainly a much to say as to why certain countries refuse to join the ICC, but that is entirely out of the scope of this article (unless a source mentions this).

This is entirely irrelevant, but the ICC does define a number of gender-based crimes, so I do not understand why you would be surprised if they defined extreme forms of gender discrimination as crimes? They do not define racial or ethnic discrimination as a crime, either, just the crime of apartheid.--Cerejota 12:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Allegations of apartheid

Template:Allegations of apartheid has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Terraxos 02:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I don't see any recent neutrality issues, so I am removing. If you replace it, please explain why.--Cerejota 05:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Allegations of French apartheid

Unlike other sub-pages that stem from this article, the French page has very few sources and is made extensive by the use of long quotes. It can be rewritten and merged into this page for lack of content that warrants its own page. Further more, the allegations are so not notable as to warrant a page of its own.--Cerejota 16:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie removed the {{mergefrom}} tag from Allegations of French apartheid, according to the edit summary because he opposes the merger. This is an incorrect way to proceed: the tag is meant to open discussion, and is not in itself subject to removal before a discussion develops consensus. It is less radical than a AfD, and less formal, but it is still part of a process and should be respected as such by all editors. I hope Urthogie provides his opinion here and we can have a productive discussion, as meant by the tag. Thanks! --Cerejota 00:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately experienced editor and administrator Jayjg has done the same. He knows this is wrong. Please discuss, not edit war.--Cerejota 04:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Your claiming I have done something that I know is wrong is a violation of WP:CIVIL. Please desist. Regarding the article, it has grown considerably since you first tagged it. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a violation, because you did it: You accused me of defacing the page, when in fact I was using established procedure for merging, including providing a clear rationale. You also accused me of not providing the rationale, when I actually did provide it, as is obvious above. Disagreeing/agreeing with this rationale is what this thread is about, however, this also means you should allow the discussion to flow.

While the article has grown, it has not grown in actual encyclopedic content, but in quotefarm. Size inflation is alluded in my initial merge proposal, and remains true. I suggest you allow the discussion to flow, and try to assume a bit of good faith. Your argument about size might prove true if we rework the article to encyclopedic standards, but size based on quotes that are not needed is not a good argument.--Cerejota 05:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Saying "but it's true" is the weakest possible defense for violations of WP:CIVIL; that is, none whatsoever. You claimed I knowingly removed the tags when I "knew" it was wrong. In fact, the article has grown considerably since you tagged it (it's now up to 14 sources), and there was little reason to tag it in the first place besides defacement. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I just clicked on the "Random article" button 20 times. Not one article had 14 sources/footnotes. In fact, the most I saw was four. The vast majority of them were much shorter than Allegations of French apartheid. Your "standards" for merger etc. are not Wikipedia's. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, I will ignore the personal issue as unproductive, and try to concentrate on editing. It is obvious you are not being WP:COOL, as I have told you repeatedly that my intention was not defacement, and you should trust me on that. You know as a fact that while we have not always agreed (but we have also agreed!), I have always been productive and helpful, and this is why I felt hurt when you accused me of "defacement", when this was never my intention. Furthermore, you falsely accused me of not providing a rationale. My rationale might be a wrong one, in your opinion, but it is still a rationale. --Cerejota 06:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I actually rewrote the article to elminate quotefarm, and it seems that you were correct an now it has enough content to warrant its own page. I am removing the tags.--Cerejota 06:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You've violated WP:3RR by reverting out that material. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Please Jayjg, do you really are in disagreement with the edits? 3RR is meant to deter edit warring, not to preclude editing. Please, calm down! BTW, I would have reverted, as I do not object the content per se, just the quotefarm, but someone else has done editing to it, which puts me between a rock and a hard place... if you understand?--Cerejota 12:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I didn't report you, but please discuss more and revert less. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

northern ireland

pfff there is a full article about a fictitious "french apartheid" while there is nothing about the REAL northern irleand apartheid! why? ever heard about northern ireland anyone? and there is no "race" concept nor "ethnic ratio" and there was nothing like Racial segregation in france!! Paris By Night 09:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You need to review WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Allegations of Northern Irish apartheid

Too little sourcing or notability to warrant a separate page, it should be a section here. I am not sure how notable the sources are, but that we can handle later.--Cerejota 14:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Allegations of Puerto Rican apartheid

After removal of OR and irrelevant sources, only one source was left, with a single quote. It should be merged into this page, unless a notable debate emerges around allegations of apartheid in Puerto Rico. As a side note, since Puerto Rico is not an independent country, this might also fall under the US, but since I am anti-colonial in outlook, I would let other editors decide on that. --Cerejota 14:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems some more sources were added. Does the size now warrant a merge, or a page on its own?--Cerejota 03:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments?--Cerejota 06:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I am merging.--Cerejota 04:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

New Navbox

I have added this article to the "Types of segregation" navbox, to provide further context.--Victor falk 19:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

An allegation is not a type of segregation, unless you're suggesting the allegations are true, and they describe real segregation. That would be very POV.--Urthogie 19:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Original Research in Lead

"More recently, the term "apartheid" has been used as analogy to include any wholesale discrimination based on race, ethnicity, culture, religion, economic status, gender, sexual orientation or other characteristics. This use as an analogy is controversial and is regarded by its detractors as an epithet." This is unsupported original research. There is no sourced general debate about the legitimacy of using the term outside of its South African context. There are just local instances of Jane saying X is apartheid, and Dick saying no it ain't. In none of these cases does the "detractor" say, "you can't use "apartheid" as an analogy – it only applies to the real thing." Rather, the detractor just thinks it ain't fair in the case of X, and says so. The sentences above (which I've radically rewritten) were not just technical violations of WP:NOR; they were astonishing, wholly unsupported, and probably untrue extrapolations.--G-Dett 01:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced this sentence –

Critics of this use of the term view it as an epithet.

with the following sentence:

In some instances, the analogy is contested and dismissed as an epithet.

For the reasons I explained above. The five footnotes give examples of sources disagreeing with other sources about the applicability of the word "apartheid" in this or that context; none of the five sources are "critics of this use of the term" and none voice any general objections to metaphorical extensions of the context of apartheid.

Jay has reverted my change as "vandalism." He appears to be having an "apartheid"-related meltdown; perhaps he'll think better of it and self-revert before we have to go through an RfC, mediation, and the rest of it.--G-Dett 04:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Er, I guess not. [7] [8]--G-Dett 05:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

RfC on the Lead

Having noted that "more recently, the term 'apartheid' has been used to describe alleged wholesale discrimination" outside of South Africa, the lead claims that "critics of this use of the term view it as an epithet." The five citations offered as support for this claim, however, in fact only offer instances where a specific allegation is contested. In three of the five cases an allegation of apartheid against Israel is rebuffed; in the fourth (actually f.n. 1), highly theoretical and off-topic example, Paul Rabinow demurs from the idea that cultural relativism offers a "cultural apartheid" as compensation to Western scholars who have been dethroned from their colonial perch; the fifth actually appears to be about the use of the word "apartheid" in post-apartheid South Africa. Absolutely none of the sources actually voices any general objections to metaphorical extensions of the context of apartheid outside of South Africa. This extrapolation – in which sources opposed to this or that thing being called apartheid are presented as opposing metaphorical extensions of "apartheid" across the board – is textbook original research.

I replaced it with the following sentence, in order to preserve the gist of the sentence while eliminating the OR: "In some instances, the analogy is contested and dismissed as an epithet." This change has since been reverted without explanation, with a puzzling edit summary describing it as "vandalism."--G-Dett 05:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Your edit seemed perfectly reasonable to me. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 06:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's take another loaded term by way of example, say "war criminal." If we're going to say, "critics of the use of the term for those never charged with or found guilty of war crimes view it as an epithet," which of the following statements would offer proper RS-support?

1. "Every wartime leader gets his hands dirty to some degree. The words 'war criminal' have come to be thrown a little too loosely in recent years; these days it tells us more about the ideological orientation of the accuser than about the wrongdoing of the accused."
2. "John Kerry isn't a 'war criminal' – he's a national hero who's been slandered by his political opponents."

To my eyes, it's quite clear that only citation #1 is valid support for the sentence. All five of the citations in the lead, however, are of the #2 variety.

I'll leave this til tomorrow, and if there's no contest here I'll restore the supported sentence and remove the OR.--G-Dett 18:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a contest here. I don't think the sentence in question is OR, in fact I don't think it goes far enough. I preferred previous versions that said, approximately, "The use of the phrase outside the South African context is controversial, and is viewed by many as an epithet." (I'm not sure that's really grammatical, but it captures the gist of what was there for months.) In looking back, I see that sentences like that one had 4 references, while the current version has 5. I am not sure which one has been added. Anyway, I do not think that generalizing from a group of sources is necessarily OR, assuming that one is generalizing accurately. Sources on a particular subject often say somewhat different things, but as long as they are going in the same direction, smoothing over the differences to produce a single statement is not necessarily OR; I think it is a matter of degree. In this case, the sources all support the overall statement. In the case of note 2, there is direct criticism of the general use of the phrase and an indirect statement that it is used as an epithet generally, not just in the case of a single country. ("Apartheid is dead in South Africa but the word is alive in the world, especially as an epithet of abuse for Israel.... (Then some specific stuff about Israel)... Use of the apartheid label is at best ignorant and naïve and at worst cynical and manipulative.... "Apartheid" is used in this case and elsewhere because it comes easily to hand: it is a lazy label for the complexities of the Middle East conflict.") 6SJ7 19:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

6SJ7, would you be happy with my version, "In some instances, the analogy is contested and dismissed as an epithet"? Wouldn't that more accurately represent the citations?

The CAMERA quote (about the word being alive in the world, esp. with regards to Israel, etc.), which is actually a Benjamin Pogrund quote, is the only phrase in any of these five sources that says anything about objecting to the term's use outside of South Africa. If a politician says he's opposed to the Iraq war, then any Wikipedian who cites this as evidence that the politician is a pacifist is engaged in original research, right?

To be clear, I'd be fine with the article saying lower down from the lead that "Benjamin Pogrund has criticized the use of the term 'apartheid' outside of its South African context," but absent further support, the claim in the lead is original research and will have to go.--G-Dett 20:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

6JS7, while of course I agree with you that the sentence is not "OR", as is quite obvious, I would also point out that an "analogy" cannot be an "epithet", only a "term" or "word" can be an epithet. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

In general I think use of ref tags in leads is ugly. I think the lead should always flow from content, and as such, the sources used in the text should be sufficient. I do understand that this article might justify their use, so am willing to hear arguments for their use, but I think we can be mature enough to not have them and understand they flow from the sources. Thanks!--Cerejota 03:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that Cerejota has a point, but I would go further to say that the use of refs in a lead often means that the material is disputed, and it is better to have unchallengeable material in the lead. Put the controversial stuff in later on where it can be rebutted. --Marvin Diode 14:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem I see with your suggestion is that it leaves the lead vurnerable to POV pushing: simply placing a sourcing tag can be interpreted as a dispute. In non-controversial articles this might work, but in contentious, controversial articles it doesn't scale. I say we obey fraking WP:AGF and leave leads uncited, sourced in the article and explained on talk pages. Thanks!--Cerejota 10:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Skirmishing over the lead

Jay, you've objected to the sentence "In some instances, the allegation is contested and dismissed as an epithet," first on the grounds that it was vandalism, next on the grounds that it's original research, and now on the grounds that "allegations can't be epithets." Let's focus on your second and third objections. How is it original research? There are five citations in which the allegation is contested and dismissed as an epithet. Only one of those five citations can possibly be interpreted as generally disputing the use of the term outside of its South African context. What you keep inserting when you revert me – "More recently, the term "apartheid" has been used to describe alleged wholesale discrimination...in contexts other than South Africa. Critics of this use of the term view it as an epithet" – strongly implies that the cited sources dispute, as a general matter of principle, the use of the term outside of its South African context. As this is only even arguably supported by one of the five cites, I modified the phrasing to eliminate the original research.

I'd be grateful if you'd explain why the sentence I wrote is original research. I can't understand it, and as you haven't explained it, it looks quite a bit like you're reverting me in anger and making a know-you-are-but-what-am-I sort of WP:POINT. If not, please explain.

I would also be grateful if you'd rewrite the disputed passage in such a way that satisfies your sense of proper phraseology, but does not put forward the original-research claim that these five critics oppose in principle the use of the term outside of its South African context. They do not. Thanks.--G-Dett 16:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

While they refer to different underlying situations, each of the citations is clear that it is the term "apartheid" that is an epithet. I'm not sure where the original research comes into it. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It's OR because it strongly implies that the cited sources object to the use of the term outside of its South African context. They do not.

Putting your claim of "vandalism" aside, how does my substitute phrasing – "In some instances, the allegation is contested and dismissed as an epithet" – constitute original research?--G-Dett 16:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the current wording states or implies that they specifically object to its use outside the South African context, but rather that they see the term as an epithet, which is pretty clear, since they all say that. In fact, the latest source I brought actually applies the term to other countries, while still viewing it as an epithet. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Using epithet in this sense is a euphemism in itself. I think less weaselly phrasing should be used. Catchpole

I'm unclear as to what you are saying. The sources say "epithet". Jayjg ^(talk) 17:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Jay, it isn't clear to me that they generally see the term as an epithet when applied to contexts other than South Africa, yet that is what the text now claims. What is clear to me is that source #1 thinks that "cultural apartheid" is an unfair epithet for Boasian anthropology, which emphasizes cultural "difference" over universalisms. It is clear to me that the next three sources think it's an epithet when applied to Israel. And it's clear to me that the sixth source doesn't like the term being used in a casual way for post-apartheid South Africa (this sixth source, incidentally, doesn't use the word "epithet").

To make the distinction as clear as possible, here are two kinds of general statement, boiled down:

1. "'Apartheid' only applies to South Africa's system of government from 1948 to 1993. Use of the term for other contexts is an epithet."
2. "Accusing Israel of apartheid reduces the term to an epithet. Whether viewed from a historical vantage or an ethical one, the situation in Israel is not apartheid and doesn't resemble apartheid."

#1 above is your opinion, as you've expressed it on Wikipedia talk pages. #2 above is the position expressed by your citations. Positions #1 and #2 are very distinct, and I'd like the article to be worded more carefully so that it doesn't substitute #1 for #2. Your sources are not "critics" of the dictionary definition of "apartheid"; each in his unrelated turn merely disputes its use with regards to Boasian anthropology in one instance, to Israel in another, and so on. (Your latest citation isn't a "critic" of anything; he doesn't belong here at all, and surely you realize "epithet" is also a generic term for a fixed phrase, in addition to being a derogatory term for a derogatory phrase.) A person who says "Henry Kissinger is no war criminal, and shouldn't be smeared with the epithet" is not a critic of the term "war criminal." These are, in short, disputes about who's guilty of what, not about the meaning of the word. Please suggest ways the problem can be fixed.--G-Dett 18:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Jay, why have you just added a source who makes and endorses the allegation to a list of examples of what you're calling "critics of this use of the term"?

This is becoming nonsensical. Why don't we just say, "Given the term's negative connotations, allegations of apartheid often stimulate controversy and are hotly contested"? Would anyone object to that rephrasing?--G-Dett 18:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course I would object to that original research, because the sources say it is an epithet. That's the word they use. I've adjusted the wording to take into account your concerns. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jay, your edit doesn't address any of my concerns. I wonder if you might read my posts again?--G-Dett 09:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Northern Ireland vs France

I don't think that removing Northern Ireland on the ground that "these aren't "allegations", they're occasional comparisons and analogies" is consistent with keeping the article about France which contains also occasional comparisons and analogies. Teofilo talk 10:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think these where the main grounds. I think the same proposal was made about the French article, and no consensus developed. I think the French article is much more substantially on topic thatthe North Irish article was, anyways. Please evade the temptation to build strawmen. Thanks!--Cerejota 10:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Lead, cont'd

Jay, you continue to tweak the wording so that a political dispute (about whether Israel practices apartheid or not) is represented as a general linguistic dispute about whether use of the term "apartheid" outside of South Africa is legitimate. You've tried various formulations; strikingly, all of them contain this deceptive ambiguity. My phrasing eliminates the ambiguity while hewing closely to your terminology of choice, and at no measurable cost to the lead's brevity. If you have concerns about it, please voice them here.--G-Dett 16:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I can see that Jay is continuing his edit-war to keep the deceptive lead in place, and doing so under the camouflage of deceptive edit summaries [9] [10] while steadfastly refusing to engage on the talk page. I'll briefly post here so that other editors may understand the nature of a dispute that threatens to get the article locked and waiting in the mediation queue. Here are the two versions of the disputed sentence:

1. Version 1: In some cases the allegation is hotly contested and the term dismissed as an epithet.
2. Version 2: These allegations are often hotly contested, and the term's use in this sense dismissed as an epithet.

The versions are pretty equivalent in tone, diction, and concision (mine is 15 words, Jay's 17). Despite repeated requests, Jay has never explained why he prefers Version 2 to the point of edit-warring over it. I have however explained several times why Version 1 is clearly preferable. Firstly, the citations provided do not establish that the allegations are "often" hotly contested. All that the four citations show is that the allegation of Israeli apartheid is hotly contested; they don't show that the allegation in general is hotly contested. Indeed if the rest of the this article and the other "allegations of apartheid" articles are to be believed, the allegation is rarely contested. Secondly and more importantly, the second clause of Version 2 is a rather slippery bit of original research. The "term's use in this sense" is not dismissed by the sources as an epithet. The "term's use in this sense" clearly refers to the sense outlined in the previous sentence: "More recently, the term "apartheid" has been used to describe alleged wholesale discrimination...in contexts other than South Africa." Jay's version is designed to insinuate that this "use" itself is what's at issue, that is, that his four sources contest the very use of the word "apartheid" outside of a South African context. This is false: all his sources do is contest the allegation of Israeli apartheid. (In the course of doing so, one of the four suggests that the term is generally overused; another by contrast applies the term "apartheid" to a whole slew of non-South-African contexts, contesting its legitimacy only with regards to Israel; the other two do not appear to be even slightly concerned with the status of the word so long as it's not thrown at Israel). Jay has repeatedly invoked brevity as a rationale for his edit war, but he has not seen fit to explain why adding four words here ("use in this sense") clarifies anything, much less to respond to my objection that it creates a misleading ambiguity. In short, Jay's maddening game has every appearance of a calculated deception.

My hope is that this can be resolved in a manner that is minimally disruptive and exasperating, but that is entirely up to Jay. Until there's a good-faith attempt to address my legitimate objections, I will continue to modify the lead so as to eliminate ambiguity and deception. I am open to any formulation that does not falsely imply that the "term's use in this sense" – i.e. for non-South-African contexts – is itself controversial.--G-Dett 18:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

User:G-Dett, I've explained to you before, when you make uncivil comments like "deceptive", I don't bother to read further. Please let me know when you are willing to completely dedicate yourself to abiding by the important civility policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not a violation of WP:CIVIL to point out intentional deceptions and other disruptiveness, Jay, especially when the disruptive editor refuses categorically to engage on the talk page. When you're ready to address the content issues and stop trolling, let me know and we can work out a policy-compliant compromise. Until then, any edits that misrepresent source material will be reverted or modified. Thanks.--G-Dett 19:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that use of the term apartheid outside South Africa is not of itself controversial. States that issue ID and define people into "communities", whether religious or ethnic, are practising apartheid. Perhaps a link to seperate but equal would help. Version 1 of that line is clearly better than Version 2 - but is still unnecessarily kind to nations accused in this fashion (is there even any evidence that Cuba, Brazil, Saudi etc have ever hotly contested the use of the word "apartheid" for their practises, or claimed it was an epithet?). PalestineRemembered 17:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Urban apartheid

The primary definition given in the "urban apartheid" article referred to its use under South African apartheid in regards to legislation that segregated Blacks in Townships, ie the Group Areas Act and the Population Regulation Act. To redirect the article to something called "allegations of apartheid" is completly absurd since the term is not an allegation. Please restore the article. -- LOTHAR

Well, you have a point there, but you've mixed it with other material that consists of allegations, so it has gotten messy now. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not my fault that urban apartheid was practiced in South Africa under the Nationalist Party regime and is a term that's now also applied outside of South Africa. It might be messy but it's also reality - a reality that isn't accurately represented by calling it an "allegation of". Do you agree that our dispute is now resolved on this issue so that the urban apartheid article can be unprotected and restored? -- LOTHAR

I have to say...

... from what I thought was a really annoying subject matter, this is turning into an excellent article. When and if it stabilizes, I think it should be nominated as a featured article. --Leifern 13:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

I'd like to propose that this article be renamed Apartheid analogies or List of apartheid analogies in order to make the title neutral. As Mackensen said in Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration "any article entitled "Allegation of X" has forfeited its claim to neutrality from the outset". Lothar of the Hill People 16:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support for my proposal. Lothar of the Hill People 16:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to slap an AFD on this article as soon as the protection comes off. --Ideogram 16:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

People don't seem to know the meaning of the word allegation. In the context of Allegations_of_apartheid#Definition_of_the_International_Criminal_Court, the title is fine. -- 67.98.206.2 18:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Only when you're speaking of cases where a country has been formally charged with committing the "crime of apartheid" by the ICC's prosecutor or the UN. Otherwise, it's an inappropriate word to use. Lothar of the Hill People 21:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I have requested unblock

This has been blocked for almost 2 weeks, a record breaking amount of time. It is time it is unblocked and I have requested that blocking admin do so. Thanks!--Cerejota 06:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected ~ Anthøny 21:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

There have been a numbers of mergers and reorganizations

So this page is not immune.

I suggest we discuss:

1) Change the title

2) Restructuring the different sections, and include links to the various pages into which a number of former subpages have been migrated.

3) Look for secondary sources that speak of apartheid outside of the South African context

4) Expand the sections that link to other pages

5) Work a better lead

Thanks!--Cerejota 06:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Epithet

These allegations are often hotly contested, and the term's use in this sense dismissed as an epithet.

If you actually look at the sources for the above statement you see that they three of the four refer only to Israel and the fourth to the "Nuclear apartheid" term. They do not refer to the use of apartheid outside of South Africa in general. Therefore, the sources do not support the statement. Also, placing this statement in the lede is poisoning the well, particularly given what the sources actually refer to. Lothar of the Hill People 14:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This is clearly POV. Thanks!--Cerejota 06:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion 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.

I think this article should be renamed Apartheid (alternate meanings). Lothar of the Hill People 01:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support my proposal as a more neutral and accurate description of the article. Lothar of the Hill People 01:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Opposed, the proposed new title seems less neutral and less accurate. Plus it would be confusing since there is a page Apartheid, which is a redirect to an article about South Africa. 6SJ7 01:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you suggest some alternatives so we can get away from the "allegations of" weasel wording? Lothar of the Hill People 14:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
    • How about "Controversial uses of the word "apartheid"", with the quotes around "apartheid". 6SJ7 06:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It is an improvement over the current title. But I think a more apt rename would be Apartheid, which would describe the term in all of its various applications and provide links to articles on all the separate sub-topics, beginning most prominently with the South African case of course. Is there a reason that you feel the parantheses is necessary? Tiamat 21:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - I do not particularly like the current title, but it is wrong to make it more confusing to the reader and less NPOV. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • As above, since you agree the current title is unsatisfactory can you suggest an alternative that reflects the article's content? Lothar of the Hill People 14:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Question How exactly is the proposed change less NPOV than the current title? Isn't "Allegations" a weasel word? Haven't most of the articles in this series been renamed because of the rejection by many editors of this awkward and inexact formulation? Isn't it more confusing and less accurate to use a term that is supposed to have a specific legal meaning on an article that describes the different uses of the term apartheid?Tiamat 11:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Proposed title assumes these alleged forms of apartheid actually are forms of apartheid, which is not NPOV. Altho the weasel word is unsatisfactory, that's better than giving the impression of a fact where there are only (contending) opinions, which is also an argument against Tiamat's alternative proposal. BobFromBrockley 12:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • As above, please suggest an alternative. Lothar of the Hill People 14:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Recent reorganizations of the page have been taking the content in the right direction. The use of the term is relation to countries and their policies is now properly contextualized and is followed by a mere listing of countries who have had their policies described as such. The bulk of the article focuses of the ways that apartheid has been used, beginning with the South African meaning, covering also the Crime of apartheid, and its use in combination with other adjectives as in the case of Social apartheid or Gender apartheid. I think an article providing an honest overview of the full meaning of the word Apartheid with links to main articles covering its various uses when supported by reliable secondary sources is needed. Tiamat 13:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support under one condition: the History of South Africa in the Apartheid era will be renamed and moved to the Apartheid article. Otherwise it doesn't make any sense. Actually, any high school kid looking for the meaning of the word is being redeirected to the entire history of a country he may or may not have heard of, which probably makes him puke. Any other than English language Wikipedia has its own article on apartheid, see for example the German version, very simply written and well documented article. It will also help to clear the "Israeli apartheid" mess. greg park avenue 14:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - suggested title out of thin air in the middle of an ArbCom, instead of engaging in discussion. There is no deadline, lets discuss. Thanks!--Cerejota 01:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• ArbCom has already ruled on Israeli apartheid leaving it to us, while all other allegations have been previously either deleted or moved or merged. What a reason to continue to move in circles and discuss the same subject repeating ourselves. Jossi' first idea to move Israeli article → Apartheid analogy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict had a merit and probably would reach consensus, and guess who stalled it by insisting to switch "analogy" to "controversy"? You and BYT, no one else. Now this proposal has merit too, and as a packet together with my proposal to return from "History of South Africa..." back to its original version "Apartheid", would create a pretty consistent picture of all this apartheid issue. Thanks! greg park avenue 14:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Cerejota, if you want to have more discussion (and that's what this is in any case) why don't you make some suggestions for titles for this article? Also, ArbCom doesn't rule on content so there's no reason why we have to wait for the arbitration before coming to a consensus. Lothar of the Hill People 19:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I have proposed or supported dozens of alternatives. Please read the archives and a little more to the top. Thanks!--Cerejota 00:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose they are allegations, not alternative meanings. There is uncertianty to the validity of the claims. "Alternative meanings" does not show doubt in the claims.--Sefringle^Talk 06:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Allegations suggests that criminal charges have been filed under international law. Can you suggest another title? Lothar of the Hill People 19:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - there's been quite enough discussion of this topic, with significant evidence of disruptive behaviour from some quarters (I think there's still an ArbCom looking at some of it). I'm quite unhappy about the titles of a number of articles - but I try and buckle down to improve the content. That's what needs doing in this case too. PalestineRemembered 20:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

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

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. --Stemonitis 17:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

PoV flag

I don't want to start a new battle on this article.
The different discussions here above and the lack of consensus indicate there is a controversy about the neutrality of the title and as a consequence of the content.
For that reason, I have added the flag. Alithien 11:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

New name

None of the editors who oppose the proposed name change above seem to support the current name. Since there is widespread disatisfaction with the status quo can we have some suggestions of new names for this article.

"Allegations of apartheid" is not suitable for a number of reasons. For one thing, given that there is a "crime of apartheid", using the term "allegations" suggests there has been a criminal case filed against various countries which is not the case.

To the people who oppose the name change suggested above, what name would you support? Can you make a few suggestions? Lothar of the Hill People 19:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You are confusing an allegation with an indictment. Allegations are what occur in the pleading to open a case. As long as no one takes the word too literally (i.e. these are not in fact what are usually called "formal allegations"), it's as exactly the right word as we'll ever agree to. -- 146.115.58.152 20:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

This explanation does not diminish people's dissatisfaction with the term. It has been removed from every other article in "Allegations of" series. It's a weasel word that can be appended to many many article on Wikipedia and it should not be. Tiamat 22:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not been removed from other articles as a simple search quickly demonstrates. This style is practically the norm any time a nation state or society is accused of some atrocity. There is a series of "Allegations of state terrorism" articles[11], e.g. Allegations of state terrorism by the United States. There's Allegations of mass graves at Chemmani dealing with a small genocide in Sri Lanka. There's Allegations of war crimes in the 2006 Lebanon War about war crime allegations against Israel and Lebanon. It's not a weasel word, simply an admission of the fact that all such allegations are (I presume) unproven. -- 146.115.58.152 23:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

146 "allegations" can play two roles as a word. It either refers to allegations made in legal pleadings (inappropriate in this article) or it is a weasal word used to downplay or minimize a complaint "those are mere allegations". Neither of those uses are appropriate here, particularly as the article is more a discussion of the ways the term is used and doesn't go into any great detail on the specifics. Most of the other "keep" votes express dissatisfaction with the current name so I'm just asking for alternatives. There does seem to be a consensus that this name doesn't work. There is no consensus on what it should change to. I'm trying to move the discussion forward by inviting suggestions. Lothar of the Hill People 01:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

One man's weasel is another man's WP:NPOV. Truly, they are indeed mere -- though notable -- allegations, just like the other "allegations of" articles I mentioned, and the title should recognize that for the sake of balance. -- 146.115.58.152 02:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Some wrote : "Other stuff exist is not an argument" and you never disagreed.

I have no consensus to propose because many have already been suggested but without success. This title is not satisfying : this is a conclusion. Alithien 11:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Lothar: this page is full of such suggestions, including a RfM which you interrupted with a counter-proposal. I appreciate your effort, but contrary to other pages, this one is well-discussed. Thanks!--Cerejota 00:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Cerejota I think you're confusing this article with Allegations of Israeli apartheid since there was no RfM here for me to interrupt (SlimVirgin's {{RFMF}} posting at the top of the page is from 6 July 2006, over a year ago!) Also, I've looked through the archives and I don't see any suggestion from you for an alternative title, only you saying on 18 August that "I suggest we discuss: 1) Change the title". I made a few suggestions and no one replied and then formally suggested one possibility for a vote and that seems to have failed. I'm just asking you to make some suggestions for titles. If you've already made some and I missed them, I apologize, but instead of just directing me to the archives could you just repost your suggestions so we can move forward? You say "this page is full of such suggestions", I think you're thinking of the Israeli article as the only suggestions I see on this page are the one I've made. That's why I'm asking for others, such as you, to contribute your ideas. Lothar of the Hill People 01:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Lothar does have a point that we are throwing a legal term around a little loosely. I've just briefly been considering "Accusations of apartheid" but the meaning of accuse is even closer to that of indictment. There's a reason too that the word "wild" often appears in front of the term "allegations." For a small filing fee in most jurisdictions you can file any formal allegation against anyone you want. But people use legal terms loosely all the time. When I ask someone whether such-and-such behavior is warranted, I surely don't expect them to present me with paperwork signed by a judge. -- 146.115.58.152 00:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The article is really about the term so how about Apartheid (term) or Apartheid (uses of the term). The word "meaning" in my earlier proposal was objected to, perhaps "uses" is better since it doesn't imply any sort of judgment on the veracity of the term, simply that it's being used in certain ways without passing judgment on the validity of that usage? Lothar of the Hill People 01:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I just hate those as redundant; we have apartheid, it is a term, and if we can't decide what to do with it that's our own kettle of fish. The U.N. has recognized apartheid as something that can exist outside of South Africa, in much the same way communism can exist outside of the Soviet Union and, by contrast, Bolshevikism can't. Compare to state terrorism, where if you happen to bring it up, you don't have to explain that: no, you actually mean state terrorism outside of Sweden, and that, sure swedes are bastards but, if you would just understand, under the right circumstances, couldn't any of us be bastards too? (I, of course, kid.) But you say "apartheid" most people think of South Africa. These simplifications simply invite a move war with people of that nation who would, I imagine, strongly feel they would own Apartheid (term), and in certain ways they would be correct. Cerejota has a point, the current status quo isn't the least bit accidental, but the result of much dialog. -- 146.115.58.152 02:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, OK, bolshevism technically could, and did, exist as a theory of how to apply communism generally and outside of Russia. Substitute that with Stalinism perhaps, for argument's sake. -- 146.115.58.152 05:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

My feeling is that the current statu quo is the result of a wide edit war that transformed wikipedia in a battlefield. This version is just the last "wrong version". This is not satisfying. Alithien 11:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

PoV flag (2)

It is clear since my former post on this talk page that the title is still an issue as can be guessed from the former section.
My arguments are still valid and have not been discussed. I repeat them : the different discussions here above and the lack of consensus indicate there is a controversy about the neutrality of the title and as a consequence of the content.
For that reason, I put the flag back.
Alithien 11:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested move to "Apartheid analogies"

The following discussion is an archived discussion 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 proposal was no consensus to move this page from Allegations of apartheid to Apartheid analogies, per the discussion below. Although I agree with the comments below that this is a productive suggestion, it is clear that the adoption of the proposed title is not supported by this discussion. Dekimasuよ! 11:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Following from Alithien I'd like to propose a name change to Apartheid analogies. This is a more neutral and accurate title since most, if not all, of the contents of the article are not about allegations of apartheid but analogies with apartheid. The current title suggests that all the incidents mentioned are accusations that a particular country practises South African style apartheid, and worse, there's a suggestion that criminal allegations (see the definition of allegations) are being brought against a country because there is such a thing as a crime of apartheid and an international court to adjudicate it.

Apartheid analogies makes it clear that what is not being discussed is not an actual allegation that country x practises South African style apartheid or that a certain phenomenon is the same as it but that something is being compared to apartheid. Lothar of the Hill People 21:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support my proposal. Lothar of the Hill People 21:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment doubtless a better title, but it's still not clear to me that "apartheid analogies" is a notable topic in and of itself; are there any sources that treat it as a general subject? It's been a month or so since I looked at this article, but there sure weren't last time I checked.--G-Dett 21:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support A clear improvement over "Allegations". I have no problem with making a "list page" of this sort, though I would hasten to add that we should be vigilant against trivial entries. CJCurrie 22:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Procedural comment: I have to assume that this is intended as an informal, non-actionable poll, as there is no "move tag" nor does this appear to have been listed at WP:RM. 6SJ7 04:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for pointing that out. It's an actionable poll and I've added the move tag and WP:RM listing as requested. Lothar of the Hill People 12:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. You are trying to change the wrong word: the offensive/POV term here is "apartheid", not "allegations". The word "allegations" is perfectly fine, and that is what the article is all about. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Better names were proposed before, such as Apartheid debate in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC) Wrong article.. sorry... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I am not sure what to make of this article. "Allegations of Apartheid" is a political/rhetorical device. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Per humus sapiens Bigglove^talk 02:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - though I think it's a constructive suggestion. I agree with part of your premise, but the issue is that at least some of the allegations go farther than making comparisons and instead say that the policies of such and such country are just like/worse than/equivalent to apartheid and make this the central point of the rhetorical device. --Leifern 02:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Humus. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose perabove, plus I think it is kinda a silly title.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Leifern. I also think that before we figure out if there is a better name for this article, there needs to be a consensus process to determine what the article is about. I think that the "tumult" caused by the arbitration case was used by some people to turn this into a completely different article than what it was. Let's address that first. 6SJ7 19:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose they are allegations, not analogies. They are not legitimate.--Sefringle^Talk 01:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the above comment by Sefringle shows why "allegations" isn't acceptable in the title. The word has a dual meaning, it can refer to either a legal pleading and in this case it is suggestive of that given that there is a crime of apartheid (and is thus inaccurate) or it can refer to "A statement asserting something without proof: The newspaper's charges of official wrongdoing were mere allegations."[12] which is the sense in which Sefringle uses it and is thus an indication of a POV title. In essence, some editors support the use of the term "allegations" because it negates the term "apartheid" and implies it is an illegitimate usage. The article needs to either move to an appropriate and accurate title or be deleted. The current state of affairs is not acceptable, particularly since in either sense of the word, much of the article does not deal with "allegations of apartheid". EG "Crime of apartheid" is not an allegation of apartheid. Water apartheid, social apartheid, gender apartheid are not "allegations of apartheid" but are the employment of an anology to express a different idea. Eg "Water apartheid" does not refer to the application of South African type laws by a government but is an analogy regarding discrimination. If the article does not change its name then either it has to be deleted in toto or in part. The article as it has existed until recently was a WP:POINT violation, it's purpose wasn't to express any ideas or relay and facts but to make a point about Israel. Even now, in its rewritten form, it is not much better because it is flawed in its concept. As long as it has a title like "Allegations of apartheid" it is not an acceptable article. Lothar of the Hill People 03:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Which explains, I assume, why you have been systematically dismantling the article and replacing it with, I'm not sure what. At some point it will have to reconstructed. As for your other comments, they are just your opinions, some of which are nonsense. "Allegations" can also mean assertions that are disputed. As for "allegations" implying illegitimacy, well, the problem is that the same title without "allegations of" implies legitimacy. Under the NPOV principle, Wikipedia is supposed to do neither when the existence of something is disputed. "Allegations" isn't great either, but in order to replace it, you have come up with something better that gains a consensus, and you haven't. As for POINT violations, this isn't the article that was created as a POINT violation, it was that other one created on May 29, 2006. You know about that one, right, "Lothar"? 6SJ7 05:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Greece

Could Greece be added under the allegations section? Many groups representing ethnic Macedonians have even used the term apartheid. --AimLook 12:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

All set. -- 146.115.58.152 12:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland

This has to be included, as the policies of successive Irish governments have been extremely discriminatory towards the Protestant minority. There is a link between the Irish apartheid system and the anti-Protestant ethnic cleansing and genocide campaign that has been ongoing since 1916. - (203.211.79.187 (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC))

Any claim like this would need sourcing. In fact we should probably avoid just listing nations unless we have a credible source comparing their actions or regime to apartheid.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"Other countries whose practices have been compared to apartheid include:"

No explanation given for the examples and no sources. Is suggestion the same as argument? If so, let's throw Tonga, Moldova, and the Piratini Republic on that list. Why not? If you BELIEVE all of your factually unsound, asserted dreams come true!!!!!! <3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.62.86 (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Everything seems to be sourced, actually. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Move discussion

Can we please do this properly, with tags and talk page discussion? Hijacking the article's title via an AfD isn't appropriate. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the article should be split into "Economic Apartheid" and separate articles for the countries that have had serious allegations of actual, racial apartheid leveled broadly against them, if there are any other than Israel, which already has such an article. Tegwarrior (talk) 01:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Tagwarrior, see social apartheid which includes economic apartheid. I think articles on countries with serious allegations have already been created under various names - they're linked to in the article. If the article is about allegations of the crime of apartheid then anything that doesn't have to do with that needs to be removed. 69.41.168.69 (talk) 05:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. I think "Economic Apartheid" would be a better title, though. The effect is of course social, but the original delineation must be something different. Tegwarrior (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It depends on which term is used more frequently but they both seem to refer to the same thing. Maybe Social and economic apartheid? Anyway, if you want to rename that article you should raise it on Talk:Social apartheid. Strongbrow (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)