Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apartheid (disambiguation)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was uhhhhh...no consensus. Mailer Diablo 12:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apartheid (disambiguation)

[edit]

From Wikipedia:Disambiguation: "Lists of articles of which the disambiguated term forms only a part of the article title don't belong here. Disambiguation pages are not search indices. Do not add links that merely contain part of the page title (where there is no significant risk of confusion)." We do not have a disambig on the word The that have The Age, The Bulletin, etc. This seems to apply here. The only true meaning of the word Apartheid is the article Apartheid. There is no way that somebody would refer to Israely apartheid or Sexual apartheid by the simple word apartheid. As such the disambig is useless and only fuels edit wars. Delete abakharev 05:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apartheid wall
See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gender apartheid
See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexual apartheid
See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global apartheid
See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli apartheid (phrase)
There actually is *no* apartheid article at the moment. Because of the conflict last year over other uses of the term the article was moved to History of South Africa in the apartheid era. Hopefully, with the creation of Apartheid (disambiguation) the main South Africa article can move back to Apartheid.Homey 06:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why should moving History of South Africa in the apartheid era to Apartheid depend on Apartheid (disambiguation)? ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Homey. Even if slightly non-canonical in its status as a dab page, it's eminently useful in separating the primary from the secondary uses in a clean way without burdening the separate articles with unncessary controversy. Lukas (T.|@) 06:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: I haven't looked into the troubled past of the main Apartheid article, but looking at the various "Foo apartheid" articles, I think there needs to be some list- or dab-like place that links to them all. I don't mind if it's in this form, or possibly as an appendix to the main Apartheid page, as long as the presentation clearly distinguishes between the primary, authentic meaning of the term and its various secondary polemical uses. Lukas (T.|@) 13:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. We have a disambiguation page, for example, for "Georgia" becuase you might be talking about the Russian state, the US State, or the US University. Nobody is going to type in "apartheid" expecting an article on Israel. Further, I note that all of the new apartheid articles were created by the same user - User:HOTR. There is a danger here of POV pushing ... BigDT 06:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; clearly disambiguation guidelines and actual practice seem to have diverged, and probably should be reassessed, but bringing up individual articles piecemeal on AfD is not the way to go about that. Especially considering that the page in question has just gone through an unpleasant edit war regarding inclusion of various entries whose titles form part of the disambiguated term, and there was a strong consensus for retaining the entries. -- MCB 06:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As the nom notes, this is not really a disambiguation page, but rather an aggregation of uses of "apartheid", which as such is non-encyclopedic. Deletion will resolve the edit wars on whether or not to include articles of the type "Foo apartheid", which deal with usages of the term "apartheid" as applied to the situation in other countries. Whether or not these articles are encyclopedic is not at issue here, but at any rate there is no chance of confusion between these articles and Apartheid, and thus no dab page is needed. If necessary, they can be appropriately linked to from Apartheid. Sandstein 07:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I agree that if this page is kept as a disambiguation page, these "Foo apartheid" entries do belong on it, as long as they have an article of their own. Sandstein 07:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not really a disambiguation page, but rather an aggregation of uses of "apartheid" -- actually, that's pretty much the definition of a disambiguation page. Oh, the contention is mainly over Israel. Pro- and anti-Israeli editors: kindly keep your pathetic edit warring off AfD. -- GWO
  • Comment. The page also features "Sexual Apartheid", which, IMHO, is far more ridiculous than "Israeli Apartheid". In any case, if this pathetic page belongs anywhere on Wikipedia, AfD is the place. -- Heptor talk 14:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Well, no, it is not "pretty much the definition of a disambiguation page". This definition is, per WP:DAB: "Disambiguation in Wikipedia and Wikimedia is the process of resolving ambiguity." There is no ambiguity to resolve here. The reader is unlikely to confuse South African apartheid with the supposed apartheid somewhere else. Sandstein 19:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Homey. --Qwertyca 07:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:DAB. --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A relevant term used in different contexts, should not be censored. Bertilvidet 09:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:DAB. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as I mentioned on the talk page, there is no real ambiguity - phrases like "Basque Apartheid", "Israeli Apartheid" or "Global Apartheid" the word "Apartheid" unambiguously refers to the South African regime. The word "Apartheid" is simply a derogative here - imagine the disambiguation page for "Stupidiy", starting with "Bush's stupidity", and ending with my uncle. -- Heptor talk 13:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bingo - User:Heptor hits the nail on the head. BigDT 13:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree. Since the abolition of apartheid in South Africa, the word is frequently used figuratively. But don't take my word for it: the Oxford English Dictionary says: "applied also to any similar movement elsewhere" -- GWO
        • Comment but that's the whole point - using the word figuratively doesn't mean that you have an article about every figurative use of the word. Everyone knows that apartheid means South Africa. Just because someone uses it as an analogy or metaphor to describe a current situation doesn't mean that you make an article about it. BigDT 14:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Everyone knows that apartheid means South Africa. -- Err, no. In fact. the OED disagrees with this assertion. They say it means South Africa, or policies similar to South Africa (i.e. laws that differentiate by race, skin colour or ethnicity). -- GWO
            • That's exactly my point. "The word "Apartheid" may be applied to any [in the opinion of the speaker] similar movement elsewhere", just as the word "stupidity" may be applied to anyone the speaker considers to think bad or wrong. In both cases, the word is used as a derogative. -- Heptor talk 15:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • There's nothing subjective about "laws that differentiate by race, skin colour or ethnicity". Apartheid does not mean racism/bigotry. It's the codification of ethnic difference as law. One is highly subjective, the other isn't. That's why no-one refers to Harlem as apartheid, Law of Return, for example, is, since it applies only to those of the Jewish faith. -- GWO
                • I am not sure what you mean by this. Law of return does not differentiate citizens of Israel based on race. It does differentiate people who are not citizens of Israel, but most of the Western countries do that - a Russian who can show German ancestry, is allowed to "return" to Germany at a stroke of a pen. In Norway, I know of at least one Russian family who were allowed to "return" to Norway because they had a Norwegian grand mother. But this of course has little to do with the debate at hand. -- Heptor talk 13:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for support, BigDT. Also, in case anyone wondered - yes, my uncle's stupidity is quite notable. -- Heptor talk 14:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment please compare and contrast disambiguation pages like VT, Georgia, or Aaron's rod (disambiguation) with this one. Just as a joke isn't funny if you have to explain it, a disambiguation page isn't useful if you have to explain the link between the term being disambiguated and the things on the page. BigDT 13:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:DAB. --Terence Ong 14:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Useless at best, tendencious at worst. --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 14:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep // Liftarn
  • Keep I don't think we need disambiguation page guidelines carved in stone and I think it's quite possible a person could confuse all these different apartheids and benefit from a disambiguation page. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 15:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There's only one apartheid on the disambiguation page, and, as far as I know, only one event referred to as apartheid ever. —CuiviénenT|C|@ on Wednesday, 31 May 2006 at 16:35 UTC
    What I obviously meant was, if one were to confuse gender apartheid and sexual apartheid, or get them confused to the extent that all they remember is the word "apartheid", they can come here. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 20:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete; An obvious attempt to disrupt wikipedia. Whoever created the page or voting to keep it is engagaing in WP:Point this page only creates disruption to the editing process and confuse the reader Zeq 16:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree they should all be on AfD. The articles aren't on AfD were all created in the past 3 days, so I'd guess we just haven't gotten around to AfDing them yet. They were all created by the same user, and that same user created the page we're talking about deleting now. Su-laine.yeo 07:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Heptor.Aguerriero (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Heptor. Jayjg (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I take all the points raised above, however I think the fact is that people may use the term apartheid to descrbie something other than that of the South African Apartheid, and so seems necessary to keep the page. --Wisden17 23:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Apartheid" means South Africa. Any other use of the term is simply a metaphor that refers to South African apartheid. -- Mwalcoff 00:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Rename Even if it is used as a metaphor to the South African situation (which it must be since the word Aparthied is derived from Afrikaner language word for apartness) if it is widely enough used, even in a derogatory sense, it is still notable and worth of being documented. From my standpoint it is POV to delete this page and it seems more than coincidentally connected to the recent AfD on contentious articles related to Israel. (I did a bit more research and I see how this came about -- I see now.) --Ben Houston 01:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Instead of an apartheid dab it may be more worthwhile to create an Apartheid (metaphor) page that talks about how the term is used as a metaphor -- that the SA system was iconic and thus the term entered into the lexicon on its own, which seems to be the case. This Apartheid (metaphor) article can, besides noting its use as a metaphor, point to a few of the areas in which it is widely used and thus link to those articles if they exist. The main Aparthied article should still link directly to the SA Apartheid article but at the top should be a see macro to the Aparthied metaphor page. To me this would be a decent compromise that continues to build up wikipedia. --Ben Houston 01:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ben Houston. Also, wikipedia is not censored, even if it contains information about ugly things, opinions, or political terms. :) Dlohcierekim 01:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's no reason why this can't be a useful disamb page, covering terms in common usage. CJCurrie 01:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per multiple arguments above. Also, I did not know there were other uses until i stumbled across this in recent changes. Is that not the purpose of an encyclopedia, to expand ones knowledge? --Knife Knut 01:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Apartheid appears to be South African (instead of the "general" term), so a disambiguation page is in order. If these other articles exist, they must be pointed to from somewhere. Fagstein 01:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've reworked the page as more DAB, less POV. Fagstein 02:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obviously useful, even if slightly in violation of a little-used guideline. LotLE×talk 03:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I find it prepostorous that some editors are voting to keep while acknowledging that it is in violation of WP guidelines, and that other editors acknowledge they did not even know th eother terms excitsed, yet still find it proper to call it "disambiguation". Isarig 04:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Apartheid has entered the English language in uses beyond the South African context. See for instance http://www.thefreedictionary.com/apartheid Bwithh 04:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A textbook disambiguation page, targetted by some not-very-subtle POV warriors hoping to expunge an entry they find distasteful. The nominator's argument is certainly a nonsensical fig-leaf, and I'm surprised anyone is taking it the least bit seriously. --Calton | Talk 04:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even if it's not a perfect example of dab page, it's still useful. Obhaso 05:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have posted a proposal on the article's talk page which I think might gain a consensus; please see my comments there. MCB 06:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The effect, if not the intention, of this page is to imply that the items listed on the page are in parallel. That is a POV. I like MCB's suggestion that perhaps a general article on apartheid would be appropriate. Anyone can create that article next week if they want; I don't think we have to do it for them. The articles that this page currently points to probably should not be on Wikipedia. Only one country in history has ever considered it inoffensive to be labelled as apartheid. Any article whose title is "____ apartheid" is pretty much by definition a POV page that should be merged with a broader article. Do we want to keep a page that encourages the proliferation of "_______ apartheid" pages, by giving them publicity during their brief, pre-AfD life? Su-laine.yeo 07:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly think this is a valid disambiguation page. It distinguishes between several different types of apartheid. Yes, it doesn't distinguish between homonyms, but I don't think that is necessary. --Rory096 08:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Apartheid has acquired figurative meaning. Then, move History of South Africa in the apartheid era back to Apartheid as per Homey. Spacepotato 08:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move as per Spacepotato. --Guinnog 12:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete confusing and misleading. RenyD 17:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: User's first edit was today.[1]
  • Delete per abakharev, Sandstein, Su-laine and others. 6SJ7 18:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. There is no Israeli apartheid? The United Nations do not seem to believe so: In January 2006, a UN report by John Dugard of the Human Right Commission in Geneva, stated that "the three major settlement blocs - Gush Etzion, Ma’aleh Adumim and Ariel - will effectively divide Palestinian territory into cantons or Bantustans." "Question of the Violation of Human Rights in the Occupied Arab Territories, Including Palestine - Report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, John Dugard, on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 Satyagit 19:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment that link is bad, but I'm sure you may find a whole bunch of good links at UNCHR condemning Israel. That institution disgraced itself so much that it had to be reorganized quite recently. BTW, I wonder why no one paid attention to "the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied" before 1967? ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - this page is made necessary only by the wilful misuse of the very specific term Apartheid. It'd be as if we had a "Fascism" dismbiguation, with links to "American Fascism under George Bush", "Wikipedia Fascism" and the like.Timothy Usher 19:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If there was ever such a thing as a POV dab page, this would be it. -- Kicking222 20:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment with respect to the "POV" arguments, as long as the Israeli apartheid, Gender apartheid etc. articles exist, there should be a disambig. page, no? I'm not disputing the POV arguments, but they apply to those articles, not to this disambiguation page. Fagstein 20:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. We don't include in the dismabiguation pages all the articles that have the word in question, see WP:DAB. For example, we don't disambig physics to quantum physics, nuclear physics etc. It's highly unlikely that someone searching for "apartheid" will in fact be searching for "gender apartheid". Pecher Talk 21:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pecher's statement is verified by the rule/guideline quote that appears at the very top of this page. (As I said in the response I was writing, but Pecher "won" the edit conflict, so I'm just referring to the source.) 6SJ7 21:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We don't have disambiguation pages for physics or fascism, but there is ample navigational material (templates etc.) to let the searcher for a half-remembered term move from Physics to Particle physics, or from Fascism to Clerical fascism. Apartheid (disambiguation) serves the same function. Spacepotato 01:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Maybe we could solve this by mentioning in the Apartheid article that the word "Apartheid" has been used as a political epithet, notably on following subjects: "X Apartheid", "Y Apartheid" etc, and that it is generally considered offensive. This should be better than having a disambiguation page without having an ambiguity. This presumes that those other aticles remain - they have all been created by one user, Homeonetherange (who for some reason signes as "Homey"), and now they all are up for deletion. -- Heptor talk 11:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, POV agenda on this one. Gadig 02:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think the bottom line on this one is that unless the articles listed in it should have their names changed, then the page should remain to list them. As controversial as the terms may be, they fall under the dictionary definition quoted above under: "applied also to any similar movement elsewhere." As with all things in Wikipedia, only notable terms are listed here, which keeps some random individual from attaching "apartheid" to some random movement and having it listed here, unless it comes into common usage. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 05:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please don't attempt to move History of South Africa in the apartheid era back to Apartheid. The reason it's at its current location is to define clearly what the page is about, and thus to avoid precisely the controversy in this discussion. These endless energy-sapping debates have nothing to do with the use of the term in South Africa, and typically don't even involve the editors of the South African article. Moving the page back to Apartheid would reignite the old edit wars and detract enormously from the History of South Africa in the apartheid era article. Zaian 08:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete silly POV disambig page, and delete, delete, delete POV pushers. Stop trying to open unnecessary new fronts on the ideological war du jour, and start writing the encyclopedia. flowersofnight (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since use of 'apartheid' in other titles is to draw a deliberate contrast with SA, and thus to require a qualifier ('Israeli' or whatever), I don't see the need to disambiguate, although I'm somewhat swayed by homey's arguments on the Apartheid talk page, I don't think the editors over there are going to go for it --Coroebus 15:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Apartheid was a specific system in place during a specific time period (1948-1990). Any other uses of the word, such as Gender Apartheid or Economic Apartheid are perjorative metaphors and are thus not equal to the word's primary meaning. At most, other uses of the word apartheid should be in an article named something like 'Apartheid (Metaphor)' [as per the above], linked to by a small comment at the top of the main Apartheid article. — Impi 16:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Apartheid should definitely continue to redirect to History of South Africa in the apartheid era, but this page is useful. -- TheMightyQuill 17:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Such a disambiguation is no different than having a comparison note in an article (e.g. cp. Gender apartheid), which is completely fine. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 18:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Who the heck would rename Apartheid to "History of South Africa in the apartheid era"? That's bogus. Apartheid is more than just a history; it's a socio-cultural phenomenon. :-) — RJH (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was wondering the same thing RJH, but then I read Zaian's comment above which explains the history of the situation. 6SJ7 19:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which is an excellent reason why the disambig article is necessary 1) to allow references to "modern" uses of the term apartheid to go somewhere other than the main apartheid article 2) thus allowing the article to actually be called Apartheid rather than the cumbersome History of South Africa in the apartheid eraHomey 21:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That doesn't make any sense. Your reason number 2 cannot be justified based on what Zaian says, because he is asking, nay pleading, for the exact opposite. (For other people not following all this, Zaian says that whatever else happens, please don't rename the current History fo South Africa in the apartheid era to Apartheid; Homey says that if we have this disambiguation page, we can rename History etc. etc. to just Apartheid. So those are two opposite ideas.) On your reason number 1, these "other apartheid" articles were all created by you (except for apartheid wall, I believe), so claiming that the disambiguation page you created is necessary so there can be a distinction drawn among the other articles you created is a little like the teenager who murders his parents and asks the judge for mercy because he is an orphan. (Which of course, is the proverbial definition of "chutzpah.") 6SJ7 05:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are many uses of the word apartheid, not all of them South Africa. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 21:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per PZFUN. Ted 02:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obvious delete. Metaphorical uses of a term should not be on a disambiguation page.--Denis Diderot 10:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per Denis above, per User:Heptor, per WP:DAB. This disambiguation page and some of the articles seem to have been created in violation of WP:Point. Armon 15:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until the issues with the disambiguated artices are resolved in the respective AfDs. --Ezeu 19:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The last time I heard the phrase "apartheid" it was in reference to Israel. This probably says more about the speaker than anything, but Wikipedia policies do not judge the validity of opinions. If there is a significant number of people who use "apartheid" to mean something beyond the historical South African apartheid, then that needs to be reflected on the wiki even if you think they are being tendentious. The current situation in which apartheid redirects to the South Africa page on the original term, which links to the dab, seems moderately intuitive and I don't find the argument of the nominator convincing. - BT 04:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: BTW, why are several of the links piped (or pointed to redirects aimed at subsections?!) and bolded? According to standard formatting, The apartheid wall is a similarly controversial epithet to describe the Israeli West Bank barrier. should be more like The "apartheid wall" is a similarly controversial epithet to describe the Israeli West Bank barrier. This is just confusing, but doesn't affect my vote. - BT 13:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. Page is currently blocked for editing because of some edit warring (I think it actually was over the POV tag itself), but we should change it when the page is unblocked - if it is not deleted. This of course doesn't change my vote delete the page :) -- Heptor talk 13:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete esp. as per Denis Diderot and Heptor. The word is innately referential to South African apartheid, and is not in itself a generic term for apartheid-like occurrences, save when it is used metaphorically. This is not about judging opinions (BanyanTree), but about keeping opinionation out of the disambiguation pages, as well as remembering that they are there for the reader, not for the editor. People should see an article on South African apartheid when they enter apartheid into the search field. DABs can and should be objective and useful, and there is nothing immediately useful (and debatably something POV) about listing every segregatory social system that happens to have been classified as apartheid by its original author. There are systems that have not been classified as such (such as that upon which apartheid was supposedly based in part, the American system or systems), and this makes the article ineffectual at disambiguation, even if disambiguation were necessary in the first place. If someone wants to research "apartheid" in Israel, they can do a search for apartheid on wiki, and perhaps a section of Apartheid can note that the term is sometimes used to describe social systems outside of the South African issue. This should be a very clear matter and is, in my opinion, being politicized when it is not so to begin with. Fearwig 04:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, we have Holocaust (disambiguation), which lists things that are not The Holocaust, but things that some people have described as a Holocaust. No one typing in Holocaust would be looking for Holocaust (band), but it still makes it onto the dab page--Rayc 03:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Well, what are those who are searching for the band named "Holocaust" are supposed to type? -- Heptor talk 13:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "Holocaust" does not in itself refer to the death of Jews in WWII, but "great destruction resulting in the extensive loss of life, especially by fire" (first definition listed from most sources). That it has become almost synonymous in recent times with that event has nothing to do with the word itself, which predates the twentieth century. This is a major distinction. "Holocaust" has ancient Greek etymology, while "apartheid" is from Dutch, indicating its specific South African origins. Note that the first definition of "apartheid" listed uniformly refers to the South African event. Fearwig 04:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The meaning of words changes, I don't see how you can say that somehow Greek words can have general use, but Afrikaans words can't. A better comparison than holocaust would be ghetto (no I'm not picking another Jewish comparison on purpose), where a specific reference has become general. Just as the OED states in the definition of apartheid "Name given in South Africa to the segregation of the inhabitants of European descent from the non-European...applied also to any similar movement elsewhere; also, to other forms of racial separation (social, educational, etc.). Also fig. and attrib" so at least Israeli apartheid (phrase) would be a valid literal use of the word while the others (except maybe global apartheid) would be figurative. --Coroebus 08:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Coroebus, though words can change meaning, the word "Apartheid" as yet did not. You have to read a little between the lines - what OED states is "applied also to any similar [ie, to the original Apartheid] movement elsewhere". This merely states that the word has been used metaphorically. For comparison, definition of the word "Ghetto" [2] provides an alternative definition that is more commonly used than the original definition, and not only by some groups with clearly political objectives. -- Heptor talk 13:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment I am intensely uncomfortable about reading between the lines to establish that something is metaphorical. At what point are we just engaging in our own speculation? Re: ghetto I don't understand what you're saying (the definition is "1. The quarter in a city, chiefly in Italy, to which the Jews were restricted" - the first ghetto was in Venice (hence the OED: "[Of uncertain etym., perh. f. It. getto foundry, as the first ghetto founded in Venice in 1516 was on the site of a foundry.]") but the word came to be generalised to any Jewish enclave, and then to a densely populated slum area (this latter use is designated figurative). So by your reasoning the ghetto article must be stripped of any reference to non-Jewish ghettos as these are simply metaphorical uses? --Coroebus 13:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Note also that Merriam-Webster has apartheid as "2 : SEPARATION, SEGREGATION <sexual apartheid>" so I think the shift in meaning really has already taken place, despite your protestations to the contrary. --Coroebus 13:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it not so much reading between the lines than it is to understand what the text actually says. It says "similar", which has to be similar to something;from the context it must be that it is "similar to the Apartheid regime in South Africa". Don't you agree?
Merriam Webstster seems to provide an alternative definition, synonymous to separation or segregation. Pardon me if I am wikilawyering, but in this case, ie if "apartheid" is merely a synonym for "segregation", Gender Apartheid is nothing more than a POV fork of Sex segregation. Clearly, this is a very inconventional definition. Britannica, is far less ambigous - apartheid is defined as: "(Afrikaans: “apartness”), policy that governed relations between South Africa's white minority and nonwhite majority and sanctioned racial segregation and political and economic discrimination against nonwhites."[3]
You must have missed the second definition of the word Ghetto on OED. It is clearly the most used one. -- Heptor talk 14:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gender apartheid is a synonym for gender segregation, yes. But that just proves that the M-W second definition of apartheid is a valid usage. You will notice that your preferred OED definition 2 for ghetto is labelled as being figurative. I think you are trying to have your cake and eat it here. You reject the use of apartheid for anything other than the SA Apartheid, because anything else is metaphorical in your eyes, and thus invalid, even when there is pretty good evidence that the word has come to mean something like 'separation' or 'discrimination' (interestingly the OED details it as going back as far as 1955). But for another word, ghetto, you reject the literal meaning and insist that the figurative (that means the same thing as metaphorical by the way) usage is the correct and 'most used' one. What I have tried to show, and I think you have rather nicely demonstrated, is that some objections to the use of 'apartheid' here are not driven by linguistic concerns, but rather something else, perhaps political --Coroebus 14:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should be more clear. I reject that the word Apartheid is used for anything else then SA regime, other then for political purposes (very much like for example fascism). "Ghetto" is generally used about racially segregated neighbourhoods. A ghetto is easier to define (bunch of "ethnical" people living together -> ghetto), and its use is not limited to those with some particular political agenda. -- Heptor talk 15:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that your Britannica definition of apartheid is from the encyclopaedia entry on apartheid, so is not the definition of the word. OED defines it as "Name given in South Africa to the segregation...applied also to any similar movement elsewhere; also, to other forms of racial separation (social, educational, etc.)", M-W says "2. SEPARATION, SEGREGATION", American Heritage says "2. A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups. 3. The condition of being separated from others; segregation.", as far as I can see you're working from an idiosyncratic personal definition of apartheid. --Coroebus 15:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think I may have been misleading when I brought etymology into the discussion, though the fact that "holocaust" was simply an already common word used to describe "the Holocaust" that happened to "stick" in popular language is not entirely negligible. What's really important is that every single one of these articles can be distinguished from existing, generally better and more NPOV articles only by the presence of the word "apartheid", which in itself indicates flagrant POV. I don't agree or disagree with this POV, but it is pov. If I made an article called "Iraqi holocaust", I would be framing all information on that page in the POV of something that is not historically established as holocaust, and I would damn well hope someone would delete it. Sexual apartheid is sex discrimination, save that the name of the article itself throws NPOV to the wind by using a metaphorical reference to a historically-recognized despicable act to color the inferrences that will be drawn from the article. It's the Wiki equivalent of flashing pictures of Stalin in a smear ad. This has nothing to do with feelings about apartheid, sexual discrimination, the Israel/Palestine conflict or what kind of cheese the moon is made of. It's about impartiality, which these articles go out of their way to dismiss. I really can't believe this has sparked so much debate, as these things seem very plain to me. Coroebus, I am additionally saddened that you continue to frame opposition to this article as politically motivated when there have been many clear cases for its removal on an NPOV basis alone, whether or not you agree with the argument. I take this moment to assure you that this is not an pro-Semitic conspiracy, a misogynist conspiracy, or an (insert favorite conspiracy) conspiracy. We're editing Wikipedia, not waging ideological war. I voted strong delete because Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Fearwig 15:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You will note that I have already voted delete on this article, and redirect for many of the other articles! My objection is to what appear to be attempts to delete articles based on bogus linguistic assertions. You don't see me going around deleting the Islamofascism page because fascism can only apply to Italian nationalists either. If the usage is notable we talk about it, we don't reject it out of hand as POV because we don't like the implication --Coroebus 15:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now you are just insulting my intelligence :(
My main point is that when somebody calls something "X Apartheid", s/he is trying to suggest a similarity between the unfortunate X and the Apartheid regime in South Africa. Of course, even if you disagree, I am glad we reached the same conclusion. -- Heptor talk 15:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The same. Apologies for my haste, since we seem to be in (confusing) agreement. I think the etymology argument is valid, just not as valid as the POV problem, and much harder to argue with precision. Fearwig 15:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And of course that is exactly what is happening in the etymology of ghetto. Therefore, just because a word has a partially figurative nature does not make it somehow an invalid word. In a similarly Venetian theme, how about Arsenal? --Coroebus 15:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I worry this is going to turn into a semantic waste of talk space, as much as I'd love to continue! I'll say really quickly that I think it takes time for those words to translate into generic use rather than metaphorical use, and that time has not passed for "apartheid". Fearwig 15:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I think the evidence from actual dictionaries, rather than linguistic intuition is a better guide, but I'll leave it there too. --Coroebus 15:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The articles linked to do seem to follow the UN definition of the Crime of Apartheid. POV is an issue, but removing this page for that reason is a POV in itself. POV should be dealt with on the page itself not on pages that link to it. HighInBC 15:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That's just not true. Read the article--none of these have to do with race. Thus they are metaphorical. At the very, very best they should be redirects. Denying a biased (or superfluous and biased article, in this case) title (e.g. Gender Holocaust to describe a mass-murder of women, a despicable event but not "gender holocaust") is not acceptable. Believing we should be rid of such articles has nothing to do with POV and everything to do with the integrity of WP. If someone provides ample proof that all of these terms have been used in prominent, peer-reviewed discussion, then I say a redirect is warranted. Only if someone can provide proof that all these terms have been used and are distinct from their counterparts (e.g. "sexual apartheid" v. "sexual discrimination"), then they deserve their own articles. Only then. Removing POV is not "POV in itself" unless you propose it because the ideas in the POV offend you, which we have established we are not (or I hope this has been established, anyway). The maintenance of neutrality is NPOV... by definition. POV (and NPOV) is more than "an issue", it's a policy. Fearwig 15:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I'm sure we could argue the racial question re: Israel and Palestine all day, but we do have individual deletion pages for each of these categories. I think the peer reviewed requirement is a little harsh, these aren't science articles --Coroebus 16:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment They're political science articles, so yes. I don't think the references should have to include professional advocacy/use of the terminology, but I think that scientific mention of their use should be a minimum requirement. Otherwise I fail to see how the terms could be considered valid and encyclopedic. If they are not used in a citable way, they do not exist (that's WP:NOR at work). There are a million articles on these topics in political science journals, not to mention those of other disciplines, and if one cannot find even one such example of their use, then I fail to see how the terms may be defended. And I was not trying to open the Israel/Palestine racial can of worms, I accidentally neglected that exception.Fearwig 16:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC) (some edits were made for clarity after next post--sorry for the confusion)[reply]
I'll probably betray my background in objecting to political science being referred to as a science, I don't think subjects like politics should rely on academic discourse to the same extent as (proper) scientific articles - in particular the academic and practical worlds of politics overlap and inter-relate, I think it would be very unwise to declare all non-academic political discourse out of bounds as a source, and also politics (as with other semi-sciences and humanities) as an academic discipline does not rely on the academic paper to the same extent as science - certainly almost the entirety of our political output on wikipedia would go up in flames. A very quick google scholar search (for what it's worth) reveals all these terms used somewhere --Coroebus 16:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Political science is intangible, in that it's not about making polymers and identifying starlings by their coloration or somesuch, but whatever your own definition of science there are guidelines on WP about what is and is not acceptable. These titles are analysis, that is, "original research" by the WP definition. Even pop poli-sci publications are peer reviewed, so this is not as major a limitation as you make it out to be. In fact, it's a very reasonable one. If google scholar brings these terms up in real journals, let's pop the results in as sources (after a glance to make sure it's relevant) and give these redirects, as I said. If there is some distinction in their use, let the author cite them. If proper citations were used, this entire debate would be null. Fearwig 16:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree that these titles can realistically be defined as analysis, you may not consider them notable phrases or ideas, but I think you're going to have to stretch your definition of original research rather far. Otherwise Islamofascism or Arab anti-semitism become original research too. I strongly disagree with you on peer reviewed requirements for political articles, but perhaps you should consider trying it at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Advice_specific_to_subject_area? But by your insistence on academic study of a concept, movement or whatever, Wikipedia would very rapidly have to stop, lacking many contributors with access to academic journals, and limited entirely to that which political scientists have deigned to write about, things like the Lib Dem orange book, New_Labour or the Euston_manifesto covered many years after the event, and limited to a handful of sources if any. Wikipedia would be cutting itself off from mainstream political discourse. --Coroebus 16:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If one has access to neither academic or semi-academic (being that most such citable debate is carried on by those who are professionals in the matter) resources or even texts, I do not understand it to be wise to make substantive edits on any potentially POV subject. I and many others have made the mistake of doing so in one way or another without providing citations, and the material has been (rightly) reverted, when the article gets the attention of experienced editors. I think this is no exception. If the concept of Israeli apartheid "exists" (by WP standards), it will have been discussed professionally. This is my interpretation, and I think it is a common one. Sourcing potentially POV statements is not a hindrance to good editing--it is part of the definition of good editing. Islamofascism and Arab anti-semitism are concepts that have been noted by major sources (probably a million times over, by now), and as such they definitely "exist" by encyclopedic standards. It is more important that WP have these standards than that every indefinite, casual or novel concept is legitimized by its place here. Those would be more like Everything2 standards--acceptable in their own right, perhaps. Fearwig 18:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then you'll no doubt be disappointed to see this "israeli apartheid" and this islamofascism ("arab anti-semitism" does better). --Coroebus 18:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That does not disappoint me at all, but makes me very happy. Now add it to the article, since you did all the work. :) Now find "gender apartheid" and "sexual apartheid", etc. if you're so eager. It's the sourcing (or rather, the ability to be sourced) that matters. Fearwig 18:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To make it clear to anyone that hasn't followed the links, google scholar has 15 hits for Islamofascism, and 40 odd for "Israeli apartheid". --Coroebus 18:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The word "apartheid" is often used in a metaphorical sense to denote any kind of segregation or separation (normally in a negative sense). In the same way words like terror, fascism, tyranny, nazism, and so on (including derivatives) are often used metaphorically. An encyclopaedia doesn't have separate articles for all different kinds of separation. Particular forms of separation should be discussed in the articles that deal with the corresponding subject (where that particular form of separation occurs). This ought to be obvious.--Denis Diderot 12:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Apartheid_(disambiguation)&oldid=1136113922"