This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TAnthony (talk | contribs) at 07:16, 22 November 2008 (Add Project banner using AWB). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 07:16, 22 November 2008 by TAnthony (talk | contribs) (Add Project banner using AWB)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Disambiguation | |||
| ||||
AfD result
This article was nominated for deletion; the result was a decision to merge and redirect to Israeli West Bank barrier; see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Apartheid wall for details. The merger remains to be carried out, and will be left to those with more experience working on these articles. BD2412 T 03:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Can't redirect to the middle of an article
Redirects to a tag in the middle of an article don't work. It's a known bug. I'd like to get it fixed, because it's incredibly useful in dealing with lists of fancruft. --John Nagle 02:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Literal meaning
'Apartheid' translates as separation; thus I suggest this redirects to Separation barrier —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.165.169.20 (talk)
hey man, look at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Apartheid wall. There has been a strong consensus. Moreover, only this barrier is recognized as a apartheid wall Nielswik(talk) 15:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
redirect
This should be at worst a disambiguation page. This search only returns 20,300 hits (and even most of those seem to still be refering to the West Bank barrier), while searching on the term itself returns 475,000 hits. That clarifies the use of the term is primarily for the West Bank barrier. -- Kendrick7 18:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- But Israel is in the main list so there's no problem, a person searching for Israel will easily find it there. Amoruso 05:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
redir
There has been a voting on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Apartheid wall, and the result was merge and redir to Israeli west bank barrier. I'm wondering why people keep changing it. --Nielswik(talk) 08:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Looks like the usual suspects changed it, despite the AfD decision. I'll change it back.
--John Nagle 04:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep your tiresome personal attacks to yourself. First, AfDs don't decide content. Second, Allegations of Israeli apartheid didn't exist then, and as this title reflects one of the allegations, a redirect to that page is clearly appropriate. SlimVirgin 05:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- You can request a deletion review if you don't like the AfD decision, but unilaterally changing it is inappropriate, especially for an admin. --John Nagle 21:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
redir changed proposed
well per new discussion in allegations of apartheid i'm now contesting it there's no reason it shouldn't refer to all others barriers. Sometimes they're refereed as this too and Israel is mentioned there anyway. Amoruso 05:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- 1) Do you have any references that show this term being used for other separation barriers or is your assertion original research? 2) The article this page now redirects to makes no mention of apartheid in it at all, seems very odd and 3) I looked at discussion page for Allegations of apartheid and didn't see anything about this page. Did I miss it? There was a heavy consensus for this redirect after much debate and you have now changed it and then declared that change a "proposal"... Normally it would be considered good faith to discuss a controversial proposal like that prior to implementing it. --MattWright (talk) 05:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm discussing it now... I'm not engaging in edit-wars over it. I can change articles if I used talk and see if there's objection to my change. The issue in general is being discussed now in the talk page of that article. As for other references - sure, first of all the term apartheid wall sometimes refers to apartheid in general Secondly, it often relates to the wall between Morocoo and Spain and Europe - A new wave of Africans seeking to illegally enter the EU has caused a spike in deaths at the EU's "apartheid wall" in North Africa: At least five people have been killed during a mass attempt by migrants to get into the Spanish enclave of Ceuta in North Africa. "Three died on the Moroccan side of the border and two on the Spanish side," said Spanish deputy prime minister Maria Teresa Fernandez de la Vega. As to your 3rd point, that can be added to the main article but clearly the term can be generic and should not be classified to one, it's highly inappropriate. Since there was actually apartheid in Botswana it's not suprising that their wall is termed often as apartheid wall too - why not redirect there ? makes more sense. Cheers, Amoruso 06:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Had to revert unauthorized change
A recent change converted the page to a redirect to Allegations of Israeli Apartheid, which is aginst the decision of a previous AfD. Please don't do that. If you want to make such a drastic change, propose an AfD again. Thanks. --John Nagle 17:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Again, please don't make the article into a redirect without going through an AfD. Editors, please watch for misleading edit comments on this article. Thanks. --John Nagle 19:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- The previous nomination was a straw man nomination by a straw man sockpuppet; as such, the AfD is tainted. In any event, the consensus on the AfD was to re-direct the article, not a disambiguation page or various other content. It's now being re-directed to a useful article, one that actually discusses this use, and includes some of the same material that was in the original "Apartheid wall" article. And yes, editors, please watch for misleading edit summaries, especially ones that claim the previous AfD decision was something other than turning this into a re-direct. Jayjg 00:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, the result from that AfD (and I quote from above on this page) was a decision to merge and redirect to Israeli West Bank barrier. In fact, the page Israeli apartheid (phrase) (which now redirects to Allegations of Israeli apartheid) was around at that time, but editors decided the redirect was more appropriate to Israeli West Bank barrier. So why do you insist on going against the decision and redirecting elsewhere? If people search on this term, they are clearly looking for the barrier, and the barrier article even has a section on the term. --MattWright (talk) 05:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- The section in the West Bank barrier article discussing the "Apartheid" issue is basically a redirect to the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article. The AfD decision was taken before the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article existed. It's clearly more relevant to the topic, and actually has some of the sources etc. used in the original Apartheid wall article. Jayjg 17:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- The AfD result at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Apartheid_wall was "The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Israeli West Bank barrier. I will leave it to those more experienced working on these articles to carry out the merge. BD2412 T 03:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)" The unsupported statement that "The AfD is tainted" does not justify ignoring it. Properly, it should be a redirect to "Israeli West Bank Barrier". What we have now is a compromise from the AfD. Starting a deletion review is an option. --John Nagle 16:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- If the result was "merge and redirect", why are you doing the opposite? Please respect the AfD decision, rather than invoking it, then doing the exact opposite of the decision. I consider your continuing defiance of the AfD decision to be simple vandalism at this point, so I will be using the admin rollback from now on; I'm informing you of this per WP:REVERT#Rollback. Jayjg 17:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Jayjg (talk · contribs) was previously disciplined in his 2006 arbitration for misuse of admin authority in this same editing dispute. "Administrators admonished -- All involved administrators are admonished not use their administrative tools without prior discussion and consensus, and to avoid using them so as to continue an editing dispute. Humus sapiens, ChrisO, Kim van der Linde, SlimVirgin, and Jayjg are reminded to use mediation and other dispute resolution procedures sooner when conflicts occur." See also his 2005 arbitration. We seem to have to go through this about once a year. --John Nagle 21:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- John, what "admin authority" have I "misused"? Please be explicit. Jayjg 01:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Jayjg (talk · contribs) was previously disciplined in his 2006 arbitration for misuse of admin authority in this same editing dispute. "Administrators admonished -- All involved administrators are admonished not use their administrative tools without prior discussion and consensus, and to avoid using them so as to continue an editing dispute. Humus sapiens, ChrisO, Kim van der Linde, SlimVirgin, and Jayjg are reminded to use mediation and other dispute resolution procedures sooner when conflicts occur." See also his 2005 arbitration. We seem to have to go through this about once a year. --John Nagle 21:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- If the result was "merge and redirect", why are you doing the opposite? Please respect the AfD decision, rather than invoking it, then doing the exact opposite of the decision. I consider your continuing defiance of the AfD decision to be simple vandalism at this point, so I will be using the admin rollback from now on; I'm informing you of this per WP:REVERT#Rollback. Jayjg 17:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- I can understand Matt's point, but why would anyone think that the AfD asked for a disambiguation page, rather than the redirect that it seemed to have requested. As for where to redirect, I agree with Jayjg on this one, as Israeli West Bank barrier's section on "apartheid opinions" consists of two lines and a link to Allegations of Israeli apartheid. Tewfik 19:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, the result from that AfD (and I quote from above on this page) was a decision to merge and redirect to Israeli West Bank barrier. In fact, the page Israeli apartheid (phrase) (which now redirects to Allegations of Israeli apartheid) was around at that time, but editors decided the redirect was more appropriate to Israeli West Bank barrier. So why do you insist on going against the decision and redirecting elsewhere? If people search on this term, they are clearly looking for the barrier, and the barrier article even has a section on the term. --MattWright (talk) 05:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- By the logic to make "Apartheid wall" a redir to Israeli West Bank barrier, the content of Allegations of Israeli apartheid (which is a POV fork started by banned user Homey) should be merged into the "WB barrier" article as well. You can't have it both ways. ←Humus sapiens 20:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
This is totally ludicrous!!
"Apartheid" is an adjective, "wall" is a noun; the adjective qualifies the noun, to differenciate it from other nouns. When people type "apartheid wall" in the wikipedia searchbox, it's because they want to know about "that wall/fence/barrier/shrewberry hedge between Israel and Palestine I heard about on TV". To redirect them to "allegations of apartheid" is to demand of them that they be familiar with all the codewords, taboos and doublespeak of the Irsrel-Palestinian conflict, and is utterly confusing to someone that is not and will increase rather than decrease lack of knowledge. Can it get more unencyclopedic than that?--Victor falk 16:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Read the discussion immediately above. Jayjg 20:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Pure wikilawyering. It's an offense to common sense.--Victor falk 21:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- And your recent edits are pure WP:POINT. People who want to read about the allegations embodied in the phrase "apartheid wall" will only find them in Allegations of Israeli apartheid. Jayjg 21:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- And the allegations article is linked from the barrier article, so if they want to read about it, they can. The point is, the term references the barrier, so that is the most logical redirect. It was also the outcome of the AfD, and despite your claims, changing it to Allegations of Israeli Apartheid is not consensus, as you can see from the repeated changes to your edits. I think we should stick with the AfD result unless you want to re-open it. The allegations article *did* exist at the time of the AfD, albeit under a different name (Israeli apartheid (phrase)), and some people did recommend redirecting there. It just didn't get enough votes to be the decided outcome. I don't think you should be able to arbitrarily decide to redirect to a different article than the decided outcome of the AfD. If you think some of the information in the allegations article needs to be put back into the barrier article to make the point, then that should be done. --MattWright (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- The result of the AfD was re-direct. The specific re-direct article is not written in stone, particularly as the AfD was started before the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article was even written. I don't think this re-direct should be deleted, so I don't see the point in another AfD process. Jayjg 01:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- The Allegations article existed, under a different name, and some people even voted for it as the redirect (as I have mentioned in this discussion). Even if the Allegations article existed in the same state it does now, there is no reason to assume consensus would redirect this term there. Furthermore, although the specific redirect may not be "written in stone", it had broad consensus, which your change does not. I think people might be open to a compromise if the Allegations article had a start something like "Apartheid wall redirects here, For further information, see Israeli West Bank barrier." That isn't likely to happen while there is {{quotefarm}}{{ActiveDiscuss}}{{POV-intro}} taking up the top of that article. Otherwise, your new redirect is very bad, because someone searching for the wall has to read half of the Allegations article before they come across an embedded link to what they are looking for. On the barrier page, "Apartheid opinions" is one of the sections and in the TOC. You shouldn't make it near impossible for people to find the article on the barrier, if all they've heard it called is the apartheid wall. I'm not trying to POV push here, I want people to be able to find the article they are searching for. --MattWright (talk) 03:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- The result of the AfD was re-direct. The specific re-direct article is not written in stone, particularly as the AfD was started before the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article was even written. I don't think this re-direct should be deleted, so I don't see the point in another AfD process. Jayjg 01:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- And the allegations article is linked from the barrier article, so if they want to read about it, they can. The point is, the term references the barrier, so that is the most logical redirect. It was also the outcome of the AfD, and despite your claims, changing it to Allegations of Israeli Apartheid is not consensus, as you can see from the repeated changes to your edits. I think we should stick with the AfD result unless you want to re-open it. The allegations article *did* exist at the time of the AfD, albeit under a different name (Israeli apartheid (phrase)), and some people did recommend redirecting there. It just didn't get enough votes to be the decided outcome. I don't think you should be able to arbitrarily decide to redirect to a different article than the decided outcome of the AfD. If you think some of the information in the allegations article needs to be put back into the barrier article to make the point, then that should be done. --MattWright (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- 1) I haven't have a point. I don't give a flying fuck about the sad IsraeloArab-cyberwar, unlike some petty wikidisinfowarriors.
- 2) I do give a fuck about wikipedia being disrupted and corrupted for such purposes.
- 3) I ask you: do you honestly maintain that common people typing "apartheid wall" would be more interested in reading about allegations of apartheid than the security wall?--Victor falk 22:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- This goes back to Victor's first comment in this thread. I think that if someone types "apartheid wall" into a search box, meaning Israel's anti-terrorism fence/barrier, they are already very familiar with "code words" and "doublespeak", so they won't be surprised or confused when they get taken to an "Allegations of apartheid" article. 6SJ7 22:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- This isn't true -- they may just not know the article name, but have heard that reference. Israeli West Bank barrier is a great name for the article, but not an easy one to guess or type into the search box. They may also type west bank security fence, or anti-terror fence, etc. These are all redirects that can point to the barrier article to help users find it. I think the AfD result shows people think the barrier is the appropriate redirect in this case, and there is certainly no consensus to change that. --MattWright (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- I can readily imagine that it so to people in Israel/Palestine. I suppose that to them it is just "the Wall", as it was just "der Mauer" to Germans. But for people in the rest of the world, that wall is always qualified as "the security wall", "the anti-terrorist safety fence", "the wall of shame", etc.--Victor falk 23:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- This goes back to Victor's first comment in this thread. I think that if someone types "apartheid wall" into a search box, meaning Israel's anti-terrorism fence/barrier, they are already very familiar with "code words" and "doublespeak", so they won't be surprised or confused when they get taken to an "Allegations of apartheid" article. 6SJ7 22:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- And your recent edits are pure WP:POINT. People who want to read about the allegations embodied in the phrase "apartheid wall" will only find them in Allegations of Israeli apartheid. Jayjg 21:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Pure wikilawyering. It's an offense to common sense.--Victor falk 21:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- You are assuming that the readers who search for "Apartheid wall" are genuinely looking for information on the barrier. I strongly disagree and think that the operating word here is political epithet/allegation "Apartheid" and therefore it should redirect to Allegations of Israeli apartheid. As for "the least astonishment", I find it astonishing that a political epithet would merely redirect to the barrier, instead of an article describing the epithet. If Israeli West Bank barrier adequately describes the epithet, then let's remove Allegations of Israeli apartheid. ←Humus sapiens 08:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- It's not that Israeli West Bank barrier describes the epithet, it's that the epithet refers to the Israeli West Bank barrier. —Ashley Y 08:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- I beg to differ. "Tom the racist" refers to Tom only if he's indeed a racist. Otherwise it's an allegation. ←Humus sapiens 09:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- If Tom is infamously know as "Tom the Racist", and no other Tom is known as "the Racist", then the page should be a redirect to Tom's article, not to some article about racism where Thomas Tomsofficialname is linked somewhere in the middle of the text. --Victor falk 12:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- That's a big "if": the word "allegations" should have given away the controversy. ←Humus sapiens 19:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- It is beside the point whether it's true, false, or allegated. An encyclopedia's goal is to provide information even to the most ignorant person as far as possible. So, we must take the person that has no knowledge whatsoever about what "apartheid wall" might be besides the name. His questions are 1) "what is the apartheid wall?" 2) why is it called so? Note that "it": if you ask a question about it, you imply that you know something about it. --Victor falk 23:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- That's a big "if": the word "allegations" should have given away the controversy. ←Humus sapiens 19:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- If Tom is infamously know as "Tom the Racist", and no other Tom is known as "the Racist", then the page should be a redirect to Tom's article, not to some article about racism where Thomas Tomsofficialname is linked somewhere in the middle of the text. --Victor falk 12:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- I beg to differ. "Tom the racist" refers to Tom only if he's indeed a racist. Otherwise it's an allegation. ←Humus sapiens 09:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
It's quite simple:
- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Apartheid wall result was "merge and redirect to Israeli West Bank barrier". Please respect this.
- WP:REDIRECT recommends the principle of least astonishment. The "Apartheid wall" is the barrier. That the expression happens to involve allegations etc. is secondary.
- Political epithets, no matter how one-sided, always redirect to their referents, not to pages discussing the context of the epithet.
—Ashley Y 08:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, all of this have been already addressed above. ←Humus sapiens 09:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- No, all of this was addressed in the AfD, the result of which was absolutely explicit: "The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Israeli West Bank barrier." If you wish to appeal that result, go through the proper channels.--G-Dett 17:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- WP:NOT#Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy. ←Humus sapiens 20:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Speak, Humus, don't point. What are you trying to say?--G-Dett 20:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- to quote myself: "::Pure wikilawyering. It's an offense to common sense.--Victor falk 21:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)"--Victor falk 21:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- WP:NOT#Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy. ←Humus sapiens 20:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- No, all of this was addressed in the AfD, the result of which was absolutely explicit: "The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Israeli West Bank barrier." If you wish to appeal that result, go through the proper channels.--G-Dett 17:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
If someone types in "apartheid wall", we ought to redirect them to the article about the apartheid wall. —Ashley Y 20:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- If someone types in "apartheid wall", we ought to redirect them to the article about the allegations of apartheid. ←Humus sapiens 20:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Why, to try to educate the reader out of their POV? Why not just give them what they ask for? —Ashley Y 23:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Protected page
I'm making a request for protected page. I'd like to point out that the result of the Afd was 28 Merge, 12 Delete, 12 Redirect, and 2 Strong Keep.--Victor falk 13:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- What do both sides think about a compromise disambig page that says:
Apartheid wall may refer to: * Allegations of Israeli apartheid * the Israeli West Bank barrier
- --MattWright (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- That's close to where we were before Jayjg (talk · contribs) became involved about two weeks ago. Want to go back to that? --John Nagle 19:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- We're now at "The phrase apartheid wall is used in Allegations of Israeli apartheid to refer to the Israeli West Bank barrier.", per MattWright (talk · contribs). That probably makes everyone equally unhappy. Good enough for tonight. Let's give this thing a rest for a while. Thanks. --John Nagle 04:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, good enough for now. Though the throwing out of an AfD decision by heavily involved activist-admins is a serious enough issue in its own right.--G-Dett 14:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Admin disagreement over protection underway. See end of User talk:EliminatorJR. Now what? --John Nagle 20:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, good enough for now. Though the throwing out of an AfD decision by heavily involved activist-admins is a serious enough issue in its own right.--G-Dett 14:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- We're now at "The phrase apartheid wall is used in Allegations of Israeli apartheid to refer to the Israeli West Bank barrier.", per MattWright (talk · contribs). That probably makes everyone equally unhappy. Good enough for tonight. Let's give this thing a rest for a while. Thanks. --John Nagle 04:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- That's close to where we were before Jayjg (talk · contribs) became involved about two weeks ago. Want to go back to that? --John Nagle 19:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Disambiguation page...
Recently, a couple editors added a bunch of other tags to this article, and then when I tagged it as a {{disambig}}, they objected. Since they are new to the edit dispute, I wanted to make sure they understand why I tagged this as a disambig. I understand it is not in the most common format of disambig, but it does seem appropriate in this case. Editors were warring over which of two articles to redirect to, and although I could have placed it in list form, this prose sentence makes a lot more sense and leads directly to the two articles discussing the topic. There should not be additional material added to this article, as it is more appropriate in one of the other two articles, where the statements are also already sourced. Furthermore, this article already had an AfD of which the result was merge & redirect, so consensus does not want a long article here. Hope that explains my reasoning. --MattWright (talk) 14:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with the disambig referring to two pages. But I think point form (as above) would be better. The sentence is very awkward prose actually and the list format seems to be the standard at other disambig pages. Tiamat 18:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- The language is a bit awkward. Look back at Gurch, 18:55, 5 July 2007 for some better language that says essentially the same thing. We're back to where we were a month ago, except that the language is slightly worse. --John Nagle 05:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- The only problem I see there is the stub tag, asking for expansion, when all we really want is a disambig type page. What do you think of list form? I agree the sentence I came up with can be hard to parse. --MattWright (talk) 07:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'd go back to the Gurch version of 5 July, but drop the "stub" tag. The problem with list form is that they're not really alternatives; they're multiple articles on the same subject. But I don't have strong feelings one way or the other. I'm inclined not to mess with this much for now. We're going into an arbitration on this general subject at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Allegations of apartheid, which may affect this and some other relaed issues. --John Nagle 19:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- The only problem I see there is the stub tag, asking for expansion, when all we really want is a disambig type page. What do you think of list form? I agree the sentence I came up with can be hard to parse. --MattWright (talk) 07:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- I found this article recently, and was about to add a stub tag, but after reading the discussion here decided not to. However, I did add the 'Orphan' tag; for such a heavily-disputed article, this doesn't have many incoming links, not even from allegations of Israeli apartheid itself! You'd think that if this was a term used in such discussions, that page would actually mention it somewhere... Terraxos 17:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- This article is actually designed not to produce internal links to it. It was supposed to be a redirect, but due to a lot of dispute, it has morphed into a dual redirect into two topics, with a very small disambig sentence. Article that do discuss this term, which allegations of Israeli apartheid does in several places, link to the appropriate location. is that acceptable to you? Because it took a while to reach that compromise. --MattWright (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)