This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RenyD (talk | contribs) at 17:27, 1 June 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 17:27, 1 June 2006 by RenyD (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Apartheid (disambiguation)
From Misplaced Pages: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)
- Strong keep if the guideline were followed in the manner suggested half the disambig pages on wikipedia would have to be deleted. Given the controversy at the original Apartheid page over listing other uses of the word (see Talk:Apartheid) having a seperate disambiguation page is the only solution to adequately deal with non-South African uses of the term apartheid. The problem with abakharev's examples is that "the" is not the operative word in his examples, apartheid is the operative word in the articles listed on Apartheid (disambiguation) Homey 06:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Similarly, we do not have Fascism (disambiguation) with links to Islamofascism, Fascist regime of Bush, etc. We do not have entries in Terrorist (disambiguation) for Terrorist Bin Laden or Terrorist Yassir Arafat, we have only links to a book and a film with the same name. If there exist an article on Apartheid (book) or Apartheid (painting) etc. then the disambig should be created. Just collecting articles on catchphrases there apartheid is used as a slur term is useless abakharev 06:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Abstain for the moment - it's a tricky one. For one, the main Apartheid article is the main article on the topic, and it is the topic that most would want to know about when looking up apartheid. However citing ground for deletion as being that apartied appears in the latter portion of a number of the articles' titles is clearly ridiculous. THE KING 06:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- Why should moving History of South Africa in the apartheid era to Apartheid depend on Apartheid (disambiguation)? ←Humus sapiens 08:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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 06:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- 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 13:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- 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:Homeontherange. There is a danger here of POV pushing ... BigDT 06:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- Well, one do have to start somewhere? This should set a presedent for other disambig articles that shouldn't be. -- Heptor talk 13:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete; An obvious attempt to introduce pov into a disambiguation page.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Del - Unencyclopedic. As some of us know, the Soviet propaganda generously used such epithets to besmirch their enemies. Since the collapse of the USSR, some pundits try to keep using the same terminology against their enemies. WP is not in the business to push POV. ←Humus sapiens 09:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. There is nothing to disambiguate here, and this disambiguation page is used solely for POV-pushing, giving undue prominence to murky phrases. Pecher 07:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages, AfD is the place. -- Heptor talk 14:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Well, no, it is not "pretty much the definition of a disambiguation page". This definition is, per WP:DAB: "Disambiguation in Misplaced Pages 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)
- Keep As per Homey. --Qwertyca 07:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:DAB. --Sam Blanning 09:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep A relevant term used in different contexts, should not be censored. Bertilvidet 09:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:DAB. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- Bingo - User:Heptor hits the nail on the head. BigDT 13:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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 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)
- 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)
- 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
- That's exactly my point. "The word "Apartheid" may be applied to any 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)
- 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
- 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)
- 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)
- 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
- Bingo - User:Heptor hits the nail on the head. BigDT 13:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- Delete, WP:DAB. --Terence Ong 14:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Useless at best, tendencious at worst. --Chodorkovskiy 14:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- There's only one apartheid on the disambiguation page, and, as far as I know, only one event referred to as apartheid ever. —Cuiviénen 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)
- There's only one apartheid on the disambiguation page, and, as far as I know, only one event referred to as apartheid ever. —Cuiviénen on Wednesday, 31 May 2006 at 16:35 UTC
- Delete per nominator. Bidabadi 15:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- Delete per abakharev Tewfik 16:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Heptor and I can't wait to read the page about the notability of his uncle's stupidity. AnonEMouse 17:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. If it stays, based on the OED dicdef quoted above, we should add articles about Indian reservations, Ghettos, Holocaust, and all else that fits the definition. Just because of a catchy word. Carlossuarez46 17:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. It is a PoV push. Dominick 18:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- keep while I think the Israeli apartheid and apartheid wall articles should be deleted the other articles are fine and the disambiguation page is therefore needed. Fullsome prison 19:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. In addition, all the articles except the main one are on AfD, and (hopefully) will be deleted or renamed without redirect. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- It seems you misunderstood a little - not all of the other articles are on AfD, but they should be. -- Heptor talk 19:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- Delete per Heptor.Aguerriero (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Heptor. Jayjg 22:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- 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 Arican Apartheid, and so seems necessary to keep the page. --Wisden17 23:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Comment I've reworked the page as more DAB, less POV. Fagstein 02:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Obviously useful, even if slightly in violation of a little-used guideline. LotLE×talk 03:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Comment - note that the reference does not mention Israel. ←Humus sapiens 05:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - This is to some extend correct, the word has been used as a synonym for "racism" by some. But even in case "Apartheid" may be considered a general depreciative - imagine the disambiguation page "racism"? Many people have accused for example France of being a racist society. Should there be a page Racism (Diambiguation), poining to French Racism, and perhaps also to Sexual Racism (whatever the latter would mean)? -- Heptor talk 12:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- Comment: If you are trying to suggest that this AfD is about expunging an entry concerning Israeli Apartheid, you should know that the nominator originally wanted a link to Israeli Apartheid on this diambiguation page, but then found it wiser to delete the page alltogether. See the talk page. -- Heptor talk 13:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Even if it's not a perfect example of dab page, it's still useful. Obhaso 05:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Keep and move as per Spacepotato. --Guinnog 12:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete confusing and misleading. RenyD 17:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)