Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Apartheid/Archived discussion up to June 23, 2006

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Proposal of User:KimvdLinde

I made my proposal, based on policies, the relative importance of terms, and the way users will use these pages at the article space. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments by User:Coroebus

Dunno if you've given up with this business, but I think your structure is ok, but would prefer global apartheid to be redirected and moved to another article since I think it is an interesting idea that needs exploring. As for deleting the contents of the other apartheid articles, I'm less sure of that, I'd prefer a merge of well sourced bits into your catch-all article. My only reservations are that I think this would just represent a further battlefield in the 'Israeli apartheid' conflict, it wouldn't actually resolve anything, but I haven't got any better ideas --Coroebus 23:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Structure and Terminology Guidelines

I'm offering here a fresh approach to the discussion about non-South-African apartheid. I hope that the following approach will help us reach real consensus on a framework for structure and terminology. This framework should make it easier to decide which articles Wikipedia should have, and how they should link to each other.

The set of questions below is a highly structured way of organizing the discussion. I think structure will be helpful, and I suggest that we work through them in order. Let's start by discussing what we want Wikipedia users to be able to learn from Wikipedia, and then look for the best words to help them learn that. Starting with words, rather than goals, is not working.

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to act as mediator; I'm a participant like everyone else. Clayoquot07:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

What are our educational goals?

Discrimination is an important phenomenon in our world. I believe we all agree that a goal of Wikipedia is to educate readers with factual, balanced, well-sourced information about discrimination, in all countries. What do you think of this goal?

Perhaps a secondary goal is to educate the reader about discrimination as being a common, global phenomenon rather than confined to the best-known cases. Wikipedia is currently deficient in articles about civil rights around the globe [1] [2]. I think a good goal is to create a network of pages that will help the user gain a more global, holistic understanding of civil rights and discrimination. What do you think of this goal?

What other educational goals do we have, or should we consider?

What is standard terminology?

What we disagree on is the issue of where to discuss discrimination, and what language to use. Encyclopedic discussion generally calls for terminology that is standard, serious, and not carrying unnecessary emotional baggage. Neutral discourse avoids euphemism and dysphemism.

The most appropriate term I can think of for this phenomenon as perpetrated by governments is government discrimination, or if you prefer, state discrimination. Government discrimination takes varying forms and degrees, ranging from education policies to disenfranchisement to denial of all civil and human rights. Government discrimination encompasses discrimination by race, tribe, ethnic group, cultural affiliation, language, religion, gender, class, and other aspects of identity.

Alternatively, we could use a broader term such as "Systemic discrimination" or simply "Discrimination" to be inclusive of discrimination which is institutionalized in a society but not created by law.

What place does non-standard terminology have in Wikipedia?

Where is it appropriate to use non-standard terms?

As we all know by now, some people have used the term "apartheid" to mean a form of government discrimination, or even widespread unofficial discrimination. Should the fact that someone labels a government's practices as "apartheid" be mentioned in Wikipedia?

I would argue that the fact that someone calls a practices "apartheid" is apppropriate for inclusion in articles about discrimination. Articles about discrimination can present viewpoints on the severity and the motives behind the discrimination, with an amount of space proportional to the real-world prominence of that view.

When should non-standard terms have their own articles?

For just about any controversial political issue, non=standard dysphemisms, euphemisms, nicknames, and epithets abound. Some of them, such as collateral damage and axis of evil have their own articles, and some, such as unborn child, don't. I don't have a fully-formed proposal for answering the question of when a non-standard term deserves its own article. What I can offer as some gut-feeling ideas is:

  • Wikipedia should not have an article for every non-standard term, even if a lot of people use it.
  • An article about a non-standard term should focus on what makes the term itself notable, e.g. it incited a riot or it was invented in an episode of The Simpsons. The articles should not read as if it is promoting use of the term. The article should primarily discuss the term itself, not whether the term is an accurate description of the phenomonenon it is intended to describe. It should refer refer to a separate article for a discussion of the phenomenon.
  • If a non-standard term could be interpreted literally by readers as being a fact, the title of the article should make it clear that the article refers to a term, not a fact.

How can Wikipedia meet the needs of users who search for content using non-standard terms?

To what extent do we need to help readers get to the article they are looking for using non-standard terms? The main routes are:

  • Google
  • Wikipedia search:
  • Links from other pages within Wikipedia

I think there is much that can and should be done to help those readers, without giving non-standard terms undue legitimacy.


The following is an example of how we could use the terminology and structure guidelines. I'm not sure if it is helpful to include this example before we at least agree on goals and standard terminology. However, I've reluctantly included it to help clarify my proposal, and I hope it doesn't become too much of a distraction.

I propose that the articles link to each other as follows:

We might also consider a new Wikiproject or series on discrimination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Su-laine.yeo (talk • contribs)


PS this section Israeli-occupied_territories#Arab_Palestinians_and_Israeli_law could be expnded with any WP:RS claims and counter claim from the apartheid article .

(Homey, you posted the above comment in three pages. I'm only going to reply in one.) If this the only problem you have with the above proposal then I'm delighted. If you have any other issues with the proposal, including with the other three terms I offered as alternatives to "government discrimination," you can save everyone time by stating them now. Clayoquot16:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
So then do you agree to remove the neologism "government discrimination" and use the term "apartheid" instead? It's rather unfortunate that you do not deal with the neologism question. Homey 09:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Me not "dealing with" your neologism question is a choice I've made, not something unfortunate. I am not going down that path for the following reasons: 1) Leifern already answered you, below and 2) I think I've made it clear that if one of the four terms I proposed doesn't work, we can use any of the other three or any other standard term. If you don't like one of the terms I proposed, I think it would be constructive if you could suggest something else that would work for you. Clayoquot 16:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't see Leifern addressing the question of your term being a neologism, he dodges the issue by accusing Israeli apartheid of begging the question. 1) That you make the "choice" not to respond suggests you have no answer. 2) I think I've made it clear why none of your proposed terms work, either because they are too vague or because they are neologisms. Homey 16:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

So essentially you're proposing a rename of 'apartheid outside of south africa' to 'government discrimination', and a rename of 'Israeli apartheid' to 'government discrimination in israel and the occupied territories', with a redirect from 'israeli apartheid'? A few comments, the names are clumsy, in particular I'm not sure 'discrimination' is quite the right allegation for the Israeli accusations (with the occupied territories and their populations not really being considered part of israel by either side), and I'm not sure the antis will be too happy with an article that is still essentially about 'Israeli apartheid' (it'll need a short description of the term to make the redirect make sense, otherwise they'll be even less happy, since an unequivocal redirect does make the claim of 'israeli apartheid' unless you qualify it in the text somehow). --Coroebus 17:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

What I'm proposing is that we go through a process for eventually agreeing on what the whole set of articles will look like. Once we agree on that, the issue of what to move, delete, or merge will be much easier. If the "antis" you're referring to don't like the proposal, I'm sure we'll hear from them. What I'd like to know from you is what you think ;). What do you think the titles should be? Clayoquot 09:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm with Homey, I don't like the titles. I prefer Kim's suggestion. --Coroebus 07:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I think this is an honorable and honest attempt, so my compliments to Su-Laine. I think there is a need in Wikipedia for articles on institutional, systematic, or governmental discrimination of various governments and regimes. Homey, a descriptive term is not a neologism any more than "not a neologism" is a neologism. I wouldn't mind a whole series of articles that examined discrimination as a civil rights issue in all countries - certainly Norway, the United States, and any number of countries have something to answer for. My preference would be Institutional discrimination as governments have a tendency to tacitly accept discrimination even when they aren't sponsoring it themselves. --Leifern 17:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Clayoquot 09:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll on goals and standard terminology

I think it's a good time for a straw poll. I'd first like to do a poll on goals and on standard terminology. If a consensus emerges there, we can move onto polls on the more complex questions. (I am a believer in moving people by inches.) Eventually, what I'm aiming for is to get consensus on a concrete list of articles, and from there consensus on what, if any, merge/delete/move decisions.

I don't have much experience with polling, so I would welcome any suggestions or modifications for making this process more fair or manageable. I don't think of this poll as being "binding" in any way. I'm just trying to see where the disagreements really are. Clayoquot 08:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Poll Questions:

*Do you agree with the following educational goal for Wikipedia?: To educate readers with factual, balanced, well-sourced information about discrimination, in all countries.

*Do you agree with the following educational goal for Wikipedia?: To help the user gain a more global, holistic understanding of civil rights and discrimination as a common phenomonon, by create a network of articles on discrimination.

*Do you agree with using the term "discrimination" as the standard term for discrimination?

*If Wikipedia could have a series of articles on discrimination that is pervasive in a society, would you prefer article titles to use the term "government discrimination", "state discrimination", "systemic discrimination", "institutionalized discrimination", "discrimination" or another term?

Clayoquot 08:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Are the first three poll questions really necessary? They are prejudicial and look like they're trying to direct editors to accepting a new article title with the term discrimination in it. The fourth question doesn't give editors any options other than something with "discrimination" in it and doesn't ask editors if they prefer someting with the term "apartheid". Reminds me of Henry Ford's slogan about the Model T being available in any colour as long as it's black.fullsome prison 13:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You've made some fair criticisms of the poll (I don't necessarily agree, but I think they're fair). I'll give it another draft when I get home from work tonight. After my more open questions ("What are our educational goals?" etc.) went unremarked for a couple of days I had the impression that the first three questions would not be controversial. Please suggest questions/wordings that you think would be more fair. Nothing is stopping anyone from posting another poll.Clayoquot 15:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll write more later, but for now I'm just going to strike the above poll questions.Clayoquot 04:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Your poll questions assume people want to change the name of the articles or drop apartheid from the titles. Sonofzion 20:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

A number of individuals seem to like the title Allegations of Israeli apartheid. Why not keep the poll simple and just ask:

Responses to the Poll Questions

The whole purpose of the articles is to discuss contemporary usages and applications of the term "apartheid". The proposal is essentially to create entirely new articles which would not be on the application of the term in different contexts but on "government discrimination" which is not a phrase that is generally in use.Homey 09:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No, Homey, Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a manual of style. There should be no articles on contemporary usage and applications of any term. There should be articles on topics, and where possible, these topics should be titled according to standard usage - but not in ways the beg the question (please look up what that means - you seem to have misunderstood it, per below). --Leifern 10:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Homey, please tell me if I understand what you're saying: Are you saying that the purpose of the "apartheid" articles is to educate people about the term, rather than the events that the term is used to describe? Clayoquot 16:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

What is meant by the term "Government discrimination"? "Government discrimination in Israel and the Occupied Territories" refers to which group? Shephardim? Women? Secular Jews? Russians? Christians? Palestinians? Reform, Conservative and Reconstructionist Jews? The elderly? Olim? Sabras? Pacifists? Supporters of opposition parties? Youth? university graduates? Drop-outs? Yeshiva students? The phrase you've chosen is hopelessly vague and essentially meaningless.

No, it's not. This is precisely the point. If we are going to discuss systematic discrimination perpetrated by any government, then it should be considered in light of many areas of discrimination. There are many groups in Israel that rightly or wrongly claim discrimination, as there are in virtually every country where they get to speak up. --Leifern 10:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The same can be asked for your porposed Government discrimination article - it could refer to countless forms of "government discrimination" from discrimination against certain companies to discrimination against certain practices to discrimination against certain people. The same problems exist for your alternative phrases "state discrmination" and "systemic discrimination" (or, for that matter "institutional discrminination"). This can mean discrimination against anything or anyone, anything from industrial policy (state discrimination against one industry and in favour of another) to foreign policy to treatment of various populations.

Now you're stretching it. Look up the article on Discrimination and you'll see the topic carefully delineated. We should use this as our starting point. --Leifern 10:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, even if we are to assume that "government discrimination" refers to treatment of people there is quite a difference between "discrimination" in the sense of preferential treatment and separation and segregation which is what is being alleged by those who use terms like "Israeli apartheid" or "gender apartheid". All apartheid may be discriminatory but not all discrimination is apartheid. Homey 09:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is a difference, but one is a subset of the other. --Leifern 10:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

"*Do you agree with using the term "discrimination" as the standard term for discrimination?"

This is an example of begging the question. You are actually asking us to determine is whether discrmination is the standard term for apartheid, are you not? However, you are treating apartheid and discrimination as synonyms when, in fact, they are not interchangable. Further you are basically conducting a push poll through the use of leading questions by preceding this question with a motherhood question that doesn't get at the real issue which is not whether educating people about civil rights and discrimination is a good thing but on whether or not the term "apartheid" has become a term that has acquired a meaning applicable outside of the South African context and whether there should be articles on that term (a question that has already been dealt with via AFDs). Homey 09:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't begging the question at all, though you should never use the term being defined in the definition, and it's not a push poll. The way I see it, you can't stand any fact or logic that gets in the way of your premise that Israel is guilty of apartheid. --Leifern 10:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
"Actually, it isn't begging the question at all, though you should never use the term being defined in the definition"
Why not? Because doing so begs the question. Homey 20:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
No, the term "Israeli apartheid" begs the question, because it assumes a premise not in evidence. Using the term being defined in a definition is basically meaningless, but it makes no assumption at all. --Leifern 21:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The article is on the usage of the phrase and the arguments for and against it. By your argument we also can't have an article called War on Terror, the widespread term for the campaign, because it assumes that is what the war is actually about. In any case, in regards to Su-laine's poll, please explain why she shouldn't use the term defined in the definition if not to avoid begging the question?Homey 21:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I think Homey insisting on "apartheid" for a good reason.
  • Homey is intersted in the emotional, propeganda value more than in writing a good encyclopdia article.
  • Homey, like many others, prefer using an in accurate trem in order to get an emotional response - in short he wants wikipedia to be polimic not encyclopedic. Zeq 12:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you should stop assuming you know other people's motivations because you don't. WP:AGF. Homey 21:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Homey, even though you have squandered more than enough of good faith with your activism and soapboxing, I'll give you another chance: you are confused. I agree with Leifern and others: this is a good case of begging the question.
The derogatory expression "Israeli apartheid" is not an encyclopedic term. Just like Soviet Canuckistan, it should be a redirect to a neutral article and should be included in the List of political epithets. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Soviet Canuckistan, like Nethanyahu's "Hamastan" or Jesse Jackson's "Hymietown", is an epithet ie a derogatory name. Apartheid outside of the South African context is an allegation. Calling it an epithet is POV. In any case, Humus, the issue here is the proposed "Government discrimination" neologism on which you have remained silent. Homey 03:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Surprize, I agree with Homey. no need for new neologism or to listing in a "epithet" list (few people even know what an epithet is) If there is such thing as real apartheid in Israel we should have an article on it. If there is none the issue become " use of the term apartheid in the context of Israeli-Palestine conflict" Zeq 03:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Institutional discrimination works for me. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


Regarding titles, I think I'd prefer somewhat more specific articles than simply 'state discrimination', e.g. splitting into maybe religious, ethnic, sex etc. (incidentally, its a big task, but I think a good first port of call would be something like Amnesty International's reports). With regards to the whole should we include apartheid and specifically israeli 'apartheid' under state discrimination, I'm minded against. And my reasons are that I don't think 'discrimination' quite captures the flavour of what is being alleged, if it was just about Arab Israelis then yes, but what we have here is something less than colonialism/imperialism and something rather more than simple dscrimination. And I think the same applies in the case of South African apartheid (although presumably you're not after including this because it is non-extant?). (Note I'm still happy for the qualifier 'allegations' in apartheid, but I just think it captures the system better than discrimination, perhaps there is a better term that is more neutral?) --Coroebus 08:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The cat is out of the bag

Boycott_of_Israel is the right place to merge " use of the term apartheid in the context of Israeli-Palestine conflict" In this article we should discuss:

  • Who orgenize the "south africa style" boycott
  • their goals
  • their methods (such as using the word apartheid)

Zeq 05:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You are assuming, incorrectly, that all those who use the apartheid analogy are advocates of a boycott. Homey 05:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The issue is "usage" of the term.

The most comon use of the term is tied to demands of boycott.

I wonder: So only your assumptions are "truth" and mine are "assumtions " ??? after all much of what you wrote in the apartheid article is not true - surly you have realized that by now ? Zeq 05:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Aloni and a number of other Israeli politicians have *not* used the term in this sense. I also think it's OR to claim that the term is used more in association with a boycott then not. There are a *number* of references to the analogy being used as a warning of what Israel may become rather than as a description of what Israel is. Homey 06:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Homey, I was the first to wish that only WP:RS sources will be used instead of the propeganmda you inserted into the original article. I still welcome widding out all non-WP:RS matrial and never used such matrial inside the article.Zeq 06:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

There is discussion at Apartheid oustide of South Africa to move that article to Apartheid, merge in Apartheid (discrmination and use the new Apartheid article as the central point. This makes the most sense to me. Sonofzion 21:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

A number of individuals seem to like the title Allegations of Israeli apartheid. Why not keep the poll simple and just ask:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Centralized_discussion/Apartheid/Archived_discussion_up_to_June_23,_2006&oldid=1002693412"