Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:50, 31 May 2006

Jay, how does redirecting to segregation deal with the term "global apartheid" or, for that matter "Israeli apartheid" when neither of those phrases appear on that page?Homey 03:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

And how can you possibly argue that terms such as Apartheid wall and Israeli apartheid do not justify a disambiguation article?Homey 03:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should disambiguate ritual murder and say that it "is a term used by some critics" to describe Jewish customs? ←Humus sapiens 05:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There is one article on Israeli apartheid and another called Apartheid wall. How do you justify not including these articles in an article disambiguating the word apartheid? Can you set aside your POV and answer that question?Homey 06:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It is clear you are trying to introduce pov into a disambiguation page. It is obviously not needed. Please desist.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

What POV would that be? The articles exist, one of the articles has existed for some time. Our practice on disambiguation pages is clear. How do you justify violating this practice? Homey 06:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Adding Israel here is not encyclopedic. This was a slanderous allegation, applied to Israel specifically with one purpose - to demonize it. ←Humus sapiens 08:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Some simple questions:

• Israeli apartheid
• Apartheid wall

1) Is Apartheid (disambiguation) a disambiguation page, intended to differentiate articles associated with the same title/word, in this case "apartheid? Yes or no?

2) Do the two articles in question have "apartheid" as part of their official titles (that is, they're not redirects)? Yes or no?

3) Are the two articles legitimate articles? Yes or no?

So if the answer to the above questions are all "yes", what POSSIBLE justification is there for excluding the two articles from the disambig page? Try to answer without resorting to the coy "we're part of the Zionist conspiracy ha ha" nonsense (it's an intellectually dishonest cop-out intended to make your opponents look like conspiracy nuts) or the handwaving "I don't like those articles" nonsense. And try to answer these simple questions without insulting my intelligence. --Calton | Talk 08:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

From the edit summary Those are not encyclopedic terms. They are slanderous allegations. Sigh. Try not insult people's intelligence: are these actual encyclopedia articles? Yes? Then by definition they're encyclopedic. If you claim they're not, take it up with WP:AFD. --Calton | Talk 08:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the meaning of "unencyclopedic" in the context. It means it does not belong in an encyclopedia, in fact wikipedia has several unencyclopedic articles, it is not necessarily an oxymoron.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Calton is 100% correct. This is a disambiguation page, an index page. It must link to all the articles we have which contain the word 'apartheid'. Whether it's a slanderous term doesn't matter in the slightest - that's something to discuss in the relevant article, or AfD. From the post above you seem to be more concerned with the term itself than the mechanical function of disambiguation, and you're in the wrong place. --Sam Blanning 11:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Moshe, this is not slander, though your insistence that your opponents are trying to demonise Isreal may well be slander. Please take a look at some other disambiguation pages, such as Allah (disambiguation) (which links to, among opther things, a satirical blog).

Someone should probably restore the links soon. -- Ec5618 15:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I support the reasoning of Calton and San Blanning above. I'd ask a non-involved admin to unprotect the page so that the disambiguation links can be restored. This is not the place to argue about the POV of one or more articles that are linked to in a dab page; if you have problems with the contents of those articles, discuss them on their respective talk pages, attach a cleanup or NPOV tag, bring them to AfD, or whatever, but trying to exclude them from a dab page on the grounds of being "slander" is simply against Misplaced Pages policy and precedent. MCB 16:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I find the arguments above flawed. In this case, terminology is intentionally misused/abused by pundits. This slanderous allegation was applied to Israel with one purpose - to demonize it. If you insist to include everyone/everything subjected to slander in disambigs, consider starting with Fascist (disambiguation). ←Humus sapiens 19:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Once again, you're talking about an issue that isn't relevant here. I'm not sure whether those articles should exist or not, but as long as they do exist and contain the word 'apartheid' in the title, they must be linked to from the relevant disambiguation page. And there is no fascist (disambiguation), so I'm not sure what you're getting at there. There is a Template:Fascism, which includes our articles on clerical fascism and neo-fascism, two terms which could also be seen as abusive terminology. --Sam Blanning 22:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Basques

I am removing Basques as well. There are hundreds of events somebody called apartheid, fascism or any other slander terms. They are not belong to the disambig article. abakharev 08:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I completly agree.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. We don't seem to have articles on those with the word 'apartheid' in them. --Sam Blanning 11:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

We *do* have articles, however, on Israeli apartheid and Apartheid wall

See Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation:

• "Disambiguation in Misplaced Pages and Wikimedia is the process of resolving ambiguity—the conflict that occurs when a term is closely associated with two or more different topics. In many cases, this word or phrase is the "natural" title of more than one article. In other words, disambiguations are paths leading to different topics that share the same term or a similar term."

Homey 13:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Yes, it looks like as so far as we have articles with the titles Apartheid wall and Israeli apartheid we should include these into the disambig. I would personally support renaming of these articles into something less POV, but thats just me abakharev 18:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Then unprotect the article. Homey 18:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

So that you could resume reverting? What a great idea! Pecher 20:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Pecher, read this page. Most of the editors on it now agree that the articles should be listed. You'll have to accept that. Homey 20:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

If that is true it is only by one or so editors. Hardly an example of consensus.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's see. Thusfar, 8 people have voiced support for including the links, and have cited policy to show that the links are valid disambiguation links. Homey, Calton, Sam Blanning, Ec5618, MCB, JoshuaZ, Sandstein and abakharev. These people were opposed by Humus sapiens and Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg

Still, this isn't about majority rule. This is about the point of disambiguation:

"When a user searches for a particular term, something else might be expected than what actually appears. Therefore, helpful links to any alternative articles with similar names are needed."

Perhaps the term 'Apartheid wall' is offensive. It is certainly not slanderous, in itself, to acknowledge that the term exists. Even if the article is deleted, and a redirect is put in place, this disambiguation page should include a link to it. -- Ec5618 06:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should have those articles, but as long as we do, they should be presumably listed in the disambig. Someone may want to AfD the two articles. JoshuaZ 19:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I entirely agree with JoshuaZ. Sandstein 21:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Poll

I think it is time to have a poll. Poll is ended on 23:09 (UTC) June 4 The poll seems to be not very popular, but it looks like a consensus emerging on the talk page. I have unportected the article abakharev 23:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposal 1

Return:

• Israeli apartheid is a term used by some critics of Israel's policies towards the Palestinians.
• The apartheid wall is a term used by the same critics to describe the Israeli West Bank barrier being built to separate Israel from the West Bank.

Support

1. Reluctantly support, would support removing the items back, if the articles themselves would be renamed abakharev 23:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Proposal 2

m:Polls are evil

1. Consensus seems pretty clear on this issue. I don't see why a straw poll is necessary. --Sam Blanning 08:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
   1. Polls are way to measure consensus
   2. Polls are evil but Edit warrings are worse than Polls
   3. Compromises and consensuses are better than polls, but I do not see any proposals for the compromise here - the articles are either there or not abakharev 09:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
      1. But since a supermajority of editors has already expressed support for the inclusion of the links, the poll adds nothing of substance. -- Ec5618 09:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

         Just look onto the history of the article, before I protected it the article it was reverted every half an hour or so. No 3RR violations, no obvious socks just a crowd of supporters on each side. If it is named consensus on your planet then what color is the Sun there? abakharev 10:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

         Since you protected the article many more editors have commented on the issue. So far there are 8 for the links and 2 against. That's a pretty clear consensus. Also, the 2 against have not addressed the argument that the real issue is with the existence of the articles, and that this should be addressed at WP:AFD, not by trying to remove them from a disambiguation page. Note that I don't believe we should unprotect the article yet, I think we should wait for discussion to become stale or, failing that, about a week after protection was applied. However, I do think the discussion is easy enough to follow that a poll is unnecessary, and the arguments against having one laid out on the Meta page very convincing. --Sam Blanning 10:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

      2. Alex, there is a clear consensus here. Can you please unprotect the article - it's ridiculous to delay any longer. Homey 23:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

If Israel is to be mentioned here, we should make it clear that it this expression is a propaganda epithet used in order to demonize it, and not a factual description. ←Humus sapiens 05:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation?

I've read some of the discussion here, especially Abakharev's comments. My question is, do we need this disambiguation page at all? The term "Apartheid" refers to the South African regime. There is no ambiguity in that - even in phrases like "Israeli Apartheid" or "Basque Apartheid" or "Global Apartheid" the word "Apartheid" refers to the South African regime. I suggest that we simply put this disambiguation up for AfD. Possibly with a note in the Apartheid article that some has used the word "Apartheid" as a pejorative epithet, but I am not sure this is notable enough for the article. -- Heptor _talk 09:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it may be that the existence of this disambiguation page is in fact wrong. 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)." This seems to apply here. Given that, I would support deletion on an AfD for this page. That doesn't mean I'm reversing my position on the Israeli links above though - as long as the article is, rightly or wrongly, a list of articles which contain the word 'apartheid', it should contain all of them. --Sam Blanning 10:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

A) that's a guideline not a policy B) Look around at some disambiguation pages and you'll see that, in fact, they do often disambiguate between articles that share only part of their title. For instance, see Abbey (disambiguation), Acadian (disambiguation), Achilles (disambiguation), Acid (disambiguation) (I'm not even finished the "A"s yet- I could probably list another 20 before getting to B). Homey 23:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

So just because a few other disambiguation pages made a similar mistake this one should as well? It is clear that guidelines are supposed to be followed.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you really want me to finish the "A"s? There are not a "few other" disambiguation pages, there are hundreds that do this. Homey 02:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Moshe, look at the previous section, eight editors favour the links, two oppose. There's a consensus. Homey 02:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry buddy but that is not a consensus, and more than two oppose it anyways. Even if it were true does that mean we should disregard wikipedia guidelines? Of course not.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines are not policies.Homey 02:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

So you think that means you can disregard them for no reason?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Moshe, do you know the difference between a guideline and a policy on wikipedia?Homey 02:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes I do, but a guideline is not supposed to be completly disregarded because you feel like it, it is clear that there is no reason to not follow it here.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not disregarded because "I feel like it" but because most editors do not support it. Disagree with me? Why don't you start going to other disambig pages and removing the links that contradict the guideline? I guarantee that you won't get very far doing that before a) dozens of irate editors start "whooping your ass" and b) the guideline is changed.

BTW, how do you justify leaving "global apartheid" while removing the other links. Doens't global apartheid also violate this guideline that you suddenly find so sacred?Homey 02:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I actually think it should go as well, but if I deleted it I would feel obligated to make up an afd which I don't feel like doing right now.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That's understandable as you'd lose an AFD. But fear of losing (or laziness if that's what you claim) does not excuse a double standard. Homey 02:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected this article again as it seems that the edit-warring has not yet come to an end. Please resolve your differences and reach a compromise. Once that has been done, I will unprotect the article. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no way to compromise between "X" and "not X", however, if you read the talk page you'll see there is a general consensus even if Moshe refuses to adhere to it. One obsessive editor should not be allowed to stand in the way of consensus and you shouldn't be enabling one editor to do so.Homey 02:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do see that there is a general consensus, or at least a wide majority, here, but I still don't think that a couple of days of protection will hurt--perhaps after that time Moshe will calm down and refrain from edit-warring. It's not a particularly good sign when edit warring flares up not an hour after the article is protected, and I don't want to see that happen again. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Not to raise Misplaced Pages:The Wrong Version but don't you think you are encouraging him to edit war by protecting his preferred version of the article? If your intent is to encourage him to "calm down" you're doing it in a counter-intuitive manner. By protection his version you're encouraging him to resume edit warring once protection is lifted. Homey 03:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, in looking over the talk page again, I think it's quite clear that there is just one user standing against the consensus of four or five others, and so I'm going to revert the page to the last version by Homeontherange and unprotect. Please, refrain from revert-warring any further, especially as both Homeontherange and Moshe... are one revert away from being blocked, and be aware that 3RR does not discriminate on the basis of where consensus on the talk page stood. Note as well that my reversion is not an endorsement of that version (nor was my originally protecting "his" version)--I'm not involved in this dispute at all. I'll let it run its course for a few hours, though I do so grudgingly, and if it turns into the same old edit war, I will protect again. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, one user against four or five others? Samuel Blanning, Humus Sapiens, and alex bakharev have all expressed agreement with me. Also the fact that the wikipedia guidlines support me as well makes me question your motive.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Add me to that list, specifically I think that if this page is here it should be this version. Given its current state, I edited it to be more NPOV, and I believe someone else continued further in that direction, so it is certainly better now than it was. However, I would defer to Moshe's version. (Oops, I neglected to sign: 6SJ7 11:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC))

I have no motive here except ending this edit war. I only placed a 3RR warning on your talk page as I had already posted one here for Homeontherage, but I apologize if I gave the impression that I was taking sides--I was merely acting upon what I saw as the consensus here. I don't want to mediate this dispute or force an opinion upon anyone--there was consensus to unprotect and so I unprotected; I believed there to be a stronger consensus for homeontherange's version than yours and so I reverted, with an edit summary that I was not endorsing that version, merely following what I saw as consensus. I apologize if you find my actions here to be mistaken, and I intend to stay out of this dispute altogether from now on. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Moshe, please withdraw your, to AGF, erroneus interpretation of what I said. Which part of "Calton is 100% correct" did you misread? As I made very clear, as long as this page exists, it must contain all relevant terms. --Sam Blanning 09:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay sorry, if I was wrong about your position then I apoligize. However while you did say that Calton was correct, you also later seem to have retracted that position with the statement: "Actually, it may be that the existence of this disambiguation page is in fact wrong". So I thought I had ample reason to believe you were expressing agreement with my conclusions.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

What criteria did you use to gauge there being more support against me than for me? The above editors all made their positions clear before you even arrived.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, I made a mistake by not more closely examining the discussion. Homeontherage approached me, stating in full confidence that there was a consensus against your opinion. I saw that the majority of reverts were done by Homeontherange and yourself, and I read a few comments like "Thusfar, 8 people have voiced support for including the links, and have cited policy to show that the links are valid disambiguation links. Homey, Calton, Sam Blanning, Ec5618, MCB, JoshuaZ, Sandstein and abakharev. These people were opposed by Humus sapiens and Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg." It seemed there was a consensus at the time, but quite obviously there was not. Given the current state of the AfD and the edit war repeat that is already brewing, it seems obvious that you are all pretty divided on every aspect of this article, but I think it best for me, being quite an outsider, to just stay out of the debate altogether. I will not voice support for one version or the other, nor will I say that there is consensus for one version or the other. I hope you can accept my apology and let this go. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I still see no evidence of a lack of consensus. An obvious supermajority has suggested the links be reinstated. Some people have additionally (and unrelatedly) questioned the logic in keeping this page at all. Consensus is to readd the links, and consensus is moving toward deleting the page entirely.

Humus sapiens' version states that "Israeli apartheid is a controversial propaganda epithet used to demonize the State of Israel." Clearly, this is rather emotive language. Both 'propaganda' and 'demonise' are not neutral words, in any sense of the words. Though there may be references to back the use of such harsh language, they too are rather onesided and emotive. The original wording neither promotes nor dismisses the term, which is clearly preferable, from a NPOV POV. Finally, please don't assume I have a POV, as I have expressed none. -- Ec5618 07:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

AfD

I have nominated the article to AfD per User:Heptor, User:Samuel_Blanning and User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg. I really do not see any real purposes of the article rather to incite the edit wars abakharev 06:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Reversion

, soI am reverting this edit, on the grounds that it was vandalism, plain and simple. This is just a note, for clarification, as it might seem like a violation of WP:3RR on my part. The edit in question changed the description of Israeli apartheid from:

"Israeli apartheid is a controversial phrase used by some critics of Israel's policies towards the Palestinians."

to

"Israeli apartheid is a a focused, targeted propaganda epithet which is at the center of a campaign for a political platform is attempting to rewrite and redefine the history of Israel as that of a "racist apartheid state".it's sole purpose is to to demonize the State of Israel"

Without judging the original text, the change can, in my view, not be seen as a good faith edit, and must be either vandalous, or WP:POINT. Either way, I am reverting. -- Ec5618 22:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

At least it is not a slabby attempt to sneak in a POV. it's sole purpose is to to demonize the State of Israel entertaining! Bertilvidet 22:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Ec5618, and was in the process of performing the same revert when I noticed Ec5618 had already done so. MCB 22:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not vandalism. It's blatant POV, but WP:VAND explictly states that violations of WP:NPOV are not vandalism. And it's not WP:POINT either. It's well known that there are more false accusations of violating WP:POINT in a given period than there are actual violations of the guideline. --Sam Blanning 22:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)