Revision as of 09:47, 23 December 2006

This article was nominated for deletion on 5 June 2006. The result of the discussion was no consenus.

Some of the discussion on this talk page is irrelevant to the article. It has been archived If further archiving is needed, see Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

Archives

1 (08/01/05 to 11/30/05)

2 (11/31/05 to 06/30/06)

Article Discussion

RfM

{{RFMF}} SlimVirgin 01:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Rationale for splitting Tourist apartheid in Cuba into its own article

• The article is 49 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size. (as of this edit)
• The section is quite decent in terms of sources and overall structure and could stand alone.
• It would be nice to put the appropriate categories on the section such as Category:Cuba and Category:Cuban society and Category:Tourism_in_Cuba.
• It would be appropriate to better integrate it into Cuba-related articles (such as Tourism_in_Cuba) since it has more in common with Cuba that it has with apartheid.
• Of course a small blurb should stay with a pointer to the main article.

--Deodar 15:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That is sensible.Homey 15:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments on that section, which I wrote. In my view, this article isn't all that big yet, and certain sections (that I haven't written) aren't properly sourced, particularly the one on Northern Ireland, so it might get smaller. However, since you've raised the issue, do you think Allegations of Israeli apartheid also be "better integrated" into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict articles, since it has more to do with Israel than with Apartheid? Jayjg 22:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, I am all for coherency across articles. Integration, in my vocabulary, does not mean merging -- it means smartly separating content by topic such that one can navigate a domain of knowledge with ease. Thus Tourism in Cuba would take into account that there is significant criticism of the way tourists are kept away from real Cuban life and point people to the appropriate article that deals with it in depth if they are interested. The Tourism apartheid article would show awareness of the Tourism in Cuba article with content appropriately distributed. Thus I guess, if you can explain what you mean by "better integrated" in the context of the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article and the rest of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict articles, I can better respond. --Deodar 22:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems obvious to me that the whole "Israeli Apartheid" thing is really part of Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or some related propaganda-war article. Regarding a new article, even if one made sense, wouldn't the title have to be something more neutral? Jayjg 01:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the Cuba section should remain in this article to address the apartheid topic in one place. Nice Job btw, Jayjg. Very well sourced. --MPerel 22:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I actually think the Cuba apartheid section, which thankfully is just about the best sourced Cuban related piece of work I have come across on first encounter since my time at wikipedia, should have it's own article.

1. It can be integrated more with the Tourism in Cuba article in the fashion that I believe Bhouston is inferring.
2. It allows for discussion and work on the specific subject matter of that article only - Cuba is a complicated place, and I have no doubt that some points will need to be addressed and discussed. It's also on my long Cuba to-do list. It would make life easier if it had it's own place.
3. It can be linked from here with the usual summary style and "See main article".

Just my thoughts. Good work on both the section and the communication between the pages.--Zleitzen 00:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. Jayjg 01:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I mentioned the existence of this new section on Talk:Tourism_in_Cuba, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Cuba, and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Cuba. This is what Zleitzen is refering to about communication between pages. --Deodar 02:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be somewhat disproportionate to have a Tourism in Cuba article that is 4/5th about "Tourism apartheid". It is quite long for an entry in this article however so it would be logical to spin it off. As Ben mentions, if we spin off the article we can add it to various Cuba categories where as adding Apartheid outside of South Africa to, Category:Cuba, Category:Cuban society and Category:Tourism_in_Cuba wouldn't make much sense. Homey 04:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The "tourism apartheid" issue does represent a large part of the story about Cuban tourism, though you are correct that at present it would slightly dominate the meagre present page. For now it would be right to seperate from this page it if you feel the section is too large now, leaving a sourced summary here based on Jayjg's research - and I'll take a look at the Tourism page over the next week or so, and try to pad it out with more info. Then it may be an idea to merge the Cuban apartheid and tourism pages together, when there is more equal weight given to other areas. I hope I've made sense?--Zleitzen 05:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I can just shake my head at the torture to which we're putting the term "apartheid" here - I am against apartheid, I am against the way Cuba treats its people and students, but soon everything that involves any separation can be charaterized as apartheid. Corporate apartheid, when executives have their own suite in office buildings, religious apartheid when men and women sit separately in religious services, etc. Seems to me we should focus on the relevant phenomena, rather than trying to label it with an overused term. --Leifern 14:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Leifern, I respect your opinion, but we should document the debate as it occurs in reliable sources, not reframe it to meet our sensibilities and our own preferred terms (because that would consistute original research.) --Deodar 14:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)--Deodar 14:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The fundamental problem is that people can compare any practice - legitimate, warranted, moral, or not - with "apartheid" without worrying too much about the validity of the comparison; then if it gets picked up by popular culture, there is a justification for creating a Misplaced Pages article about it. In the process, both the actual phenomenon of apartheid and the practices compared with it lose currency and precision. --Leifern 21:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I have created a neutrally titled, "allegations of" article, which I propose we make the main article, and then scale back the Cuba discussion on this article space. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, can we change the name of this to Tourism apartheid in Cuba pronto, the title Allegations of apartheid in Cuba is misleading in the extreme. We're talking about exclusive hotels here, not townships and racial segregation. --Zleitzen 19:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I still think the content should remain in this article as there are too many spinoffs going on, imo. Meanwhile, if others insist on moving content to its own article, it should be to a neutral title which means we make clear these are allegations not facts. I'm tied up and don't have a lot of time for WP today but I would like to keep tabs on this and weigh into the discussion. Thx. --MPerel 20:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I can accept the "Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba" name, but please keep in mind two things:

1) It is not just called tourist apartheid", but also "tourism apartheid" and sometimes "economic apartheid" and even "cuban apartheid", so "Allegations of apartheid in Cuba" was actually more accurate.

2) It is far more than just hotels; it is also things like restaurants, beaches and medical services. Please understand what Cubans themselves are saying: The cousin and his friends talked about the places they cannot go, the hotels and beaches, the discos that now require dollars. "It's like South Africa," the cousin's friend said. "It's apartheid," the cousin said. They are indeed alleging it is the same thing. Jayjg 20:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Problems with "ICC disclaimer"

I just removed this paragraph:

"Nations that have not ratified nor acceded to the Rome Statute, and therefore are not subject to its terms, include the United States, Russia, China, India, Israel and every Arab country with the exception of Jordan. (See International Criminal Court#List of states party to the treaty)."

I posit that this statement is (1) inaccurate (the situation is better described here International_Criminal_Court#List_of_states_party_to_the_treaty which deals with the subtlies of signed verses ratification) and (2) the fact that it says "every Arab country with the exception of Jordan" smacks of POV -- why is this group of countries described by ethnicity and not the others?, (3) the list is horribly incomplete -- lots of African nations have not signed it either but those are not mentioned, (4) this isn't the appropriate place to deal with this secondary topic. --Deodar 15:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Cuba

I find it strange that the second largest section is about something that doesn't even fit the definition of apartheid given at the beginning. Which racial group is dominating ? The tourists ? I don't think so. Much of what is described as tourist apartheid in Cuba is little different to what happens in many countries - those with money have access to things that those without money don't. It is only really because this goes against the Cuban government's stated socialist principles - and because the US government pours money into propaganda against Cuba - that this has become an issue. -- Beardo 07:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Your conspiracy theory notwithstanding, the term "apartheid" has, as the article points out, come into "general use to refer to any policy or practice involving the discriminatory separation of different groups." That includes women, religious minorities, people with different sexual preferences, whole countries, etc. Jayjg 07:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

But don't you think that the terms risks becoming so loose as to denature its real meaning ? As I say, much of what is called "tourist apartheid" in Cuba is no different to most of the "first world" - a discrimination based on wealth. The richer have access to things that the poor can't get to. -- Beardo 17:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

In the case of Cuba it's not just the poor, it's any Cubans who are not part of the governing hierarchy. And yes, the term has been denatured of its real meaning; nowadays it's mostly just an epithet. Not much Misplaced Pages can do about that but report on it. Jayjg 17:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

That is not true, Jayjg, and betrays yet again your pushing of one POV. Any Cuban with money can eat in whatever restaurant they like, can shop where they like etc. Have you ever visited Cuba ? -- Beardo 22:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe the actual material on the page is presented in a POV way - the term is in widespread use and thus deserves to be explored. Though there are certainly opportunities here to broaden the viewpoint, including counter-point material and sources that refer to similar cases throughout the Caribbean. One of the problems that I believe Beardo is inferring here, Jayjg, is that many people, including some of the sources in the article have simply a misplaced view of a land they have never visited. That is not our problem of course, we need only report what they say. But special care should be taken at wikipedia on a unique circumstance, users such as Beardo - who probably knows Cuban life and society better than any source given on the page - and certainly more than myself are worth listening to when judging whether a page has POV issues. Though having claimed that there are issues, it is really his role to address them with sources a job that is easier said than done.

Beardo has touched upon some of the fundamental problems with the representation of Cuba on wikipedia. The high US demographic of Misplaced Pages editors - added to the magnitude of US sources on Cuba - divided by the travel restrictions on Americans visiting Cuba and deliberate misinformation put forth by US governments (this is not a conspiracy theory by the way it is acknowledged by the US government itself) - can create an unbalanced equation which is difficult to rectify.

As I say though, I don't think the material on this page is presented in a POV way. It merely catalogues the usage of a term in a neutral fashion, whether we agree with the term or not. But it would be interesting if the page carried opposing views. That is if they can be found.--Zleitzen 17:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd love it if they could be found as well; I certainly did my best to find them. If Beardo can find any sources commenting on "Tourist apartheid" from a different POV I wish he'd bring them forward. Jayjg 18:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Malaysian Women's status

Not that I agree with the plight of malaysian women, but that really isn't a type of apartheid. the afrikaner word Apartheid means seperateness. While women are disadvantaged and treated fairly poorly compaired to men, it is not a type of apartheid. Discrimination is a better word. I suggest we remove the malaysian section and find a more fitting article for it, because men and women don't live "apart" in Malaysia, it's just that women are treated inferior. Stevo D 03:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

oh, and the current title is kinda long and rediculous. how 'bout just claims of apartheid?

Opposing merger

• The phrase "Global Apartheid" is used by some on the left to describe the first-world's policies toward the third-world (which would presumably include South Africa, or at least most of that country). The concept cannot be said to exist "outside of South Africa".
• The concept of "sexual apartheid" is not limited by geographical location. I suspect that Mr. Zuma's accuser would be surprised to discover it does not exist in South Africa.

As a simple matter of logic, neither entry should be merged to this page. CJCurrie 22:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Apartheid describes a specific set of laws and practices implemented in South Africa. All these other uses describe various kinds of alleged discrimination outside the literal South African experience. Therefore the inclusion makes sense. However, you might want to rename this article to something else; I suggest Allegations of apartheid. Jayjg 23:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think "legally-established South African experience" reads better than "literal South African experience". In any event, I see no valid reason why "Global apartheid" and "Sexual apartheid" cannot remain distinct articles. CJCurrie 23:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

They were perma-stubs, part of a large concept, and, as has been explained long ago, "Sexual apartheid" meant different things, and things not described as "sexual apartheid" were included in there, and, in fact, the entire article was lifted from this very article in the first place. Just because I research and add information to this article, and Homeontherange then copies it to another stub, is not a reason that that stub should exist. If "Sexual apartheid" and "Gender apartheid" should be around, then you might as well have a separate article for every section on this page; why not have a Saudi apartheid article, for example - the information in there is considerably more detailed than the two merged stubs (one of which was all of three sentences). Jayjg 23:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to a Saudi apartheid article. In fact, I'd be happy to contribute to it. My point here, however, is simply that we shouldn't identify accusations of sexual and global apartheid in a geographically-specific way. CJCurrie 23:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Why on earth not? Why is a division based on sex or gender more logical than one based on practices of countries? As stated before, "Sexual apartheid" appears to mean completely different things; indeed, some see it as a synonym for gender apartheid, others as discrimination against lesbians and gays. And do you really assert that the treatment of women in the Anglican Church is in any way comparable to the treatment of women under the Taliban? Jayjg 23:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not making any such claim. Perhaps I should rephrase myself: I don't think we should list accusations of sexual or global apartheid on this page, as this page excludes a country where those concepts may be identified. CJCurrie 23:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with your contention, but regardless, a rename to Allegations of Apartheid would solve that in no time. Jayjg 23:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It would make most sense to have an article called Apartheid, which describes the apartheid system in South Africa, and another called Allegations of apartheid (global, sexual), which deals with situations where the term is being used loosely. The current situation is a mess. SlimVirgin 10:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is a grabbag of dissimilar things which have in common only the word "apartheid". It's practical function, therefore, is to hide rather than bring out into the open ie as a semi-hidden desository. This sort of format makes proper use of Cats awkward (what does it mean to have "Apartheid outside of South Africa" listed in the gender category. Why would anyone looking at that category check out this article under this title). The article should be broken up into component parts by theme (eg sexual apartheid, religious apartheid) or by country. Indeed, much of this article is already duplicated at sex segregation. The duplicated parts should be removed from this article and replaced by a link.

Indeed, as I recall, Jay advocated and helped implement the breaking up of this article into component parts and redirection of this article a year or so ago. That he has the opposite position today is curious. Perhaps he can explain why he now thinks he was wrong? 74.98.232.18 14:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The above is Homeontherange/Homey. SlimVirgin 16:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I am deleting the section on Malaysian women. if it was actually related to racial segregation (as the title apartheid suggests) then we shouldn't mention that here. maybe that could go under sexual segregation or status of women, but this article is in relation to race and or political motivation. since every ethnic group has a female half, I am deleting the Malaysian section.

BTW, The South African Experience sounds like an amusement park ride. Stevo D 04:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The section was properly referenced with reliable sources, I don't mean to be disrespectful but on wikipedia your opinion doesn't really matter.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Apartheid is a term used to villianize anyone you happen to think is discriminating against some identifiable group in some way. Racial, religious, ethnic, gender, sexual, economic, nuclear, etc., the term is used to describe all of those and more. Jayjg 03:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Israel section "critics of the term" sentence is poisoning the well

C'mon people. Saying here that people who use the phrase "Israel apartheid" support terrorism is certainly poisoning the well; this wouldn't pass muster on the main article for the section. -- Kendrick7 06:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't say that. It implies that some who use the phrase support terrorism, which is undoubtedly the case. I have no doubt that the very people who strap on the bombs and head toward the discos and pizza places believe that the teenagers, young parents and babies they are about to slaughter are pillars of an apartheid state. 6SJ7 06:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow. That's great rhetoric. Zero to baby-killer in 6.0 seconds -- that could be a record! The POV bias here is obvious; if Israel stopped being an apartheid state, that bomber wouldn't need to be going off to slaughter those infants. You are putting the cart before the horse. Publically labelling someone an alcoholic might cause the cops to follow them home and arrest them for DUI too, but that doesn't mean the labeller supports drunk driving. Maybe it would get the person to admit they have a problem and stop doing that. -- Kendrick7 09:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Your sarcastic tone does not help your argument in the least. You were the one the brought up terrorism, 6SJ7 was merely explaining the flaws in your previous statement. Your reaction was completly inappropriate and incivil.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't be sarcastic in the least. Bringing baby killing into an argument is well known as a winning rhetorical technique. Bravo, good show, etc. Although, it doesn't work particularly well on me; I for one much prefer discussion based upon reason and not base emotional appeals. -- Kendrick7 11:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You are just making yourself look silly, 6SJ7 was making a valid point, nobody has said that everyone who uses the apartheid allegation supports terrorism, that was just a gratuitous strawman. However, it should be perfectly obvious that just every person who is considered a palestinian terrorist/militant probably supports the allegation.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine, fine, OK, we seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot. This sentence: Critics of the term argue that it is historically inaccurate, offensive, antisemitic, and a political epithet used as justification for terrorist attacks against Israel poisons the well. There's only criticism here, and it's all the most outlandish criticism which could be thrown at the term and conceivably stick. This section does not present anything resembling a WP:NPOV. The only way it could be any more POV would be for it to just come right out and say "People who use the term are Nazi baby-killers." -- Kendrick7 11:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Please spare the hyperbole. The current phrasing is not even in the same ballpark as your "nazi baby-killer" comment. The reason that it says that "Critics of the term argue that it is historically inaccurate, offensive, antisemitic, and a political epithet used as justification for terrorist attacks against Israel" is simply because that is what critics of the term argue and we have presented reliable sources to back this up. As of yet, you have not been able to present reliable sources for your suggestions, nor has anyone come up with a valid and convincing argument for why the current article structure should be changed.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

In this context WP:NPOV is a reliable source. -- Kendrick7 12:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the phrase "Critics of the term argue" makes the claim of "poisoning the well" irrelevant, since critics of the term actually do argue these things. Of course critics of the term are going to say things critical of the term, and calling it "poisoning the well" doesn't mean these statements shouldn't be in the article. 6SJ7 14:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh-huh, and I will find some German critics and add the ominous-sounding phrase or so the Germans would have us believe to the end of this sentence. After all, Germans would actually have us believe these things, so by your argument, that wouldn't be poisoning the well either. -- Kendrick7 01:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Israel RFC

RFC as follows: Should the section on Israel contain the sentence Critics of the term argue that it is historically inaccurate, offensive, antisemitic, and a political epithet used as justification for terrorist attacks against Israel. -- Kendrick7 06:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You must be familiar with WP:NPOV; in light of that, do you seriously think the summary should only include the claims of those making the charge, and not the arguments of those refuting it? Jayjg 06:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

All this contains is the criticism; there's no need for an unbalanced lead in to the main article and I am not alone in saying this poisons the well. Y'all seem to not be the ones unfamiliar with WP:NPOV. -- Kendrick7 06:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The disputed sentence is quite obviously being used to delegitimize the analogy and its proponents. It might be possible to include a truncated (and less hyperbolic) sentence dealing with the perspective of critics, but leaving the sentence out entirely is equally valid. A simple description is all that we need. CJCurrie 07:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not rewrite arguments of your opponents. ←Humus sapiens 07:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I added an academic source to show that opposition to the term is the majority position of academics and journalists who have commented on it, which is why this criticism must stay. SlimVirgin 07:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The same source states that South Africans with experience of the apartheid system have applied it to Israel. I have added in words to that affect put have been reverted. I do not believe that the current version meets NPOV, it now reads as an attempt to discredit the use of the apartheid allegation in respect to Israeli policy, and that those who do are apologists for terrorism. I think that showing the term has been used by well-respected figures should be included. Catchpole 17:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to use Adam and Moogley as a source, you could add something closer to what they say about who uses the term. But if you start adding individual names, then in fairness we'd have to add names showing who has objected to it (and the ones objecting far outweigh the ones using it, both in numbers and in terms of their academic qualifications), and before you know it, we'll have the article right here. It's therefore best to stick to generalities. SlimVirgin 21:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well if you put down Melanie Phillips, I'll put down Desmond Tutu. Seriously, if you're going to label those who use the allegation as anti-semetic and apologists for terrorism you should make clear exactly how the allegation gained credibilty. How about this which acknowledges both the criticism and that the allegation has been made by respected international figures: Catchpole 22:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "Israeli apartheid" (or the terming of Israel an "apartheid state") has been used to criticize Israel's policies toward both Palestinians and Arab citizens of Israel. Proponents of this allegation include former Nobel peace laureate South African anti-apartheid leader Desmond Tutu . However the majority of academics and journalists.....

Melanie Phillips is being used as a source in a footnote, not being named in the lead. If you want to add Desmond Tutu in a footnote, go ahead. You're trying to talk the allegation up by including Tutu, which in a sense is fair enough, but it means the other POV will have to include named adherents too, and then as I said above, before we know it, we're reproducing the article. Also, Tutu has compared so many things to apartheid, which would arguably need to be mentioned, but again we're into a length problem. SlimVirgin 00:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added a clarification saying that the treatment of Palestinians has been compared with the treatment of blacks in apartheid South Africa. This is not the same as saying Israel has a policy of apartheid. Catchpole 12:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The current wording is, if anything, even worse than before. I plan to challenge it at the earliest opportunity. CJCurrie 00:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been bold and have removed the criticism part to get rid of the POV part; there's a main article Allegations of Israeli apartheid were the controversy can be discussed at length. Qwertyus 19:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

... and my edits were all reverted, including those to other parts of the article. Thanks a lot. I've redone those and have replaced the NPOV tag with {{TotallyDisputed}}. The cited source only claims that 'The majority is incensed by the very analogy and deplores what it deems its propagandistic goals.' It does not present research or citations substantiating this claim, but just lists two examples. It does not state that criticism stands 'on the grounds that it is historically inaccurate, antisemitic propaganda, and a political epithet used to justify terrorist attacks against Israel'; these remarks are plucked together from a few other sources. Qwertyus 03:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The current introduction ...

... is inaccurate, due to the universal passive voice in "is regarded". If someone doesn't change this, I'll be justified in putting up a disputed notice. CJCurrie 09:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't have so much trouble with the idea of rewording it, my only issue was with the words you replaced it with which I felt were at the very leat equally inaccurate.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I also object to your characterizations of my last edit as "making no sense". I feel that my reasoning was in fact pretty darn clear. Using the phrase "has been described" carries the connotation that it is a minority opinion, when it reality it is almost true by definition.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree; I don't believe "has been described" connotes a minority opinion. CJCurrie 09:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

In that case, could you please change the wording? CJCurrie 09:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know...thats kinda a lot of work for a friday :) - Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

"... has been described" does suggest that not many people have described it that way, whereas the only academics who have actually studied the use of the term closely say the majority of academic and journalistic commentators on the issue deplore its use. SlimVirgin 09:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)