Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Apartheid: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Latest revision as of 08:54, 1 December 2006

Archived discussion

/Archived discussion up to June 23, 2006
/Archive2 (June-September, 2006)
/Archive3 (main page as of 7 Oct 2006)

Restarting discussion

User:6SJ7 suggested that this centralized discussion be archived and restarted to reflect the outcome of the arbitration case. That seems to make sense to me, given that some of the disputes have been resolved and some of them still remain, and the talk page here is overflowing anyway. So, I did so. -- Beland 20:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Beland, and thanks for doing the merges that had been on the table for a long time. It's good to have a fresh start. BTW, I previously contributed to this discussion under my old username, Su-Laine Yeo. Cheers, Kla'quot 07:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For those of us who have not been part of the discussions here (and otherwise have no clue what's going on), could you give a brief summary of what's exactly being discussed here? You could also include some of the major proposals being discussed. Thank you, --Taxico 08:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+==Archived discussion==
-This page brings together the discussion about the folowing pages:
+* [[/Archived discussion up to June 23, 2006]]
-*[[Israeli apartheid (epithet)]]
+* [[/Archive2]] (June-September, 2006)
-*[[Apartheid (disambiguation)]]
+* [[/Archive3]] (main page as of 7 Oct 2006)
-*[[Apartheid outside of South Africa]]
-*[[Global apartheid]]
-*[[Gender apartheid]]
-*[[Sexual apartheid]]
-*[[Apartheid wall]]
-*[[Crime of apartheid]]
+==Restarting discussion==
-==Proposal of [[User:KimvdLinde]]==
+[[User:6SJ7]] suggested that this centralized discussion be archived and restarted to reflect the outcome of the arbitration case.  That seems to make sense to me, given that some of the disputes have been resolved and some of them still remain, and the talk page here is overflowing anyway. So, I did so. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] 20:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
-I made my proposal, based on policies, the relative importance of terms, and the way users will use these pages at the article space. -- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 15:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
+Thank you Beland, and thanks for doing the merges that had been on the table for a long time.
-==Comments by [[User:Coroebus]]==
+It's good to have a fresh start. BTW, I previously contributed to this discussion under my old username, Su-Laine Yeo. Cheers, [[User:Clayoquot|Kla'quot]] 07:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
-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 --[[User:Coroebus|Coroebus]] 23:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
+*For those of us who have not been part of the discussions here (and otherwise have no clue what's going on), could you give a brief summary of what's exactly being discussed here? You could also include some of the major proposals being discussed. Thank you, --[[User:Taxico|Taxico]] 08:54, 1 December 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. [[User:Su-laine.yeo|Su-Laine Yeo]] 07:38, 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias]. 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.
-==Example of pages and links==
-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.
-*[[History of apartheid in South Africa]] - as is
-*[[Government discrimination]] - an article describing the general phenomenon of government discrimination, with some country-specific examples. Much of [[Apartheid outside of South Africa]] can go in here.
-*[[Government discrimination in Israel and the Occupied Territories]]
-*[[Government discrimination in (name of country or region)]]
-*[[Crime of apartheid]] - a good new page
-*[[Apartheid (disambiguation)]]
-I propose that the articles link to each other as follows:
-*"Apartheid" in Wikipedia search should redirect to [[History of apartheid in South Africa]] as it does now.
-*[[History of apartheid in South Africa]] should have the link to the disambiguation page as it does now.
-**[[Apartheid (disambiguation)]] should include links to [[History of apartheid in South Africa]] [[Crime of apartheid]], and [[Apartheid wall]]. It should also briefly explain that "apartheid" is sometimes used to mean government discrimination, and link to [[Government discrimination]].
-*[[Government discrimination]] should link to all country-specific pages on government discrimination.
-* "Israeli apartheid" in Wikipedia search should redirect to [[Government discrimination in Israel and the Occupied Territories]]
-*There should be links between [[Government discrimination]] and articles such as [[Discrimination]] and [[Racial Segregation]].
-We might also consider a new Wikiproject or series on discrimination.  {{unsigned Su-laine.yeo }}
-*In general this is a good proposal, however as Humus pointed out there are pleanty of articles about Israel and the [[Palestinian territories]]. see for example extensive covergae here: [[Arab_citizens_of_Israel#Discrimination]]  so no need for a special article. [[User:Zeq|Zeq]] 07:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)