At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Central_discussions/Apartheid a series of competing proposals have been made on how to deal with various articles on modern uses of the word "apartheid", namely [[Israeli apartheid]], [[gender apartheid]], [[sexual apartheid]], [[Crime of apartheid]] and [[global apartheid]] and also the articles [[Apartheid outside of South Africa]] and [[Apartheid (disambiguation)]]. The proposals vary from merging various articles (particularly Israeli apartheid) to leaving the articles in their current state. The debate and voting has been dominated by various interests - it would thus be best for the community if a broader cross section of people including disinterested and neutral parties, reviewed the proposals and had their say.
homey2005@sympatico.ca wrote:
The debate and voting has been dominated by various interests - it would thus be best for the community if a broader cross section of people including disinterested and neutral parties, reviewed the proposals and had their say.
Well, I tried to read through some of that, but frankly it looks like a huge mess, which is probably why only people who have strong opinions on the subject are weighing in.
The biggest problem with the whole debate, in my opinion, is that a lot of it isn't really about Wikipedia at all, but instead about the subject itself, which doesn't belong on a Wikipedia talk page. People seem to be arguing, for example, about whether certain Israeli policies constitute "apartheid", which it is not our job to determine---the issue is whether reliable/respectable sources describe them as such, and if so, how to write an article summarizing that debate, and how to title and situate that article to be maximally neutral and useful to our readers.
Instead it seems to be a morass of internet op-ed columnists weighing in...
-Mark
On Jul 7, 2006, at 11:21 AM, Delirium wrote:
homey2005@sympatico.ca wrote:
The debate and voting has been dominated by various interests - it would thus be best for the community if a broader cross section of people including disinterested and neutral parties, reviewed the proposals and had their say.
Well, I tried to read through some of that, but frankly it looks like a huge mess, which is probably why only people who have strong opinions on the subject are weighing in.
The biggest problem with the whole debate, in my opinion, is that a lot of it isn't really about Wikipedia at all, but instead about the subject itself, which doesn't belong on a Wikipedia talk page. People seem to be arguing, for example, about whether certain Israeli policies constitute "apartheid", which it is not our job to determine---the issue is whether reliable/respectable sources describe them as such, and if so, how to write an article summarizing that debate, and how to title and situate that article to be maximally neutral and useful to our readers.
Instead it seems to be a morass of internet op-ed columnists weighing in...
-Mark
It is an attempt to reframe the debate. The possible effects of reframing the debate and to what extent that is a conscious strategy would make an excellent article.
Fred