Category talk:Apartheid

Criteria for inclusion in this category

I noticed that the top of the category states that The main article for this category is Apartheid., which is a redirect to South Africa under apartheid, but that most of the articles in the category are actually not about South African under apartheid. An editor has argued that this category is only appropriate on articles about South African apartheid; is that the case? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Apartheid certainly began as an Afrikaans word applied specifically to a legal system of racial discrimination South Africa, but useful words have a way of catching on and expanding their meaning. The term is now widely applied not only to legal systems of ethnic, religious, racial and gender discrimination in many parts of the world, but even to systems of ethnic, religious, racial and gender discrimination not ensconced in law. Apartheid should redirect to the general topic now covered by the word apartheid, as should the category.I.Casaubon (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Uh, nearly all the articles in this category are related to African apartheid. There are hundreds of articles in the four subcats, all on apartheid in South Africa (and in South-West Africa when it was under South African control). The only exceptions are the articles on Israel and the apartheid analogy, which may or may not be appropriate here, and a couple of POV forks on other countries, which are definitely not appropriate.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, we need to decide if the Category applies only to the actual apartheid system of South Africa, or whether it also applies to various other situations described as apartheid. That's the only real question here. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I've created an RFC on the topic (below). Let's hope we get lots of input. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

RFC: Should this category be restricted to articles on South African apartheid?

The top of this category states that The main article for this category is Apartheid, which is a redirect to South Africa under apartheid, but many of the articles in the category are actually not about South Africa under apartheid. Should this category be restricted to articles on South African apartheid, or should it also include articles that discuss other topics or situations that have been described as "apartheid"? Currently it contains both. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• The vast majority of articles here are about South African apartheid. Only a handful of them are not. And at least three of the ones that aren't are recently created POV forks now up for AfD. This category should be on apartheid and items relevant to apartheid, not "stuff that has been compared to apartheid".--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Can you clarify exactly what you mean by "items relevant to apartheid"? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • By the way, of the 18 articles that currently have Category:Apartheid on them, only 3 are specific to South Africa. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

That's because the hundreds and hundreds of others are in the subcats, all of which deal with South African apartheid.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

That's true, but I was referring to articles actually directly in the category itself. Anyway, 15 articles is more than "a handful". Now, can you respond to the question above, please? Can you clarify exactly what you mean by "items relevant to apartheid"? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

As I said, "items relevant to apartheid". For instance, the disambiguation page, and Orlando, Soweto, which isn't about apartheid but is relevant to the topic. Items like religious segregation and social apartheid in Brazil definitely not. The elephant in the room is obviously Israel and the apartheid analogy; I suppose the argument could be made (not by me personally) that it is relevant to African apartheid. But Queers Against Israeli Apartheid and the like are too many degrees of separation away from the main topic and should certainly not be included here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we'd need pretty clear guidelines as to what was included an what was not. Otherwise, anyone could claim that a specific topic was "relevant to African apartheid". For example, they might argue that since it involves whites separating themselves from and discriminating against blacks, then it is relevant. Or they might argue that since if sources in the article compare the situation to that in South Africa, then it is relevant. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I doubt very many people would consider it a stretch to put Orlando, Soweto in this category despite it not being specifically about apartheid. In reality it would be better placed in one of the subcats. Conversely, it's not a stretch to say an article on a group that protests Israel should not be in a category on South Africa.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, if the category only includes articles that are about the effects of apartheid in South Africa, that that is clear and Orlando, Soweto would be included. In any event, per your comment, I've moved Orlando, Soweto to the proper sub-cat, Category:Places associated with apartheid. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I can see legitimate reasons to restrict the category to South Africa articles, and I can also see legitimate reasons to broaden it. The real problem doesn't seem to be inclusion in the category, but rather the spurious and POV creation of articles on discrimination that get categorized here because someone called it "apartheid" one time. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Jayjg's restriction to articles in the main cat is totally arbitrary. In fact, nearly every one of the articles in the main cat that are actually about apartheid should really be in one of the subcats. By my count there are 11 or 12 articles total out of the hundreds and hundreds in the cat tree that either aren't about African apartheid, or don't have at least a section on African apartheid. That's what I'd call a "handful". And of these, 5 are on Israel, while 4 are POV forks created in direct response to the Israel articles, of which 3 are currently up for AfD.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I count 15 articles that are not specifically about apartheid in South Africa. If all 3 at AfD are deleted, that will still leave 12. Anyway, we need clear guidelines for inclusion, regardless. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Apartheid section should only deal with the policy that was called Apartheid that was in place in South Africa in the 20th century. Any other instances are NOT actually Apartheid as Apartheid was a particular practice in a particular place. An other similar occurrences should belong to a section related to segregation or discrimination. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC).