Talk:Apartheid

See also 2

Keeping this discussion separate from the above, because it's more general - the whole "See also" section is way way way too long.

Firstly there's a random selection of articles about people/places/events actually connected to apartheid - e.g. Belhar Confession, JBM Hertzog, South African potato boycott. Why link Hertzog but not any of the other Nationalist PMs? Of all the events of apartheid, why the potato boycott? These articles about specific connected topics should be linked in the article proper if at all.

Then, secondly, all sorts of links to articles dealing with situations with various examples of racial segregation or discrimination. The "Maori electorates" discussed above is just one of these but others like Forced settlements in the Soviet Union, Millet (Ottoman Empire) are also dubiously related at best. Choosing which examples are "sufficiently similar" to apartheid will always be controversial as we see above.

Consequently my suggestion is that we limit the whole "See also" section. I would remove those articles that are specific apartheid events/places/people (which should be linked from the main article or from articles linked from the main article). I would also remove all other links included as examples of racial discrimination in other countries - these are covered by linking to Racial segregation and Racism by country, where they appropriate context can be included for each situation, rather than a context-less see-also link.

I would suggest, provisionally, that the remaining list of links would be:

• Apartheid in international law
• Apartheid legislation in South Africa
• Apartheid in art and literature
• Discrimination based on skin color
• Foreign relations of South Africa during apartheid
• Index of racism-related articles
• Israel and the apartheid analogy
• Legacies of apartheid
• Music in the movement against apartheid
• Racial hierarchy
• Racial segregation
• Racism by country
• Saudi Arabia and the apartheid analogy

htonl (talk) 10:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Support, agree that the section is currently overly long with too many tenuous links. Greenman (talk) 10:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Support I agree with your approach to culling the section. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:50, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Support makes a lot of sense and was where I was going to go before the above kicked off. I think we should just get on with this one. Turnagra (talk) 09:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Support - some sort of rationalisation is needed, and this is as good as any, with the exception of Saudi Arabia and the apartheid analogy, which is not an article, but a redirect anchored to a minor section on Human rights in Saudi Arabia that turned out to consist largely of unreliable opinion pieces. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Support It is certainly far too long at present - and some are very tenuous, e.g. the word apartheid does not even appear in the Master race article. My concern is that the list will simply creep back up again - I know there is an Index of racism-related articles, as listed above, and wonder if an Index of apartheid-related articles would give a place for the less directly-related articles to be listed, rather than here? - Arjayay (talk) 10:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

It probably will, but it will also take a while - what is Wikipedia if not a Sisyphus-esque task of rolling a boulder up a hill? Iskandar323 (talk) 10:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

As we seem to have a consensus, I have made this change to the article. - htonl (talk) 11:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Page title

Why is this page not titled: Apartheid in South Africa? The title 'Apartheid' would mean 'the concept of Apartheid' since it is non specific. Just as the page for 'Colonization' is not specific to colonization in any country Truth-proven (talk) 13:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Support apartheid has been defined by the International Criminal Court based on UN guidelines, Amnesty International, and many other international organizations to be more than just one historical instance (such as "Segregation," which sends users to a disambiguation page instead of directly to "Racial segregation in the United States"). This would solve the "see also" problem, since only articles related to the South African version of apartheid would be relevant. Catboy69 (talk) 11:56 PM, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - unlike "Segregation", the term "Apartheid" was originally coined in South Africa to refer to the system imposed in South Africa, making this the "original" apartheid. The page Crime of apartheid refers to the broader subsequent use. Having said that, this is a topic that has been discussed before with varying outcomes, and it needs to be discussed properly before any page move is made. Zaian (talk) 06:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

"Country" infobox

A user added a "country" infobox to this article recently. I have reverted it based on WP:BRD so it can be discussed here. Zaian (talk) 06:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

There is a previous discussion about this at Talk:Apartheid/Archive_9#Inappropriate use of the country infobox. Zaian (talk) 09:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 12 October 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Apartheid → South Africa and apartheid – The page should be standardized to fit with other pages such as Israel and apartheid. Amnesty International identifies apartheid as "enforced racial segregation, and the domination and oppression of one racial group by another" and applies the definition to countries beyond South Africa. The ICC also defines apartheid as "systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group..." The Human Rights Watch also defines apartheid as a "universal legal term" as opposed to the history of just one country. There is also growing consensus that Jim Crow laws in the American South constituted apartheid. The term is increasingly being used to describe the crime of apartheid and not South African apartheid. It would make the most sense to send Apartheid to the disambiguation page directly and not to South Africa. That way the page move does not bury Apartheid in South Africa but clarifies it.

References

– Catboy69 (talk) 14:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Most results in Google Books refer to the South African system. Britannica also refers to the South African apartheid as just "apartheid".[1] While I think that at some point in the future that may change, for now it seems as though "Apartheid" as a proper noun refers most commonly to the long-lasting South African system, which itself was the origin of the word. estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

support the general topic is the primary usage—blindlynx 21:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose as per WP:Common names. The very word Apartheid is rooted in the racist policies of South Africa, and is addressed by everyone as such. People don't distinguish Apartheids apart from each other, as there is THE case of Apartheid that everyone knows when they hear it. Sure, some countries have had policies that have been compared to apartheid, and if you want to note criticism in the article, okay. But, the comparisons that people make should not change the title of the definitive case of Apartheid. Same reason why the article for Philadelphia isn't labelled Philadelphia (Pennsylvania), to distinguish it from Philly, Alabama. It is the city you think of when you hear the name Philadelphia. EytanMelech (talk) 01:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The system and the word itself originates in South Africa.Fagerbakke (talk) 01:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Strong oppose. The South African system is the primary topic for Apartheid. O.N.R. ^(talk) 01:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Strong oppose. That’s not how the word, alone, is generally used. This is like trying to abstract “the Holocaust” Zanahary (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose It’s a term particular to a specific situation in South Africa. Secondary and contemporary usages can be mentioned in primary article, but it is a specific historical term.Mistamystery (talk) 03:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Strong oppose. Please remember Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Pg 6475 ^TM 04:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Strong oppose. Wikipedia serves as an encyclopedia, not a social media platform for expressing political views. The claim of apartheid in Israel is contested, at best. The primary topic of Apartheid is, and there's no question about it, South African Apartheid. Please don't confuse our readers with fringe political views. Thank you LUC995 (talk) 05:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - The word "Apartheid" was originally coined in South Africa to refer to the system imposed in South Africa, making this the "original" apartheid. The page Crime of apartheid refers to the broader subsequent use. Zaian (talk) 06:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:Commonname. When mainstream sources talk about apartheid (without caveats), they are referring to pre-1994 South Africa, where the system and the word itself comes from. Dovidroth (talk) 08:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Apartheid or "apart hood" is a South African term, which is where the ideology was created and refined. It has subsequently been (mis)attributed to other places/events, but this does not stop the South African usage being the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. - Arjayay (talk) 10:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - Discussion of apartheid as a general concept outside South Africa is already well covered under crime of apartheid. No need to fork this article. --Katangais (talk) 17:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed! Zanahary (talk) 20:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose is a South African word and institution, whereas other uses are more novel. Geschichte (talk) 08:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not just South Africa

Given the recent legal ruling re Israel, editors are starting to drop sentences about it into the lead (as a pending change reviewer I’ve rejected 2 or 3 because unsourced). So now would be a good time to start talking about how this is going to develop here:

• one article covering Apartheid anywhere
• this article is renamed to cover South Africa only and a fresh article covers Israel

I realise that this was discussed a few months ago, immediately above. But things have moved on. Thoughts? Nick Levine (talk) 05:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)