This page is an
archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
current talk page.
I have moved the following discussion here from my talk page. This follows an attempt to create a new article about international uses of the term Apartheid at
Apartheid, which previously redirected to [[History of South Africa in the apartheid eraZaian21:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
apartheid
Then why is the article called "History of South Africa in the apartheid era" rather than just "apartheid"?
Sonofzion21:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to start a revert war, but
History of South Africa in the apartheid era is a high-quality article, and South African apartheid is the only "indisputable" use of the term Apartheid, because that's where it was invented and officially used. The redirect to the specific name is to prevent the page being diluted with discussions of other countries, where the term has no official status. This is by far the preference of the editors of
History of South Africa in the apartheid era and I respectfully request that you, in turn, respect this.
Zaian21:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
The consensus, achieved after much discussion and upheld over several years, is that
Apartheid should redirect to
History of South Africa in the apartheid era as the article about the official use of the term. The longer name is to prevent confusion and controversial editing involving other countries (in particular Israel) from taking place at that location. That debate should not take place under the official
Apartheid heading as it is very much secondary to the official historical use of the term in South Africa. If you would read the many archives at both
Talk:Apartheid and
Talk:History of South Africa in the apartheid era you would see that your recent editing of the page
Apartheid is a perhaps unintentional hijacking of this topic. Again, I respectfully ask that you allow it to be returned to the previous status quo. Otherwise I've absolutely no doubt that a great many editors of the South African article will disagree with your move and see it as unilateral.
Zaian21:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
This page is an
archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
current talk page.
I have moved the following discussion here from my talk page. This follows an attempt to create a new article about international uses of the term Apartheid at
Apartheid, which previously redirected to [[History of South Africa in the apartheid eraZaian21:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
apartheid
Then why is the article called "History of South Africa in the apartheid era" rather than just "apartheid"?
Sonofzion21:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to start a revert war, but
History of South Africa in the apartheid era is a high-quality article, and South African apartheid is the only "indisputable" use of the term Apartheid, because that's where it was invented and officially used. The redirect to the specific name is to prevent the page being diluted with discussions of other countries, where the term has no official status. This is by far the preference of the editors of
History of South Africa in the apartheid era and I respectfully request that you, in turn, respect this.
Zaian21:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
The consensus, achieved after much discussion and upheld over several years, is that
Apartheid should redirect to
History of South Africa in the apartheid era as the article about the official use of the term. The longer name is to prevent confusion and controversial editing involving other countries (in particular Israel) from taking place at that location. That debate should not take place under the official
Apartheid heading as it is very much secondary to the official historical use of the term in South Africa. If you would read the many archives at both
Talk:Apartheid and
Talk:History of South Africa in the apartheid era you would see that your recent editing of the page
Apartheid is a perhaps unintentional hijacking of this topic. Again, I respectfully ask that you allow it to be returned to the previous status quo. Otherwise I've absolutely no doubt that a great many editors of the South African article will disagree with your move and see it as unilateral.
Zaian21:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)