Talk:Allegations of apartheid/Archive 1

'''DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.'''

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 08 01 05 and 10 30 05.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Serious articles??
--With the mention about apartheid in Navarre in the article i´ve realized that the pages related to nationalisms in Spain aren´t objective, nor accurate and surely they don´t try to, since probably written by nationalist people, or people who doesn´t care to inform themselves, so please stop pretending wikipedia is a serious, accurate project if you let people write those things, that´s just propaganda.
 * Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs changing, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the  link. You don't even need to log in!  (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold.  Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes&mdash;they're likely to be found and corrected quickly.  If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use out the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. Tomer TALK  21:14, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Deletion
If anything, this article should be deleted. It's nothing more than an oppourtunity for nations to be insulted by "left-wing liberal anti-imperialist nuts", using poor comparisons to Apartheid. I think Racial segregation would be a much better article than what is here. - michaelg 07:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your line of argument. The term apartheid was coined by the Afrikaners, but it has come to have meaning outside this context. This is evinced by the definition given in the OED:

"Name given in South Africa to the segregation of the inhabitants of European descent from the non-European (Coloured or mixed, Bantu, Indian, etc.); applied also to any similar movement elsewhere; also, to other forms of racial separation (social, educational, etc.). Also fig. and attrib." -136.159.209.170 19:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I think this article is useful and should not be deleted. It needs to be cleaned up, certainly. Michael, I'm sorry you feel that this article is a created by "left-wing nuts" just to insult "nations". I believe that regardless of who created this article, and whatever feelings it produces, it contains truth, and thus has a place in a public encyclopedia. Vvuppala 09:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the liberal-slant is a minor issue compared to the fact that racial segregation is a much more appropriate article for what is being dealt with. Too many things could be considered "apartheid" but simply aren't - they're racial segregation. For example, the San Diego Mexican Border fence, Israeli policies towards Palestians, western nations border policy, Indian caste system, income gaps between ethnic groups all could be considered "apartheid" by what I've seen, but are more accurately described as racial segregation or simply social issues. Cheers, -  >>michaelg | talk 12:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Right. Essentially, "It's appropriate to insult everyone else [about whom you really don't know anything, but think you do], but wholly inexcusable to insult Australia", right?  Gimme a break.  The "left-wing nuts" are certainly responsible for doing the insulting, I agree, but that doesn't mean that they're not insulting Australia as well.  Until you can demonstrate that they're not, the Australia section stands.  Since the criteria are so flimsy for inclusion, in fact, a great many more countries should be added to the list.  Chile, China, France, Sudan, and Zimbabwe come to mind off the top of my head...  Tom e r TALK   17:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

India?
Hey, what about India? 7000 years ago, when the Indo-Europeans/Aryans first arrived in India, the Drivindian Caucasians were not "untouchable". Is not the caste system a very old (+5000 years) form of apartheid? Huh? Tebello Thejane (ZyXoas)

Dravidians and "Caucasoid Aryans" are two separate groups. The theory that India was invaded by some long-gone proto-Europeans is certainly a hotly debated one, and recent archeaological evidence suggest it may at least be partially wrong. I don't really think India qualifies for apartheid. There is a system of oppression of the Harijans. If you believe otherwise, feel free to add a section to this article that states so, with evidence, of course. Vvuppala 09:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

dump section
This is where we can put all our dirt on every other country, for eventual inclusion in this tramp article Tom e r TALK   17:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

France


hahah, as requested, france is now included in the article.. but because of html apartheid, is hidden, only visible in edit mode. so sad.

in all seriousness, i added a commented out stub explaining the accusations of apartheid that came out of the paris riots Vvuppala 13:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

United Kingdom



 * You have to be kidding, right? These countries? Apartheid? Where's the specific government policies to keep differing ethnic groups racially segregated? These countries are letting the immigrants (of whatever colour, race, background) in! Same goes with your attack on Australia. This article is a joke. Cheers, - [[Image:Flag of Australia.svg|24px]] >>michaelg | talk 00:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we're on the same page then. [[Image:Teeth.png]]  Next time you nominate this piece of unspeakable crap for deletion, maybe now you'll consider letting me know.  Tom e r TALK   07:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Pro-Australia POV-pushing reverts
I have once again reverted the deletion of the Australia section. While I think the entire article is of dubious scholarly [or other] merit, I have well-sourced the Australia section, and until the lead text of the article itself is changed, removing it constitutes nothing short of vandalism. Tom e r TALK  07:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm deleting it again. The entire article itself is biased, left-wing, liberal nonsense (you can tell my political persuasion can't you?). But the Australian section even more so. You may have references, but they are opinion peices, used to 'push' an irrelevant point. Any segregation (see? racial segregation, not apartheid) of any ethnic groups in Australia is of their own choice, not through government policies (like apartheid). There are no laws in Australia discriminating against any ethnic groups - on the flip side, it has some of the strongest anti-racism legislation in the world (even going so far as to restrict freedom of speech). I do not understand why the editors of this article wish to simply take any oppourtunity to slander these countries. Apartheid was South Africa. Forced racial segregation is history. Cheers, -  >>michaelg | talk 08:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Israeli occupation
I got to thinking about the Israel stub. Why is the occupation of Gaza there? After both sides accepted a two-state solution, there is nothing about that situation which makes it apartheid. The only apartheid in Israel is the treatment of Israeli Arabs as second-class citizens. Israel's treatment of Palestinians in Gaza falls outside the scope of this article. The topic of Israel's occupation of Gaza and the West Bank has been extensively covered in other articles- Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Al-Aqsa Intifada Gaza Strip
 * You can't just make up your own opinions about what you think "Israeli apartheid" is; instead you have to properly quote sources which actually refer to it. This is Wikipedia policy, and no-one is exempt. Please review WP:CITE, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. Jayjg (talk) 23:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * And please make sure any sources you do cite are encyclopedic, and discuss "Israeli apartheid". Jayjg (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)