Talk:Racial segregation/Archive 2

Israel
I have transferred this in the talk page :
 * Intermarriage between Ashkenazi Jews and Mizrahi Jews is increasingly common in Israel, and by the late 1990s 28% of all Israeli children had multi-ethnic parents (up from 14% in the 1950s).

I don't see the direct link with segregation. The fact taht 28 % of a community has multi-ethnic parents doesn't mean anything, particularly in a country like Israel with so many communities. The biggest is the Arab one and than come the Russian one and each is around 1,000,000 people out of a population of 7,000,000. What normal mixing would give should be stated and explained before stating that is linked to "segregation" or not. More it is not trange that the intermarriage increased after 1950 given the Mizrahi came to Israel mainly after the exodus from Arab lands. And finaly, the sources considering they were not considered as equivalent to Ashkenazi Jews do not lack. It was and is still partly a problem in Israel society. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

more historical cases
I believe we could list more historical examples. The current historical cases section is somewhat arbitrary (Ireland...) and focusses too narrowly on Anglo-American and Nazi aspects. In the late 19th century up to mid-twentieth century, segregation was a popular official policy in many colonies. (As a necessary administrative tool to justify the very existence of the ruling entities, a nice explanation can be found e.g. in British nationality law and Hong Kong; practical segregation is implied in this sentence from Belgian Congo ″In 1953, the Congolese were granted the right to buy and sell private property in their own name″.)

French Algeria is an interesting example: Algeria was considered to be an integral part of France, but citizenship was granted to people of French, other European or Jewish descent; to Muslims only in very special cases. As a quick-fix I'll try to copy a passage from French Algeria. --Senfteiler (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

U.S. section not very coherent
The United States section isn't very coherent. The text lacks a clear direction or organization, and several of the statements imply contradictory ideas.136.181.195.29 (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You could find further information at the main article, Racial segregation in the United States, or improve that section using information from there. If you're talking about this U.S. section, then I disagree, it looks quite coherent to me. Shalom11111 (talk) 03:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Canada - bad arguments
I am referring to this section: Until 1948, the Canadian Government systematically forced First Nations children to attend Canadian Indian residential school system in order to disconnect them from their indigenous language and culture.

It thus promoted integration, the opposite of racial segregation. See also the main article on these schools:

"the Canadian federal government's Indian Affairs department officially encouraged the growth of the Indian residential school system as a valuable agent in a wider policy of assimilating Native Canadians into European-Canadian society.[9]"

Thus the section should be removed or pruned as not making sense here.

I also feel the PC "damned if you do, damned if you don't" attitude at work here. Zezen (talk) 08:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Racial segregation in Liberian constitution
Somebody removed this [RS] para:

---Liberia---

Liberian Constitution limits Liberian nationality to Negro people (see also Liberian nationality law).

Why? Explain yourself here.

Zezen (talk) 08:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you know what the word "segregation" means? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 14:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I do. As per the article itself: "the act by which a (natural or legal) person separates other persons on the basis of one of the enumerated grounds without an objective and reasonable justification, in conformity with the proposed definition of discrimination."

Denying nationality on basis of race is the most obvious racial discrimination.

Most of the historic and current examples in the article are on par with Liberia's case. Please discuss more, without ad hominem.

Zezen (talk) 18:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think you understand, no, or you wouldn't be using "segregation" and "discrimination" as synonyms. In what way is this an example of the former? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The article includes the following now: Following its conquest of Ottoman controlled Algeria in 1830, for well over a century France maintained colonial rule in the territory which has been described as "quasi-apartheid".[13] The colonial law of 1865 allowed Arab and Berber Algerians to apply for French citizenship only if they abandoned their Muslim identity; Azzedine Haddour argues that this established "the formal structures of a political apartheid"

Which is an example of religious segregation cum discrimination, if anything. Here the method is the same: the nationality law, but the segregation is racial.

The Head of the Independent National Commission on Human Rights (INCHR) and retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of Liberia Cllr. Gladys K. Johnson has defended the “Negro Clause” in the Liberian constitution, which forbids white people from gaining citizenship in Liberia.

Giving her personal opinion Wednesday on several provisions of the Liberian constitution at a public interactive forum organized by the Liberia Media for Democratic Initiative, former Associate Justice Johnson dissected Article 27b of the Liberian Constitution which addresses the controversial citizenship issue. Former Associate Justice Johnson agreed that only people of Negro decent should be citizens and noted that any attempt to open up citizenship widely would render most Liberians as third class citizens.

Continued Justice Johnson: “I am only saying that before you jump up and say that let’s remove this whole clause and open up, you must know how to open up, because if you open up too wide in this your own country, you will become third class citizens. So if we are accused of being racist, let’s accept it, than to be made foreigners or nonentities in our own country”

So they do segregate, and accept that they are racist by doing so. Source

Still not convinced? Call for an RfC.


 * So you're including it because you personally think it is similar to something in another country that one person describes as political apartheid (ie. separation politically, not actual apartheid)? No, you continue to demonstrate that you don't understand what this article is about. You should learn about the semantic difference between discrimination and segregation, and about how Wikipedia policies like WP:NOR work, and come back when you know. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 14:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Not me, the RS sources claim it was (until the 1940s) and is segregation. By now you are engaging in edit war by removing sourced statements or claims that have been accepted in by other Wikipedians in related articles on country's history. Please abstain from doing so, or organize an RfC.


 * You must provide a source that says it's segregation. You are not allowed to substitute your own analysis for the analysis of reliable sources. If you believe that other users might support your new edit, you must be the one to gain consensus, per WP:BRD. There's no such thing as "I made a wild unsourced change because I don't understand policy, and now you need consensus to restore the status quo." –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I looked up the history of the Talk page. I guess the unexplained removal of your reasoned and civil opinion here by User:Trinacrialucente was unintentional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zezen (talk • contribs) 20:28, November 27, 2015‎ (UTC)

Norway segregation doubtful
I do not find this to be racial segregation as such: On 16 May 1940 the Administrasjonsrådet asked Rikskommisariatet why radio receivers had been confiscated from Jews in Norway.[56] That Administrasjonsrådet thereafter "quietly" accepted[57] racial segregation between Norwegian citizens...

Why?

1. Much worse was happening e.g. in the USA during WWII, see e.g. Japanese internment both in the USA and Canada, which is much closer to the definition of racial segregation employed here.

2. It looks more like a wartime security measure, if anything.

3. The reffed article itself states that the Norwegian government had his hands tied by the German Nazis: The Jewish question was an international concern, high above the Administration Council of national scope. Legal basis for the decision was to be found in "der Führer Regulation." The national group [Jews] was not treated as Norwegian citizens. This is where Hitler sets out its racist ideology as applicable law in Norway. This is the moral point. And it could look as though Administration Council members had understood precisely... -> I thus posit this Norwegian section be removed. Zezen (talk) 11:31, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * As there have been no votes against, I plan to remove it once the main article reopens, and trim down the "quotation needed" challenged sections in the other sections.
 * Speak now or forever hold your peace! ;) Zezen (talk) 08:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "The US was worse" is meaningless, "they were just trying to protect their country" is meaningless and offensive, and "it was the Nazis behind it" doesn't matter unless the article is going to be reorganized to stick all Nazi-related segregation together, rather than having separate sections by country. What matters is whether the source is reliable and whether it claims that segregation existed. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 13:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Israel doubtful, some cases only
As per the segregation definition quoted above in the case of Liberia, I find these Israeli examples to be discrimination, and not segregation (which, in short, means physical separation of access, to e.g. means of transport, buildings, institutions, amenities):

They [Falasha] have been subjected to a number of indignities, such as their donated blood being thrown away at hospitals.[97] On April 26, 2015 a white Israeli police officer beat and arrested a Falasha IDF soldier, Damas Pakada, who alleges he was the target of a racist attack.[98] Subsequent protests broke out in support of Prakada across Israel, and turned violent in Tel Aviv.[99]

Further arguments:

1. This beating up of a soldier was incidental, and not a promulgated governmental policy. 2. Other groups e.g. homosexuals or tattooed persons have had their donated blood rejected, as mandated by the UN itself, if my memory serves me right, and it is not usually treated as segregation.

-> Let us remove these examples, smacking of POV and original research.

On the other hand, the examples quoted above about segregation in schools against Falasha kids: Since their arrival in the early 1980's under Operation Solomon, the Falasha have stated they have been treated as "second class citizens"[93] from ongoing "institutional racism"[94] and segregation.[95][96] are most pertinent here, and should stay.

Your comments? Zezen (talk) 11:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I fully agree with your comments in the first part. regarding the second section, "second class citizens" is agin, discrimination, not segregation. The only source that talks abot "segregation" is a blog, which is not a reliable source. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 15:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, correction, I see anew source was added, from Ha'aretz, which also makes that claim. We could probably use that. It should go in the previous paragraph, the one which discusses Israel's 'de facto' segregation of communities along ethnic lines, and edited to include what the Ha'artez source says - that the government recognizes that this is a problem and is working to force integration and elimination of such de facto segregated schools  by closing schools that are predominately Ethiopian. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate you are now discussing this topic as opposed to unilaterally undoing edits. The case of Damas is relevant as this de facto segregation is in effect due to the wider racism inherent in Israeli society. Take away the racism, there would be no more segregation (which applies to Israelis BORN IN ISRAEL of Ethiopian descent who speak perfect Hebrew...not just Ethiopian Israelis). The fact that Beta Israel/Falasha donated blood was thrown out IS an act of segregation (under Jim Crow in the US whites could not receive donated blood from blacks...which is of course scientifically baseless).Trinacrialucente (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That is not the definition of segregation. Individual acts motivated by racism are not the same thing as segregation. And even racism, on its own, is not the same as segregation. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of the concepts and distinctions therein. I am also aware of cause and effect. Throwing away blood due to one's race is a form of racial segregation. The precedent has already been set...you are on the wrong side of history http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/the-american-red-cross-african-american-blood-ban-scandal/  Trinacrialucente (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI, I added yet another source/citation which mentions the Tel Aviv riots as a consequence of on-going segregation. It is relevant to the topic.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinacrialucente (talk • contribs) 19:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * if you think a racially motivated attack on an individual is the same as segregation, then no, you are not aware of the distinction between racism and segregation. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not say the two were "the same". I provided my sources which concur with my observation. So, either you lack the reading comprehension necessary to follow this topic or you are grasping at straws.  Either way, you are not adding anything of value here.Trinacrialucente (talk) 23:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * this is an article about segregation. If the two are not the same, then the non-segregation stuff does not belong here. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You are the one "edit warring". I am adding new citations and sources which support the topic of segregation against the Beta Israel community.  I have just added two more sources regarding the scandal of forced birth control as a policy by the Israeli governmet against the Beta Israel community.  This topic merits its own paragraph at a minumum.  If you feel differently feel free to ask for arbitration.Trinacrialucente (talk) 02:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What does forced birth control have to do with segregation? LjL (talk) 02:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * you seriously have to ask? Wow.  Sinceramente mi sembra che non sai di che cosa parli...e non so perche' mi segui. Forced birth control against ONE population and NOT against another is by definition SEGREGATION.  You don't appear to have a good grasp of English or Italian.  Not really sure why you feel compelled to edit on this topic of you cannot grasp the concept.  I have a feeling you are a sock-puppet and will act accordingly.Trinacrialucente (talk) 02:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the English Wikipedia, please talk to me in English. You can check the definition of segregation yourself. It involves segregating (separating). It does not simply involve any kind of abuse. As to your accusations, you'd better have evidence. LjL (talk) 02:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I speak Italian, and if you'll allow the joke, I think you must have conjugated some verbs wrong, because you conjugated them for tu and not io. You are flat-out wrong in identifying things as textbook examples of segregation that are not segregation. If you do not understand the topic of the article, you should not edit the article. Trinacrialucente, somehow every time I run into you it's making edits that are incompetent, malicious, or both. I suggest you examine your reasons for editing here. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, Roscelese if you want to "go there" I can say your edits are incompetent, malicious or both. Just witness your edits on Liberia where this is/has been a clear pattern of racial segregation which you either did not know about or avoided...either way it was an incompetent edit since you are wrong there.  And yes,forced population control/taking away the reproductive rights of a population/race is absolutely a component of racial segregation. http://www.blackgenocide.org/negro.html  I would expect a level of intellectual honesty if one is going to comment on a topic as sensitive as this, but you seem to let your malicious nature cloud whatever honesty you have.Trinacrialucente (talk) 05:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Let us WP:FOC here for a minute. The point is simple: racism is not the same as segregation. This page is about segregation. The section already includes a link to Racism in Israel article. The following should be removed, though I have not done it yet. "They have been subjected to a number of indignities, such as their donated blood being thrown away at hospitals. On April 26, 2015 a white Israeli police officer beat and arrested a Falasha IDF soldier, Damas Pakada, who alleges he was the target of a racist attack. Subsequent protests broke out in support of Prakada across Israel, and turned violent in Tel Aviv. In 2013 it was revealed that the Israel government had sterilized Beta Israel women as a matter of policy without their knowledge or consent. Beta Israel women revealed they had been coerced and misled by government physicians and told the injections were inoculations, when indeed they were a long-acting birth-control substance called Depo-provera."

Kindly discuss it here before including it. Keep in mind that per WP:ONUS, it is the responsibility of the person wishing to include content to get consensus. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 08:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Remove: I also vote for removing this passage, as per the segregation definition quoted in the article itself.

(NB, please also note that by now this talk page is semi-protected against nameless IPs to cool the heads somehow.) Zezen (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Just following-up as we now have yet another anonymous IP removing the content in its entirety. I'm of course willing to go with any consensus here, but I don't think one has been achieved. Given there are at least 3 citations that specifically mention "Segregation" and "Beta Israel" (in the context of housing and schools) is anyone here still honestly making the case that the entire section should be deleted? I understand that 1) the majority do not want the case of Damas Pakada or the forced-sterilization (although forced population control by race is absolutely a form of segregation) in this article and 2) at least one member (not sure if his credibility still stands at this point based on the other actions taken against him) would prefer the Beta Israel segregation moved to be part of the previous paragraph. I don't think any further info is needed here to make a decision (i.e. what has been said is already out there and no need to be redundant). Can we come up with a course of action so we can continue to add/enhance this article without further retaliatory undo/deletions of the entire article?Trinacrialucente (talk) 23:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Just saw you locked the subject for review; not sure if this was your idea or not, but thank you. I cannot believe how out-of-hand this has gotten (Israel I can understand...but Liberia???) Is there any way we can get some neutral editors who have NOT edited on this page yet to take an unbiased look at the topics which seem to have polarized people here? I seriously don't think this same group of editors that have participated to date can reach any sort of consensus to move forward here.Trinacrialucente (talk) 02:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

There is this simple { {copy edit} } tag one could use to invite the hopefully impartial outsiders. Zezen (talk) 13:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In regards to the Haaretz article regarding forced birth control shots, the version currently being used is out of date and should be replaced as it contains acknowledged factual errors in that it incorrectly asserts that Israel admitted to the practice. Haaretz issued a correction about this soon after the release of the article: "CORRECTION: This article, which was updated on March 6, 2013, reported on Health Ministry director-general Prof. Roni Gamzu's instruction to gynecologists not to renew prescriptions for Depo-Provera if there is any doubt that recipients did not understand the implications of the treatment. The original version failed to state that this instruction was issued "without taking a stand or determining facts about allegations that had been made," and referred to all women and not just women of Ethiopian origin. read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israeli-minister-appointing-team-to-probe-ethiopian-birth-control-shot-controversy-1.506266"(emphasis added) The link provided at the end contains the updated article. The pertinent difference is that without the admission this should potentially be reported as a claim and not as a fact, unless subsequent information has come to light. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 11:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * For more on the false claims of forced sterilization, read this - http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100200874/how-true-is-it-that-israel-deceitfully-gave-ethiopian-jews-birth-control-injections/ . When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 05:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

As Trinacrialucente finally acknowledges above,  the majority do not want the case of Damas Pakada or the allegations of forced-sterilization included, and as Kingsindian has reminded her,  per WP:ONUS, it is the responsibility of the person wishing to include content to get consensus. Accordingly, I am removing those two cases. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 05:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * a blog is not a legitimate source and you know this.Trinacrialucente (talk) 05:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ahh, no, This is a WP:NEWSBLOG. And it provides links to news article from Ha'aretz which are its source. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 14:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * uhhhh...yes. A newsblog is still a blog as it contains op ed and one-sided language such as "lapped it up".  That's why it's in the "blog" section and not the news section. Trinacrialucente (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Newsblogs are allowed as RS, per the link I gave you - read it. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 14:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

What is segregation?
According to the definition in the first paragraph "the voluntary act of separating oneself from other persons (...) does not constitute segregation", yet many of the examples, especially in the Contemporary segregation section lists such cases. 147.129.141.12 (talk) 19:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Racial segregation in Liberia until 20th century
I added additional sources to the Liberia section, which mention social/sexual/legislative etc. racial segregation expressis verbis:

Ironically, they replicated what they despised – oppression and discrimination based upon “inferiority.” Natives were disparaged and ridiculed as “country people.” The Americo-Liberians set up all the Jim Crow laws of the South in Liberia. There was social segregation in Monrovia, the capital city. Among other things, natives could not enter through the front door. They could not vote. They could not speak unless spoken to. There were sexual restrictions. No native man could marry or have a sexual relationship with an Americo-Liberian woman. Even when natives became educated, they were restricted from government positions. Only a token few were allowed to participate. source for quote There are many more scholarly sources about this issue.

I hope the reffed books are RS enough for you. If not, please challenge them here, or via an RfC.Zezen (talk) 11:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The Racism Review source is an improvement on one count in that it actually identifies segregation as the issue, not just discrimination, but it also doesn't seem like a very high-quality source. Meanwhile, your link to the racism+liberia search indicates that you still seem to have problems understanding the distinction here. Can you find reliable sources that talk about segregation in Liberia? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * is not competent to edit en.wiki. Look at what they did to Jewish Bolshevism and Blood libel. 2601:14C:0:F6E9:B4A6:ABC6:D6CA:F708 (talk) 02:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I do not usually talk to numbers. Here I have made an exception and checked the IP6's edits. Having found most of them to be WP:PA: 'Typical original nonsense mess', 'look who's throwing themself into an edit war and, as usual, knows nothing about the subject -- why it's LjL" and here, I am happy to restore the RS-ed historical claims about Liberia.

Zezen (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:NOR. What you think or feel has no bearing. The sources you cite don't mention racial segregation, so they don't support the inclusion of Liberia. There may be better sources that do describe racial segregation in Liberia; by all means, cite them. Until then, stop edit-warring to keep your original research in the article. 66.87.82.246 (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Roscelese, you are not WP:SOCK thereby, I do hope? :) I do ignore the IP-hopping number(s) as promised, and answer only you directly heretofore.

1. As you can see from the referenced blog entry, the above quote comes not from the blog but from the following book: Slaves to Racism: An Unbroken Chain from America to Liberia, which is only discussed there, alongside the credentials of the authors. If you look closely, I had provided this book as an RS. (Upon further research, I found that the above quote was repeated in a publication by a "Dr. Amos M.D.Sirleaf", who claims to teach in Strayer University, but I do not find his credentials credible enough, so I omit mentioning this person completely.)

2. The [''Factors to the Liberian National Conflict: Views of the Liberian Expatriates']' by Dr. Samuel K. Ngaima Sr. has a whole section "Americo-Liberians and Segregation of Indigineous People" on page 21, with slightly different period. It is available on Google Books, so all can check if "segregation" does appear there.

I am thus going to:

1. Add Factors to the Liberian National Conflict: Views of the Liberian Expatriates as the third RS.

2. Report the hopping IP-s if they continue to engage in WP:SOCK or WP:VAN etc. Zezen (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Factors isn't usable because it's print-on-demand (no meaningful editorial supervision or quality checking). I see now that, as you said, the reference to segregation comes from Slaves to Racism; the publisher seems a little sketchy, but the book got a favorable review in African Studies, so it seems potentially usable as long as it is not given too much weight. What are the references to segregation (not just discrimination) in the other sources you have added? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your balanced and civil critique. Please see the "Quote" section of the other source for the verbatim "segregation" quote.

As for the other sources, I found them by researching and reading "American vs Native Blacks segregation: or "Black imperialism" sections in the books reffed in the generic "19th and 20th century Liberia history" materials that I could quickly find.

Please peruse the Google Books etc. links to the sources provided or challenge them using the convention. Zezen (talk) 20:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

In addition, can you provide the source for your challenge "Factors isn't usable because it's print-on-demand"? I have read the other chapters, with statistics and such, and while maybe not stellar, it seems to pass the bar. Zezen (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * For Factors, see WP:SPS. For the rest - they do not in fact appear to claim that there was segregation in Liberia, no. You're the one citing them - where do you believe that they say that segregation, as distinct from discrimination, existed? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Roscelese:

First, it is so helpful to lead a reasoned discussion here challenging and defending the validity of RSes instead of having the referenced passages deleted en masse in the article itself alongside ex-cathedra pronouncement. Now, ad meritum:

1. Indeed, you are right that ''Factors to the Liberian National Conflict: Views of the Liberian Expatriates' was self-published, as I checked now, so I suggest you mark it with the "better source needed" tag.

2. Have you done the legwork on the other sources, as I suggested? The second source has the section "Settlers and elites in Kenya and Liberia" end with "In public, the [sexual] racial segregation was socially patrolled".

The third quoted reference discusses 'xenophobia', 'ethnophobia' and 'black segregation', which was actually preferred by the Negroes themselves in the South and even North of the USA before the assisted emigration to Liberia, and which, as the source claims, has been transplanted untouched thereto. The 'pseudo-Darwinian theories' and 'unnatural interbreeding [between 'races'] often producing unhealthy or undesireable offspring' claims complement the racial segregation rationales employed by Americo-Liberians after colonization of the African coast, pacem the author.

I leave it to you, as a scholarly and intellectual challenge, to peruse the other quoted sources and critique them here or in the body of the article itself by appropriate WP hermeneutical tags. Zezen (talk) 07:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Legislating Racism mentions "black segregation" IN THE UNITED STATES and Elite Cultures mentions "socially patrolled" "racial segregation" IN KENYA, did you even read the sources you're citing? It's always extremely depressing when I realize I've read the sources that someone else added more thoroughly than they did. Please stop this nonsense. Kenya, Liberia, and the United States are not the same place. Discrimination and segregation are not the same phenomenon. You have spectacularly failed to support your claims even when walked through the process painfully with your hand held, and you still expect us to give you the benefit of the doubt when you add more stuff? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 13:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Ha, and while at it, read the incisive, rather un-PC and arguably prophetic characterizations of the presumed Native vs American Blacks potentials uttered by the "Black intellectual Alexander Crummel" and a White "German colonist" in third quoted reference.
 * One's skin color in the jungle forests in 19th c. Africa was a question of life and death, as one learns! I wonder how many of them have been wrongfully shot and left for dead in the woods while hunting... Zezen (talk) 07:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Legislating Racism discusses the segregation of Blacks imposed by Indians, etc. in the US states, or self-imposed. From page 40 it describes the reasons behind the Black immigration to Liberia, as assisted by the American Colonization Society, black pastors, etc. (As per the very name this society aimed at colonization of the native blacks to as to "elevate" them). The book also mentions that according to some politicians' voices it was the Blacks who believed in segregation themselves, page 205, and the prevailing fear of racial amalgamation.
 * Elite Cultures: Anthropological Perspectives discusses "Settlers and their elites in Kenya and Liberia" as per the very chapter 8's title therein.

Both are thus meant to support the claims copied verbatim from the unreferenced history section of Liberia itself.

Try to employ better hermeneutics Roscelese Zezen (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you find so confusing about the idea that the sources need to support the claims you're citing to them. "Well, the book mentions Liberia elsewhere, so why does it matter that it never claims at any point that Liberia was segregated?" I've removed the section, because you have repeatedly failed to provide sourcing for the claims you make in it. Do not restore it. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, to find middle ground, I completely rewrote this section, instead of copying it from Liberia aricle, only quoting almost verbatim what the RS-only (without the ones you challenged above) sources say.

Try working on this version now instead. Zezen (talk) 08:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Zezen, please read WP:COPYVIO. You can't copy and paste text from the sources like you did.
 * Also, please stop reinserting the section on Liberia. You have to build a consensus that there was racial segregation in Liberia (not a caste system). Thank you. 66.87.114.199 (talk) 12:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Info for named accounts: see the (semi-) protection history of this article on why I do not rebut it at length.

In short, claims and terms are the same, while it is not a copyright violation, as there are 6 refs in 3 sentences, so impossible; also the challengers can compare this content with the original verbiage themselves first. Zezen (talk) 07:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Indians in the USA
I have just read the Blood quantum laws article, which says: The freedmen were listed separately on the Dawes Rolls and suffered segregation in Oklahoma [by Seminole]. More recently, the Seminole refused to share with them the revenues of 20th-century US government settlements of land claims. .... Tribes on reservations have seemingly been able to maintain exclusive membership by setting higher blood quanta, since the reservation location has generally served to isolate the tribe from non-Indians and intermarriage with them.... Today, the proposed regulations for children adopted into Native families are that they are unable to be federally recognized members unless they have a biological parent who is enrolled in a tribe.

See also Black_Seminoles for details.

What do you opine: is it an example of racial segregation or not? Zezen (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think so, but do you have a reliable source which says it is? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The sources are given in the other article: one can analyze and transplant them here, as appropriate. SHall you?

Also, I have reread this very article, especially the Racial_segregation section, where an identical situation obtains with Mohawks: All interracial couples are sent eviction notices regardless of how long they have lived on the reserve.' etc. If such identical Canadian cases had been included, the US First Nations' racial segregation laws, redolent of Racial policy of Nazi Germany citizenship classifications should feature here, too. Zezen (talk) 07:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I shan't and neither should you, because you've demonstrated that you don't understand WP:NOR and WP:V. If you're interested in helping the encyclopedia, you should stick to stuff like copyediting and reversion of obvious vandalism until you learn Wikipedia's policies. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 13:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

If you shall not read the very Wikipedia article that is being discussed and for which consensus is being sought, that is Racial_segregation, and you proudly declare it, then indeed, please desist from editing it.

I have read it and the legacy reffed RSes provided by other Wikipedians, so it is too late to tell me not to read what I have edited and will edit ;).

If you feel forced to operate at ad hominem and not ad meritum level by now, do aim for a wittier WP:PERSONAL next time, talk.

Now, what are your arguments about the weight of the existing sources provided by the other Wikipedians for racial segregation by American Indians, that have been used in this article? Zezen (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Let me remind the 'named serial reverters of this section about this quote from WP:VER:

While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

To wit, the content is verifiable (or else its sources can be challenged here), I have sought consensus hereinabove, and the Wikipedians disagreeing with me should argue for its omitting here. As you can see it has not been even disputed as nobody gave Wikipedia-worthy arguments without resorting to WP:Personal for 20 days.

If you have comments about this policy itself, please talk on the WP:Teahouse etc. as I sometimes do. If you do not wish to change this policy, do abstain from revert wars or quote another WP policy here on why you should be doing so. Zezen (talk) 08:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It is really very simple. When you perform an edit, and people revert you, this means that the edit lacks consensus. People who reverted you don't need to repeat again and again that they disagree with you. WP:ONUS basically says that it is your responsibility to get consensus. The easiest way to do this is to open an WP:RfC, which is a formal way to get consensus. I can open the RfC for you if you wish. You cannot simply keep making the edit again and again. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 07:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Kingsindian - I take you on your word then :): please 'do draft an WP:RfC for this section and post here, so that I am not accused of e.g. forum hoping or wording it POV to promote my version. The onus is on me, but as you can see nobody from the reverters contributed to my reasoned proposal here without ad hominem, so there is no way to reach consensus thereby. Zezen (talk) 07:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I will be happy to open an RfC once the copyvio issue flagged below is cleared up. I am not allowed to open RfCs with copyvio in them. By the way, there is no "forum shopping" in an RfC - the RfC is started on this talk page itself. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 07:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you again for your offer. The friendly and helpful named accounts and even the adversarial IPs advised me that the copyvio to the Indians part can be easily fixed, as I should have simply added "content copied from Blood quantum laws; see that page's history for attribution" line to my edit description. See below for discussion about this part. (Liberia is a more convoluted story).

Now, with this cleared, the third-party opinions if Native Americans should be added at all is material here. I count on you to bring in objective voices here by wording the AfC correctly. Zezen (talk) 07:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Alleged copyright violation
Fuhghettaboutit (talk) left the following useful notice on my personal talk page. Since it concerns this article, I copy it here, and add my response so that all can chip in:

1. Fuhghettaboutit (talk) wrote: I've also noted some specifics in two edit summaries I left upon reverting your additions. Please see my two edit summaries shown in this diff

After reviewing your summary, I can say:

I have never seen this blog nor used its content. My edit was a rework on History of Liberia (see the Talk Page above), whence the blog's author probably also took its content, as s/he writes on the same page: I started with Nigeria and after 3 hours of research, had only done about 5 paragraphs. So I decided to put off Nigeria for the weekend and start with another country. And I picked Liberia. Turned out to be equally difficult! I will certainly understand if you don’t read it all. But I found it fascinating and I hope you will too! This would explain unintented similarities, so no copyright violation ocurred. If it did, please elaborate showing the source and my content, so all can objectively check these and opine here.

2. Fuhghettaboutit (talk) also wrote: The material about Native Americans is a (fixable) copyright violation, being copied without attribution from Blood quantum laws

Please read WP:COPY: The Wikimedia Foundation does not own copyright on Wikipedia article texts' and illustrations. It is therefore pointless to email our contact addresses asking for permission to reproduce articles or images, even if rules at your company or school or organization mandate that you ask web site operators before copying their content.

So I cannot violate copyright by transposing Wikipedia text.

-> Please explain yourself as you may mean something else.

Otherwise, please restore the deleted content, unless you can provide new arguments other than the ones put forth hereintofore already, on which I had based my reedits. Zezen (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Zezen, why don't you try reading instead of braying about your ignorance? The message posted on your talk page says "Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Copying within Wikipedia." 66.87.114.40 (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Also note Fuhghettaboutit's last edit summary, to which she/he referred you, which says "Also, the material about Native Americans is a (fixable) copyright violation, being copied without attribution from Blood quantum laws" 66.87.114.40 (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Yet another (the same?) IP could not refrain herself once again from animal dehumanization, thus abusing the anonymity cloak... Now, ad rem: I have read the reffed policy, thank you for pointing it directly, IP, as it is late at night in my time zone.

If I understand you right, Fuhghettaboutit, you propose that I restore the challenged content just adding content copied from Blood quantum laws; see that page's history for attribution

line in the edit summary. Simples, then.

-> Fuhghettaboutit, is that so and will it satisfy you then?
 * Hi Zezen. You said on this page: "I completely rewrote this section ... only quoting almost verbatim what the RS-only (without the ones you challenged above) sources say." This sure sounds like an admission of copying from other's writing for the entire section – of plagiarism and copyright infringement. Taking you at your word – I am quoting you after all – but wanting to make sure there was no misunderstanding of what you intended, I attempted to confirm that the content was copied. Lacking access to the book you cited, I went to see if the material appeared elsewhere – a copyright violation can often be confirmed through other sources, and I did find it elsewhere. Specifically, your edit contains the text:"...Americo-Liberians created communities and social infrastructure closely based on American society, maintaining their English-speaking, Americanized way of life, and building churches and houses resembling those of the southern United States."And, as of February 4, 2015, this site, and as of January 19, 2015, this site, contain the text:"Americo-Liberians created communities and social infrastructure closely based on American society, maintaining their English-speaking, Americanized way of life, and building churches and houses resembling those of the southern United States." It is of no moment that neither may be the original source and the book might be (and may themselves be copyright violations of the book). The point is that these predate your edits. I see now you are saying this came from the History of Liberia article? Note that this recently was redacted to remove copyright violations, so it could be you picked up on some in situ copyright violation there (and then confused matters by not providing mandatory copyright attribution when you copied that material across!) But that still leaves the issue of your quoted admission of copying above. As for the native American section, yes, if you gave proper copyright attribution in an edit summary, that would take care of the copyright issue. But no, I do not "propose that [you] restore the challenged content just" by providing that copyright attribution. Doing so would not address the lack of consensus on this talk page for its return, or that you violated the three revert rule to add it. If you want to gain consensus for return, you have options available, but the battleground mentality displayed here and the the contempt for people editing by IP addresses does you no favors.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit - now I can see what you mean. Thank you for the detailed hermeneutics. I will reciprocate in kind.

1. I went through the oft-IP-vandalized text of History of Liberia, which I remembered as the source for the quote. I did not go earlier, but FYI the above quote was changed from

The Americo-Liberians created communities and social infrastructure closely based on American society, maintaining their English-speaking, Americanized way of life, and building churches and houses resembling those of the southern United States.

to

The Americo-Liberians created communities and social infrastructure closely based on American society, maintaining their English-speaking, American music, American tradition, American culture, Americanized way of life, and building churches and houses resembling those of the southern and northern part of United States.

, quoting this source and then back in July 2015. Message to all doubters - be brave, do click and check for yourself that I am not making it up.

The original claim, as inserted by another Wikipedian, was not supported by any ref but it must have stayed for years unchallenged in Wikipedia. It is being challenged here, so OK, I did some forensics now, and I found it verbatim in [www.self.gutenberg.org/article/whebn0000017792/history%20of%20liberia self-published Gutenberg here], "licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0" from a published encyclopedia.

Uff, we are getting somewhere. So:

A. The quote is in fact attributable to a published scholarly source which predates the above challenges, if really needed.

B. It is the other places quoted by you that may have violated copyright themselves by pasting content from e.g. Gutenberg or World Heritage Encyclopedia without referring to this license without any attribution, and not me.

C. In fact, the other Wikipedian "remixed, transformed, or build upon the material" and so did I, so follow this license applies, which is in-built into Wikipedia itself and needs not be quoted at our each edit.

D. I took a sentence from this past version of the WP article, supporting its claims by refs e.g. this quoted source which says, inter alia: "[The American protestants] build up African [Protestant] churches [...] were mealy-mouthed about social injustice [the tiny elite in Liberia counted] 0.6 percent in the 1960 [and the Americo-Liberian immigrants were] practicing exclusion [of the natives]"

D. These sources are available via Google Books or otherwise, and all can check, but of course require digging, as done above and when researching and reediting the content.

E. The other Wiki article, with the very same "controversial" sentence, has not been WP:RS or WP:copyvio or WP:RS challenged for years. Why is this article, with my contributions, being reverted on these spurious grounds, without proper forensics, so furiously?

I hope that by now for yourself what is really happening here: all WP TLAs are resorted to one by one, mostly by hoppping IPs, so that POV slant (censorship) be introduced to the contents.

Please challenge my work above or agree towards building consensus.

Zezen (talk) 05:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Zezen, please stop already! Do a little research on the "World Heritage Encyclopedia" -- it's a mirror of Wikipedia, so it can't be used as a source (see WP:CIRCULAR). The bigger problem here, as I wrote last month (in a message you deleted), is competence.
 * Instead of arguing about the sources, you need to be concerned about establishing -- to the satisfaction of other Wikipedia editors (including me) -- that there was racial segregation (as opposed to a social caste system) in Liberia. You haven't done that. You may believe it, but your sources don't support it. Without consensus, you can argue about sources and copyright violations until you're blue in the face, but the questionable material isn't going into the article. Understand? 66.87.115.75 (talk) 06:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Cosign. Zezen, even if you were able to correct the direct copying/close paraphrasing, you already know that your addition cites a bunch of sources that contain nothing even mistakable for support of the claims you added. Give it a rest. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 07:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

You already challenged the previous sources above, so move the discussion there to the Liberian section, not here, alleged CopyVio. In short, a quick Google Scholar search for the term comes up with many RS such as: In fact, pre-civil war Liberia was not only racially stratified but was also racially segregated.... The study reveals that non-enforcement of existing laws coupled with racial/ethnic and gender discrimination were a problem in the country ... in [http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01924036.2011.571832 International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice Volume 37, Issue 1, 2013] so I can easily reword/resource if you are more specific about your doubts.

Racial segregation was practiced in Liberia (and in other African and ME countries nowadays) and it needs to be mentioned in WP. Zezen (talk) 07:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Can a user who has demonstrated competence and good faith check those quotations in the source? I don't have access to it, so I can't check the first one, but the second one, from the abstract, is not about segregation. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, I simply removed this sentence "The Americo-Liberians created communities..." as I do not want to chase the other Wikipedian's sources or thought processes from years ago. This is the trimmed down version proposed, with two new RS that I quickly found now with "racial segregation" expressis verbis.

-> Please review and consent to its inclusion then. If none picks up the scholarly glove, I will call an RfC instead. Zezen (talk) 08:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi again Zezen. I'm not sure what you're misunderstanding here. Let's go back to copyright basics. You may not take previously written material – other's writing – and copy and paste it here, presented as your own writing. Copyright is the legal aspect; plagiarism is the ethical aspect. To be clear, the fair use exception to copyright protection does allow short quotations to be used, marked as such with quote marks, cited using an inline citation and in-text attribution. This also avoids presented other's writing as your own and so steers clear of plagiarism. When not explicitly quoting under the limited fair use exception, you use and cite source for their information, not for their sentences. When you do so, you must truly digest the source and present the information in your own words. We cite the source as verifying that information content; citing an RS gives you no dispensation to use its words. And you can't just perform surface modification, exchanging a word or two for a synonym. That is called close paraphrasing. Got it? You still haven't adequately explained your quoted admission of copying above. Based on the fact you posted this revised draft with citations to the source of your copying, you must have thought it was okay but it was a blatant copyright violation of those sources. Where previously, despite your own statement, I was not sure about the material, here (i.e., in the draft at User:Zezen/Draftbox3 you referred people to, now deleted under CSD G12) the infringement being present was unequivocal – as I was able to access the sources. The first part contained copied and pasted material (that you excerpt above) from here. The second part, likewise, was lifted wholesale from here. Now that we are hopefully on the same page, I am giving you a final notice that further copyright violations may result in a block from any administrator, without further notice.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * A rule of thumb to avoid copyright violations is to simply never copy and paste stuff. Always summarize the text in your own words. Not always easy to follow, but is a good thing to keep in mind. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 14:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

On one hand Roscelese said: you already know that your addition cites a bunch of sources that contain nothing even mistakable for support of the claims you added. or accussed me of original research many times (see the Liberia historical section above) when I copy edited ad lib for what they said.

Otoh, If I use the exact phrases (not full sentences), with proper attribution, containing the key "racial segregation" term, then I am accused of copyright violation in turn.

"Damned if I do, damned if I don't" ?

If I paraphrase again here, then I will be (wrongly) accused to engage original research or falsification of sources or worse. Deja vu.

Please help me deflect such criticisms in advance then. Zezen (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Poor Zezen. Unfortunately for him, competence is required to edit Wikipedia. 66.87.115.164 (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What could you, person editing from 66.87.115.164, possibly hope to accomplish with this nasty post? Maybe it gives you jollies but will insulting Zezen make him do anything better? Your post is deeply incompetent if your goal is achieve any good result, impart any understanding, further the conversation, help achieve consensus for or against or to keep the conversation focused on the real issues.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 66.87.115.164 talk is presumably the same person as 66.87.114.210 talk, 66.87.114.163 talk, 66.87.115.176 talk, 66.87.114.216 talk, 66.87.114.104 talk, 66.87.114.199 talk, 66.87.114.63 talk and 66.87.82.246 talk amongst others. I've no opinion about pots and kettles.    D b f i r s   10:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Every time I turn on my phone, Sprint assigns me a different IP address. And your point is? 66.87.114.200 (talk) 12:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have the same problem with a changing IP address, so I created an account. It makes it much easier to discuss matters on Wikipedia, though subject talk pages can still be used with a changing IP, as you have been doing.  I assume that you've read Civility.  As I said, I don't know who is the pot and who is the kettle in the current dispute, and I've no interest in the topic under dispute, so I'm just an observer.    D b f i r s   12:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Zezen, There is no catch-22. The issues discussed higher on this page (none of which I have been focused on or attempted to check myself) are that your use of sources have been in support of original research and that they don't verify your additions—that, for example, you wrote a section about racial segregation in Liberia, but cited sources that did not verify these additions because they don't mention racial segregation. To fix such a thing would involve citing sources that do, which in no way necessitates copying and pasting their content. This is all entirely separate from the copyright issue that drew me here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Nur für deutsche Fahrgäste
edited the caption to the photo Nur fur deutsche.jpg to add "(mistranslation,! "deutsche can't mean the Deutsche or Germans, as it isn't Capitalized !)".

I don't speak German, but it looks like 198.255.214.95's comment is incorrect. Google Translate translates "Nur für deutsche Fahrgäste" (the text written on the sign in the photo) as "Only for German passengers". According to this website, nouns are capitalized in German and adjectives, even adjectives for a nationality, are not. Since "deutsche" is being used as an adjective on this sign it should not be capitalized. Perhaps an editor who speaks German can confirm this.

I'll edit the caption to give the full text and translation of the sign, with correct capitalization. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 19:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Churches
Hi, I just wanted to comment because as part of an assignment through the Wiki Education foundation I will be creating the article "Racial segregation of churches in the United States." The title is fairly self explanatory, and you can check out my more specific plans and references on my user page. If any of you have any comments, suggestions, or further reading I should look into, I would be very open to that. All the best Kmwebber (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Kmwebber

German racism in Italy
German racism in Italy comes from the german take-over of the Alto Adige by the nazi Germany in 1943. Italian central government accepts nowadays to support this apartheid against its own citizens in change of "numbers" at the national parliament.

In Alto Adige - South Tyrol, even today: - The population is divided, not only statistically, but by law in: German, Italian, Ladin. - Access a public workplace is prohibited unless you belong to the linguistic group to which this place is reserved. - If a doctor is good, has qualifications with high scores and also gained experience in international team, can not access a public competition of a hospital if he does not belong to the linguistic groups scheduled for that contest. -If a citizen of the High Adige- Südtirol refuses to plead or German or Italian or Ladino every ten years (1981, 1991, 2001, 2011, ...) in conjunction with the national census ISTAT: - Can not apply to become a city councilor or provincial least of mayor or alderman or chairman of the provincial government; - Can not participate in any kind of public competition; - You can not even enroll in any kind of ranking for access to employment for a fixed term; - Can not apply to get on the list to get a building accommodation facilitated; - Can not get any kind of public contribution; - Can not enroll their children in the day nursery; - Can not apply for economic and social assistance; Even the cultural, recreational and sports, should declare himself or German or Italian or Ladin because of Bolzano Province must know which fund draw to give their contributions. There exists a well-defined budget for each language group, and it is not allowed in any way that private contributions to the Germans, for example, go to the Italian language group, in case of excess. The declaration of belonging to the linguistic group of every citizen is kept in court in a sealed envelope, and whenever a citizen wants to participate in a contest or ask for a contribution or a candidate for any election must go to a courthouse and sign authorize the opening of the sealed envelope and therefore may obtain a copy of the declaration, although it needs to be stamped and signed in original (if you submit a copy of it is automatically excluded from the competition, from the ranking, the contribution, etc.), and also not older than six months. Given that the vast majority of the jobs are reserved for the German group, it is not unusual for citizens of Italian native speakers who declare themselves Germans so as not to be denied access to a competition, in a ranking, for a contribution or It subsidized housing only because they speak the wrong language. Often, however, when a job is achieved thanks to one of these "false" statement is not easy to compare with work colleagues or with the simple fact that everyone realizes that the language should be "mother" in fact language "second" is only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.34.249.41 (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't see any indication in what you've written or in the sources you've cited that there is racial or ethnic segregation going on in Italy. If you can cite reliable sources that actually use the word "segregation" to describe the ethnic discrimination about which you write, it may be appropriate for inclusion. Until then, it's original research. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, the problem is quite clear.

1-South Tyrol was enclosed to the Third Reich in 1943.

This is history.

2-South Tyrol-Alto Adige is today dwelled by three different anthropological races (or ethnic groups, if you prefer):

-GERMANS, german race.

-ITALIANS, neo-latin race.

-LADINS, pre-latin race.

This is a fact.

3-The germanophone population is overwhelming the italophone population, by imposing them to speak (and to be) german as a requirement to apply for a job. The italian population is gradually tightening and migrating southward (please take a look at the Daniele Rielli’s book ″Storie dal mondo nuovo″, Ed. Adelphi, Italy, 2016).

This is a segregation.

4-The segregation is not counteracted, but simply provided by the South Tyrol regional and italian national laws, that for your comfort I report here below.

Decreto Legislativo 4 aprile 2006, n. 177 "Norme di attuazione dello statuto speciale della regione Trentino-Alto Adige/Sudtirol, concernenti modifiche al decreto del Presidente della Repubblica 15 luglio 1988, n. 574, in materia di tutela della popolazione di lingua ladina in provincia di Bolzano" G.U. 16 maggio 2006, n. 112

D.P.R. 26 luglio 1976, n. 752 Norme di attuazione dello statuto speciale della Regione Trentino-Alto Adige in materia di proporzionale negli uffici statali siti nella provincia di Bolzano e di conoscenza delle due lingue nel pubblico impiego G.U. 15 novembre 1976, n. 304 B.U. 13 maggio 1980, n. 25, suppl. n. 1

L.P 31 luglio 1976, n. 27 Istituzione dell'Istituto ladino di cultura B.U. 31 agosto 1976, n. 37

L.P. 17 agosto 1976, n. 36 Ordinamento delle scuole materne - Scuole per l'infanzia B.U. 20 settembre 1976, n. 40, numero straordinario

D.P.R. 19 ottobre 1977, n. 846 Norme di attuazione dello statuto speciale della Regione Trentino-Alto Adige in materia di proporzionale negli uffici statali siti nella provincia di Bolzano e di conoscenza delle due lingue nel pubblico impiego G.U. 26 novembre 1977, n. 323 B.U. 13 maggio 1980, n. 25, suppl. ord. n. 2

L. 13 agosto 1980, n. 454 Indennità speciale di seconda lingua ai magistrati, ai dipendenti civili dello Stato compresi quelli delle amministrazioni con ordinamento autonomo ed agli appartenenti alle Forze armate ed ai corpi organizzati militarmente in servizio nella provincia di Bolzano o presso uffici sedenti in Trento ed aventi competenza regionale, e concessione di un assegno speciale di studio G.U. 21 agosto 1980, n. 229

D.P.R. 10 febbraio 1983, n. 89 Approvazione del testo unificato dei decreto del Presidente della Repubblica 20 gennaio 1973, n. 116, e 4 dicembre 1981, n. 761, concernenti norme di attuazione dello statuto speciale per il Trentino-Alto Adige in materia di ordinamento scolastico in provincia di Bolzano G.U. 2 aprile 1983, n. 91 B.U. 28 giugno 1983, n. 33, suppl. ord. n. 4

D.P.R. 15 luglio 1988, n. 574 Norme di attuazione dello statuto speciale per la Regione Trentino-Alto Adige in materia di uso della lingua tedesca e della lingua ladina nei rapporti dei cittadini con la pubblica amministrazione e nei procedimenti giudiziari G.U. 8 maggio 1989, n. 105 B.U. 19 settembre 1989, n. 41, suppl. ord. n. 4

These are racial laws, in the same purpose of southafrican apartheid rules.

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:PHOTO_SOUTH_TYROL.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by HAAAEVERONA95 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Racial segregation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713003632/http://www.ifl-leipzig.com/fileadmin/daten/downloads/DOWNLOADCENTER/Publikationen/internationale%20Zusammenfassungen%20Europa%20Regional/2002/Heft2/en.pdf to http://www.ifl-leipzig.com/fileadmin/daten/downloads/DOWNLOADCENTER/Publikationen/internationale%20Zusammenfassungen%20Europa%20Regional/2002/Heft2/en.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014235036/http://summeroftruth.org/enemy/barracks.html to http://summeroftruth.org/enemy/barracks.html
 * Added tag to http://www.charlielawing.com/modhist_lovingv.virginia.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728134739/http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/theagenda/index.cfm?page_id=3&action=blog&subaction=viewpost&blog_id=445&post_id=11966 to http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/theagenda/index.cfm?page_id=3&action=blog&subaction=viewpost&blog_id=445&post_id=11966
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120609214608/http://www.ccsr.ac.uk/staff/Ludi/documents/UrbS_41_3_2004.pdf to http://www.ccsr.ac.uk/staff/Ludi/documents/UrbS_41_3_2004.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060513204845/http://www.core.ucl.ac.be/services/psfiles/dp99/dp9913.pdf to http://www.core.ucl.ac.be/services/psfiles/dp99/dp9913.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070430211002/http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761580651_3/Segregation_in_the_United_States.html to http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761580651_3/Segregation_in_the_United_States.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070808091642/http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/Medley1003.htm to http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/Medley1003.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041114125050/http://www.skidmore.edu/~dkarp/Social%20Issues/E/history.html to http://www.skidmore.edu/~dkarp/Social%20Issues/E/history.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Racial segregation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.nationalpost.com/news/a9/3288607/story.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081001043749/http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments/pc/2003/02/p03_0279.htm to http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments/pc/2003/02/p03_0279.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:00, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Italian racial laws
Italy introduced apartheid in the colonies with the law 880 (1937), law 1004 (1939) and law 822 (1940). Therefore they established an apartheid-system earlier than south africa. (Aram Mattioli: Das faschistische Italien – ein unbekanntes Apartheidregime. In: Gesetzliches Unrecht – Rassistisches Recht im 20. Jahrhundert. Hrsg.: Micha Brumlik, Susanne Meinl und Werner Renz, Campus 2005, ISBN 3-593-37873-6, S. 155 ff.)

The anti-jewish laws and degrees have not been caused by German pressure. (Michael A. Livingston: The Facists and the Jews of Italy - Mussolini´s Race Laws, 1938–1943. 2014, S. 15.)

best regards--5glogger (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Validity of the concept of race, or what is meant by it, is not addressed
According to Race (human categorization), "race" is at best a fuzzy concept, defined different ways in different countries. According to that article, mainstream, reputable scientists do not consider the concept of human "races" to be valid. I am surprised to see it treated in this article as if it were an objective, clear set of valid categories. There is no statement of what the article means by "race".

What is meant by “race” in the following from the lede?

"Generally, a situation that arises when members of different races mutually prefer to associate and do business with members of their own race would usually be described as separation or de facto separation of the races rather than segregation."

As quick, though historical, examples of culturally defined "race", in the antebellum (pre-U.S. Civil War) South, having one great-great-grandparent (1/16 ancestry) who was negro meant one was a member of that "race". The same I understand to be true of Jews in Nazi Germany, where there was believed to be an (inferior) "Jewish race". deisenbe (talk) 14:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This isn't the right article for that kind of discussion. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The article needs to say what its subject is. You can't say in the first sentence that it is about "racial" discrimination with a link to an article saying the concept is invalid. deisenbe (talk) 16:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

"Confusing" template
I have put this template on the article because I honestly do not know what it is about. African-American segregation? Segregation based on unscientific or “folk” ideas of races? Then say that.

Before taking the template out or making a nasty comment, please read the lede of the article “Race” that is linked in he first sentence. deisenbe (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I've removed the template. Please get a consensus from the editors on this page that the section is confusing before restoringh it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you find it clear? deisenbe (talk) 22:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no problem understanding it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

HI!
WTF am I doin'? I dunno! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:7476:1400:75C2:422F:B38E:18AF (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Spelling
US spelling is appropriate in the US section, surely. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It should probably be an issue of conditional neutrality. As long as the spelling/terminology is close enough between British English and American English so that a casual reader of either dialect can understand it, no need to correct it. Although, if you're talking about fries/chips, it may be wise to figure a solution to convey the meaning, because American English readers may see "chips" to mean potato chips, while British English readers may see "chips" as french fries. --MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Strange structure
I don't understand why we have one section from 10.000BC (segregation before civilization even existed, what?) up to the 1960s and another from the 70s up to the present day. Why this specific split? Wouldn't it be much better to go by convential historical eras? Prinsgezinde (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Irrelevant Image and verbose caption
I removed this image and its long caption because it's not relevant to Hawaii, Brazil or China, where it takes up most the section. And it makes the U.S. centric focus worse generating an even more lopsided POV problem. Plus, the U.S. section is already really heavily illustrated. The image should not be here, so it should go. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not illustrating the sub-sections you mention, it's illustrating the overall section "Historical cases from 10000 BC to 1960s:, to which it is most definitely pertinent. It should not be removed without a consensus to do so here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do even remotely with 10,000 BC and although closer to 1960 it's not even that. And it does look like it's illustrating the sections it is in.  And it makes the POV problem of this article worse, especially with the verbose caption. We don't write articles in captions.  This article is covering the world, not the U.S. (there is another article that covers the U.S. (Racial segregation in the United States) but even in that article the caption would be too much.)  -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We can address all these points by reducing the caption, moving the image into a more appropriate section, and thinning out images that duplicate the same point (there are two showing drinking fountains in the States, for example): . DrKay (talk) 10:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)




 * Thanks for doing that. I see you moved it.  But, after looking at it again, I still see image relevance problems, which I would like to discuss. The image (at right) is political poster referencing 1866 local election suffrage in Pennsylvania.  The U.S. section does not discuss suffrage (nor, for that matter does it discuss "Radical Republicans" or really much if any political-party history). Presumably, suffrage and racial segregation are not the same thing, you can deny suffrage with or without segregation (segregation is separation of facilities/housing, etc), whereas suffrage in the nineteenth century, was about how many men (seldom or more likely never women) are you going to give the vote to (based on property-ownership, literacy, or other factors).  Unlike the drinking fountain, which does directly illustrate segregation, this local election poster does not (and it goes on a non-textbased tangent about political parties' history). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps something like File:Handbill with engraving by Jack Smith- Back To the Slave Quarters! Vote No On Segregation Feb. 29, 1916 (cropped).jpg could be used instead? DrKay (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Certainly better. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Malaysia
I would argue that the segregation here is ethnic rather than racial and should not be on this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.107.172.175 (talk) 01:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Colo(u)r bar redirect
Term never actually discussed on page. This means the redirect to here is inappropriate. CapnZapp (talk) 11:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

the series should have a section on the caste system in india
there should be three examples of historically important apartheid systems: south africa, the united states and india. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.48.181.80 (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Structural issues with the article
I think the article tries to cover too broad a subject matter, it tries to explain what racial segregation is and then for a random selection of countries racial segregation within that country and its cause both historic and current. I did not read all the article but did read the UK section as that is where I live so I at least had some context for that. The references provided do not support the assertions that are made or at best are based heavily on subjective interpretation of the information in the reference articles.

I would suggest that the issues could be fixed by breaking the article into a series of articles, one that describes what racial segregation is and if possible tries to explain the causes of racial segregation and an article for each country covering the historic and current state regarding racial segregation in that country. That structure would provide more focused articles which should be easier for editing and peer review leading to less superficial assertions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.147.125.17 (talk) 11:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Israel section is not accurate
This section clearly needs to be worked on. While social racisms may exist in Israel (both Arabs hating Jews and Jews hating Arabs), Arab citizens in Israel are clearly protected by Israeli laws against any form of discrimination. The citation cited from the US State Department refers to the situation in the West Bank, who's local Palestinian population are not citizens of Israel. If there is a wish to discuss the situation there in depth, it is important to mention all the nuances and complexities that arise out of that situation. Stating false accusations against the State of Israel without any real sources is a disservice to wikipedia readers, and in general, the wrong thing to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:8201:87D0:19BF:D2B2:A1D0:B885 (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Colour bar
The term "Colour bar" needs to be better defined within the article. --evrik (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Canada
This section mostly focuses on Indigenous peoples discriminating against other Canadians, when there's a long history of discrimination against them. Maybe there could be something about the Indian Act here? Or residential schools? That seems relevant to the history of segregation in Canada. Regardless, just focusing on this one aspect leads to an unbalanced perspective of the topic in my opinion. There also is very little content about black history and people like Viola Desmond, the existance of/abolishment of slavery in Canada, etc. Clover moss  (talk) 22:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Should Australia be included?
While many know about white Australia immigration policy, there was also full on segregation between aboriginals and whites. Put on reservations also I learned separate movie theaters, cemeteries, swimming pools, etc thought I don’t know if they were imposed by law, but I do know that the Australian govt controlled aboriginal peoples as wards of the state and some states imposed anti-miscegenation clauses into the rules imposed upon them (though they varied in extremities). In short, I feel Australia during the white Australia era should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.87.171 (talk) 10:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Should Northern Ireland be included ?
Before and during the troubles, Northern Ireland was segregated between catholics and protestant communites (altho that was not a religious segregation but an ethnic one) I believe it's logical to mention it, as it was ethnic segregation The basque savior (talk) 14:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)