Template talk:Segregation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject African diaspora (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 NA  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Discrimination (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the quality scale.

[untitled section][edit]

First, the word Segregation should be wikilinked. Second, Japanese internment shouldn't be included unless you include every other example of internment from the List of concentration and internment camps. TheMightyQuill 17:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll add that link. You should bring up your concern about internment at the
Discrimination2 template too. I inculded Japanese internment because it was on that template. I'm not an expert in that area. futurebird 17:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear. I didn't wikilink becuase to get to the three kinds of segragation I wanted to inculde you need to go to the disambig page. Do you have an suggestions for a better way to link? Maybe, it could just be a template on Racial Segregation... futurebird 17:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you should add a few more events similar to the ones in the side box already. I edited it, so hopefully, they'll be added. User:Javanick28 17:01, 18 April 2007

Israeli apartheid is a form of segregation[edit]

Hence, it deserves inclusion in the template.--Kirbytime 03:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Let it be noted that Israeli apartheid is a redirect. The actual article is named Allegations of Israeli apartheid. Is is customary to include redirects in templates?? Andyvphil 19:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Allegations of Israeli apartheid is only politics. Segregation is racism. Adding this category is a mockery of segregation, which is when African Americans were discriminated against in the hands of the racists of America. This does not compare to anything Israel did. Segregation is racism, and adding this category is like saying it is just politics.--Sefringle 04:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The treatment of the Palestinians under Israeli rule is racist apartheid segregation. Your denial of the racist treatment of Palestinians is not acceptable; and furthermore, you say it is racist (towards who???) to even claim that Palestinians are mistreated!--Kirbytime 04:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

thats not racism, its retaliation. For all the suicide bombings of Hamas and Hizbollah, and those other Palestinians preform against Israel, and for nothing other than some building they call the Dome of the Rock, it is almost justified. There should almost be an article called Palestinian apartheid, because it is very similar. This is not racism, it is war. War alone is not racism. --Sefringle 04:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

War can involve racism, Gook, sandnigger.--Kirbytime 04:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

But war alone is not racism. The Arab-Israeli conflict is not a war of racism, or if it is, it can easily be argued that calling the actions of Israel "apartheid" is an act of antisemitism.--Sefringle 04:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Arab-Israeli conflict is not being included in this template; Israeli apartheid is. There is a difference between racism by Israeli legislators towards Palestinians versus the terrorist actions of the IDF.--Kirbytime 04:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Israeli apartheid is just labeling the actions of Israel in the Arab-Israeli conflict as a form of racism, and completely ignoring the actions of the Palestinians. Casualties during war are not necessarily racist in nature. Unlike the actions of Palestinian terrorists, where they are clearly targeting Jews.--Sefringle 04:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The "Jews" they are targeting are part of the Israeli armed forces. Since when is it racist to kill members of a country's armed forces? And don't try to say that they are "civilians". Every single Israeli citizen is required to join the IDF, so evey single one is a potential murderer/terrorist and the killing is justified, not racist.--Kirbytime 05:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh really!? So the Haifa bus 37 massacre, the Jerusalem bus 20 massacre, the Matza restaurant massacre, Passover massacre, Ben Yehuda Street Bombing etc. were all attacks on armed forces. Is that what you are saying? Your arguement that there are no Israeli civilians goes both ways. Every Palestinian is a potential suicide bomber, and their killings are not justified; they outright border on antisemitism.--Sefringle 05:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Those are all legitimate attacks on military personnel. And wrong, not all Palestinians aren't potential suicide bombers, because they aren't required by law, unlike Israelis. --Kirbytime 05:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
All Israelies are not soldiers. This is getting really stupid and offensive, so I'm done debating this.--Sefringle 05:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Kirby, thats a new one from you. After you denied the holocuast saying its "alledged" to have happenned, you are now saying that suicide attacks are justified.--Matt57 (talkcontribs) 05:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


It's too US-centric. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

White Australia Policy[edit]

The white Australia policy was not racial segregation, according to the definition given by the page on racial segregation. If there is a template for racist policy you might include it there, but since it's not technically racial segregation it shouldn't be here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The UK[edit]

I mean there is a lot of racism in the UK, help me develop that section.Mangokeylime (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

changing title of artical[edit]

I belive artical should be changed to apaethide on south africia because this is the main focoyse of the articial I belive that the aparthide articial should include information on sout africia definition of an aparthide as well as information on other apathides across the world such as atempted assimilition of canidian natives by europians Jibbyp (talk) 03:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I say keep the original name, but add the information. Mangokeylime (talk) 02:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)