The main discussion area for this series of articles is at: WP:APARTHEID

This article was nominated for deletion on August 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Can we move this back to Tourism apartheid in Cuba pronto, please. The above title is misleading in the extreme.--Zleitzen 19:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Briangotts wrote "moved Tourism apartheid in Cuba to Allegations of Cuban apartheid: Move without discussion was totally uncalled for; these are indeed allegations, to call it "apartheid" without qualification is to render the term meaningless."

Hi Brian, the discussion prior to the article creation was with respect to the title "Tourism apartheid in Cuba" or "Tourist apartheid in Cuba" -- see [[1]]. It was you, in my opinion, that arbitrarily picked a new title and imposed it without discussion, not myself. So far, it is just you who feel that it should be called "Allegations of Cuban apartheid" - it was not agreed to by Jayjg (who didn't comment at all), Homey (who seemed to support the new article and didn't comment on the name), myself (who suggested the name "Tourism apartheid in Cuba), and Zleitzen (who makes him opinion clear above.)

It is important to say what type of apartheid it is in the title since normally one assumes apartheid has to do with race, when in fact, in the case of Cuba, it is related to tourist vs. non-tourist divide. Also the whole article is oriented around the term "tourist apartheid" -- you'll notice this if you read through the article. --Ben Houston 19:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That seems reasonable. Nevertheless, Leifern expressed a concern, which I share, that the use of the term apartheid is watered down to the point of meaninglessness, and moreover, the use of "apartheid" to describe situations like the Cuban one is so controversial that it should not be approached lightly. I would agree to a title along the lines of "Allegations of tourism apartheid in Cuba" or "Alleged tourism apartheid in Cuba". Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, whatever the title is, it needs to be neutral. Just stating that Cuba practices apartheid is not neutral, one can only allege it. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above is an empty statement. Do all scientific entries need now to be prefixed with the term "Theory of "? But I understand this is part of a meta-argument thus I'll let it go. Hopefully, eventually, impartial individuals will come in and fix it. --Ben Houston 20:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here I am Ben. What do you need me to fix? :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 20:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On a different subject matter: Can you speedy delete Allegations of Tourist apartheid in Cuban and Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuban? --Ben Houston 20:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure. See how helpful impartial individuals can be? By the way, regarding your question Do all scientific entries need now to be prefixed with the term "Theory of "?, please see Theory of relativity, Theory of everything, Theory of computation, Theory of mind, Theory of descriptions, Theory of computation, Theory of forms, etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heh -- feel like I'm back on the debate team. More than 90% of scientific theories in Wikipedia don't have that prefix. Those that do, tend to use those names, in part for the purposes of disambiguation, since the main term of those listed above are already in common usage for a different concept or set of concepts -- see: relativity, everything, computation, mind, descriptions, forms. --Ben Houston 20:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As long as it has "Tourist apartheid in Cuba" rather than plain "apartheid in Cuba" I'm fine whether it is "allegations" or not. --Zleitzen 20:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please also include a list of all private clubs, resorts, buildings, enclaves, estates, divisions, developments, [gated] communities and private wealth in general (not to mention the mass drug & gun, etc. money-laundering and trafficking) going on -- not only in the Caribbean, but in every imperialist country -- where this non-NPOV propaganda tripe originates from.

I am long past being amazed with the depths of hypocrisy the vicious defenders of privilege will stoop to.

Maybe when I get around to it, I'll flag this crap.

Pazouzou 01:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll try and explain. It's to do with the economy of Cuba. Cuba needed to exploit tourism after the Soviet collapse - and thus consciously created a dual economy based on the peso and the dollar. This created a rapid economic divide where those in the lucrative service industry, dealing in dollars were able to jump way ahead of industrial and agricultural workers who could only buy in pesos. Anyone who knows Cuba during this period would acknowledge the difference between the impoverished peso stores and the well-stocked dollar stores. Where this article may need work is the changes since 2004 when the dollar was removed from circulation. The "apartheid" or two tier situation after the special period was acknowledged by Cubans, tourists, the Cuban government and socialists from around the world as a unique phenomenon due to economic circumstances inadvertantly clashing with Cuba's command economy.--Zleitzen 02:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, there is a two-tier economy. But anybody - Cuban or foreign - who has money can shop in the "dollar stores". In fact most of the people shopping in most of the dollar stores are Cubans. How is that "apartheid" ? -- Beardo 01:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The term apartheid in this case is indeed strong. But it isn't an invention of wikipedia, it's there in the sources provided. One thing that concerns me is that this was a major concern at the turn of the milleneum - when the tourist boom really took hold. A lot of the talk on this has died down now abroad, perhaps as a result of economic growth, So is this still relevant? --Zleitzen 02:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In addition, regarding your comments, the "defenders of privilege" as you put it, are in this case the Cuban authorities. Creating a climate for increased international private investment by advertising the benefits of Cuba's control over the economy and workforce. Castro himself has commented on this as a necessity, whilst simultaneously enshrining the permanence of the Marxist-Leninist constitution in 2002. Accusations of "The depths of hypocrisy" can be applied many ways, not least in the direction of the Cuban government.--Zleitzen 15:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have flagged this article with NPOV. Apart from the "allegations" right at the beginning, the rest serves up one sides view. Quoting the US government as a source - and I wonder how many others are US government funded. -- Beardo 01:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh my gosh. You really all need to get over this.

If you think the article is biased, go ahead and edit in your counterpoints and allow the reader to decide. Honestly, you're complaining about it here isn't helping anyone. The original poster was sharing information that as far as I can tell is supported by several credible sources, and you're bickering over its neutrality? What, should none of the information be shown then?

I have a better idea. Why don't you show everyone just how wrong the provided information is by providing your OWN information that contradicts it. Then, the reader, who is undoubtedly smart enough to form his own opinion (this is, after all, an encylopedia... not an editorial where you're attempting to convince me of anything) can proceed to do so without your further interference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.2.93.222 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 7 September 2006.

Much of what is referred to as "tourist apartheid" is actually a wealth apartheid - those with money can get things that those without money can't. Whilst that goes against Cuba's socialist principles, what country does that not apply to ? And, in fact, isn't that really what capitalism is all about ? In particular, I am still waiting for some one to show me a Cuban restaurant that refuses entry to a Cuban with money. Similarly, I am sure that most Britons could not go to the finest restaurants in London - but few (apart from the most left-wing) scream about the injustice. -- Beardo 00:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have you had any thoughts for how you would change the page, so your tag could be removed Beardo?--Zleitzen 08:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Someone removed the NPOV tag without attempting to deal with the problem. I have restored. The article does not attempt to put the Cuban government position, and instead is content to parrot US government propaganda. It does not distinguish between those restrictions which are based solely on nationality and those (such as access to the best restaurants) which are merely based on wealth. Probably it also should compare the situation in other Caribbean tourist destinations.

Personally, I suspect that this article is impossible to put NPOV. Perhaps it should be AfD instead ? -- Beardo 07:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article does not quote the U.S. government - the people who came up with this designation were Cubans themselves. If you have other sources which comment on tourist apartheid feel free to add them. Tags aren't forever; find other sources on tourist apartheid if you want, but don't insert perma-tags based on conspiracy theories. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was the responsibility of the authors of the article to write NPOV - they failed. I spotted the problem. The tag should remain until the problem is fixed surely ? Isn't that what WP:NPOV is all about ?

On US government sources - http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2886.htm - United States Department of State, Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, December 2005; http://www.usaid.gov/press/spe_test/speeches/2002/sp021017.html Remarks by Adolfo A. Franco, Assistant Administrator for Latin America and the Caribbean, USAID - for example.

You claim that Cubans originated the term. The only articles quoting Cubans are from post-2000 - long after the term was widely used in English-language press. Any support for that "originated" claim. The examples presented could just as easily be Cubans using back a term they have heard from other foreigners.

One of the problems of writing NPOV about Cuba is that the Cuban government does not always respond to criticism. But that does not excuse putting just one POV. You have to work harder.

You keep saying "conspiracy theories" - where do I refer to a conspiracy ? I suspect this is a classic example of systematic bias - the US government sources are often in English, the Cuban government (if any) in Spanish. -- Beardo 17:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In your view they have failed; but NPOV simply consists of reproducing what reliable sources have to say about a matter. The article on Apartheid in South Africa is not filled with defenses of the practice from the (then) South African government. You've mentioned only 3 "U.S. government sources" out of 30 that are used in the article, and none of the 3 you mentioned are quoted. You also claim that the term was widely-used in English before Cubans started using it; what is your evidence for that claim? As for support for the claim that it was originated in Cuba, why don't you read the sources provided? It came from a paper presented by Dr. María Dolores Espino at the Proceedings of the Annual Meetings of the Association for the Study of the Cuban Economy. In addition, if you don't have any sources that contradict the views presented here, then by definition the article represents the mainstream view, which is exactly what NPOV demands - find sources contradicting this if you can. Finally, regarding "conspiracy theories", you objected to the article because you claimed it was "Quoting the US government as a source" and then stated "I wonder how many others are US government funded." The latter, of course, is conspiracy thinking, and again, the article does not quote the US government at all. As you still have not brought any evidence that this article fails NPOV, and apparently have not even read much of it, I'm removing the tag again. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have added a couple of responses from Fidel Castro on the issue to represent an opposing view of sorts. but the policies of explicate exclusion from certain amenities were certainly tangible, Beardo, as Castro himself acknowledged. Castro also stated that the policies would stand for as long as they were necessary. Have these policies changed significantly following the removal of the dollar and the easing of economic conditions? Resulting in the more relaxed situation you have observed presently? Such positive subtle changes in Cuba usually go unreported in the mainstream Western media for obvious reasons. When I quizzed a few recent visitors to Cuba they generally downplayed the issue as well which would concur with your analysis. It is just a case of finding a way to express that using sources and staying within policy.--Zleitzen 10:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whilst doing some maintenence work on the references here, I spotted two references used for uses of term by "others". The first was published online on the far right website "front page magazine", attributed to Agustin Blazquez. Now I don't believe Blazquez is in any way a suitable source for an article. He is an extremist campaigner, this article written by Blazquez and referring to a universally discredited claim of Cuba's links to "bioterrorism" pretty much typifies his output. I also don't know if his entirely spurious assessments of racial divisions in Cuba inform this article (they are found in the reference section rather than the main body of the article). Here is the wording.

However, the humanitarian Glover has never raised his voice on behalf of the Cuban people's human rights, the existence of the shameful tourist apartheid, the disproportionate majority of black Cubans in Castro's dungeons or the absence of black Cubans in key government positions." Blazquez, Agustin. Hollywood's Cuban Connection, The Washington Dispatch, February 4, 2003.

I'd like to remove that reference. --Zleitzen 23:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FrontPageMag.com is a right-wing, not "far right" website. Its counterpart on the left would be Counterpunch. Until we remove all references to CounterPunch on Wikipedia, I'd have a hard time seeing why FrontPageMag references should be removed. As for Blazquez, he's just used as one example among many that use the phrase; other than that, his views are not found in the article. I don't see an real issue with this minimal use. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wouldn't consider an opinion piece from counterpunch valid on Cuban related articles and have removed them myself on numerous occasions. Such as here. Likewise, an opinion piece on "front page" is certainly not a serious source on Cuba and should be removed. The fact that it is quoting Blazquez, a known falsifier and extremist with no broader notability, is not helpful. Are usages of terms by extremists what we should be promoting anywhere on wikipedia? --Zleitzen 02:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I looked over the article Tourism in Cuba and over this one, and Tourism in Cuba is a one-sentence-long stub. This article, meanwhile, has a title that it appears has generated some complaints about violating NPOV. I was wondering if yall might consider merging this article into the Tourism in Cuba article so as to add content to what ought to be a fully-developed article and to remove the article name issue here. Thanks. The Literate Engineer 16:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would agree with you about the need to merge, however the tourism in Cuba article is still a stub and these allegations would dominate it somewhat, to its detriment. What I'll do, perhaps, is write that Tourism article in full over the next few days and then we can think about merging. How does that sound?--Zleitzen 20:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That sounds awesome, Zleitzen. The Literate Engineer 20:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed, that is what is needed. All that was lacking was someone to volunteer to improve the main tourism article. Well done Z. -- 80.225.170.83 01:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've added some material to the Tourism in Cuba article now, and added this article to it. Therefore would anyone have any objections to a full merge and a redirect from this page?--Zleitzen 13:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, of course I'd object. This article is actually the majority of the Cuban tourism article, and the topics are not the same. This article is not about tourism per se, but about Cuban government practices vis a vis its own population. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also object. Unless we are getting rid of all Allegations of apartheid in X articles, this one should stay. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the aftermath of the precedent set on other apartheid articles, it would be POV to not have this title. In any event, the main tourism article seems to be far from a stub at this point, and deals with a different, albeit related, topic. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 20:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I need more convincing that a redirect is not the obvious move here, I'm afraid, as a number of people have already stated. It was my understanding that this information was to be part of the tourism in Cuba page when such a page had been satisfactorily expanded. Humus sapiens's point about an "Allegations of apartheid" series should have no impact on the Cuban range of articles, and I am concerned that this article about Cuba is being directed by unrelated disputes over the term "apartheid" on another page. Jayjg's point that the article is not about tourism is not the case, every issue discussed in the article is related in someway to tourism and the tourist boom. Further issues concerning the two tier economy, which are far more complicated and go way deeper than anything presented on this page, should be discussed in Economy of Cuba and elsewhere - which they are. All studies and writings referring to "apartheid" in Cuba relate explicately to tourism apartheid with the exception of "medical apartheid" which is already covered in the Healthcare in Cuba, and can be added to the tourism page. If people want an article about potential divisions in Cuban society due to the dollar/convertible pesos issue, and about Cuban government practices in relation to its own population, then we'll need to put the kettle on, sit down and have a long discussion about Cuban politics and the economy 1991-2004 using extensive sources, which I have to hand and can make available. If people don't, then this should be merged immediately to the tourism article where it belongs.--Zleitzen 23:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Almost the same may be said about every single article in the series (except SA, or course - as a matter of fact, a couple of editors familiar with the SA situation were dismayed that the term is being used as a political label). Welcome to the club. I think that this POV epithet should not be used in a few other cases as well. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with Humus sapiens, Tewfik and Jayjg. As for Zleitzen's comment about "unrelated disputes over the term 'apartheid' on another page", all I can say is, Wikipedia is all one encyclopedia. Things relate to other things. 6SJ7 02:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are right, 6SJ7. Things do relate to other things. In this case, "allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba" relates directly to tourism in Cuba. Again Humus is referring to a series of articles. Well over at this end we also have a series of articles - we think that two of them should be merged - and I'm putting a considerable amount of work into ensuring that happens. Again, if people are disputing the use of the term apartheid on one article relating to one country, that shouldn't have a negative impact for readers and editors in a completely different area. Where the context of the subject matter has a completely different bearing. --Zleitzen 06:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see anything special about Cuba that would absolve this case from Wikipedia:Central discussions/Apartheid, which after all was created just for the cases like this one. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps your Wikipedia:Central discussions/Apartheid page was not known to the regular editors of Cuban articles, as it was not known that a discussion of tourism in Cuba had become part of an unrelated wider series. I'm concerned with the framing in the terms of "absolving this case". The issues concerning tourism in Cuba shouldn't be reduced to a case, which must take into account a number of unrelated articles, concerning different countries and entirely different issues. For readers and editors alike, it needs to stand on its own merits, and be worked on with that in mind. The Cuba section on the Apartheid outside South Africa article should now link to the Tourism in Cuba page. Not to do so would be to set an unusual precedent here. And such a precedent will be contested vehemently and repeatedly by Cuban related editors as POV, as it has been above by a number of users already, until the situation is resolved. --Zleitzen 09:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As for reframing, let's keep in mind that we are not talking about tourism here. What we are dealing with are policies of a totalitarian Stalinist state that tramples the human rights and freedoms of its own citizens. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Excuse me? No. We are talking about tourism, issues that are comparable with neighbours, Jamaica and the Dominican republic etc (lets not even mention Haiti). All of which have particular caveats to protect the rights and interests of tourists. That they are not castigated for similar policies by the media speaks volumes about how skewered this issue is. If we want to start talking about accompanying articles concerned with other nations, why don't we begin with Economy of Jamaica and Economy of the Dominican Republic. Your "totalitarian Stalinist state" analogy is a hopelessly POV interjection here and will only raise the concerns of neutral, informed editors. --Zleitzen 15:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, we're talking about allegations of discriminatory practices, which is what all the "apartheid" articles are about. This has little to do with tourism per se, and everything to do with government policies. No other Caribbean countries have practices that resemble this in any way, and, more importantly, have been described by reliable sources in that way. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I've said elsewhere, we should have an article called Apartheid, which would be about apartheid in South Africa, and an article called Allegations of apartheid, which would be about the various ways in which the term is used loosely. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't agree at all Jayjg. As you know, every source and point on this page relates to tourism. And government policies concerning tourism. The two tier economy which you may be inferring isn't explored in this page, and is a far more complicated issue (one which still surrounds the issue of tourism). The merge is logical and will help subdue the various ongoing POV issues that surround this page. It was mentioned and agreed to on its creation, as I understood it - only the lack of information on the Tourism in Cuba page halted this. Now we have context on that page, which refers explicitly to this page, the merge should be an inevitability. If that causes problems for this "apartheid" series, then so be it. But now our article has found its parents, it should be allowed to go back home. --Zleitzen 18:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, we have a fundamental disagreement here. Considering the article originally came out of Apartheid outside South Africa, that's where it would belong, if it weren't so large. It's not a stub, it is arguably relevant to two different topics, so it really can't be merged. Feel free to create a summary of this material in the Tourism in Cuba article, as has been done in the Apartheid outside South Africa article, and link to this main article. As a bonus, that will mean the Tourism in Cuba article isn't over-balanced any more; currently it is. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps its worth waiting for the flux surrounding the "apartheid" business to dim before we re-enter a discussion about what should happen to this aticle. Personally, I'll give it a couple of weeks or so. I'm just concerned that the information in this article is getting dragged into unrelated disputes and precedents. When in actuality it should stand as part of the Cuban series of articles, with all the individual POV issues explored and explained on their own merits and in their own context. --Zleitzen 03:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (fifth nomination)

Zleitzen, you've said that the current allegations-of-apartheid mess, which originated with this article nearly a year ago, has resulted in disruption for the editors of Cuban articles. From looking at Talk:Allegations of Cuban apartheid I get the impression you are probably right, and it is noble of you to try to address the problem at its root, which is Allegations of Israeli apartheid. However, given the current bizarre climate in which the most vociferous critics of Allegations of Israeli apartheid don't even show up for its AfD (wtf?), it would probably be easier to more directly try to undisrupt the building of Cuban articles. Discussion to be continued at Talk:Allegations of Cuban apartheid. Kla'quot 04:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Can someone explain what the Cuban-focused editors would like to do with this article which is being hampered by Israel-focused editors? E.g. is it difficult to get edits to stick, is it difficult to get the article moved or merged, etc.? Kla'quot 04:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Clayoquot. At present there are two articles that essentially cover the same topic. This article, mostly written by Jayjg and Tourism in Cuba mostly written by me.

A few people took issue with this article. Beardo, normally a non-controversial and studiously neutral editor - more knowledgeable about the situation than most - pointed out a few inherent POV flaws in this article, made some valid points and added a POV tag which was removed on the basis that he couldn't find sources to counter the claims. The merge, suggested by another neutral editor, and agreed by several more, seemed natural. When a merge was proposed, this was resisted by a group of Israel editors for reasons that as Israel has it's own article, so must Cuba?!?

Then Jayjg began to reframe a section of Tourism in Cuba that I had carefully worked on, to make room for links to back to this article and to add that accursed "allegations of apartheid" heading to a section of that article, edit warring in the process. Someone in the debate seemed to think this wasn't a big deal, but its a big deal to me when I'd spent a long period researching and writing a credible article. The goal is to create great articles and get them to good and featured status (here's my latest offering which also deals with this topic in part). Replacing "Impact on Cuban society" with the trite "Allegations of Apartheid" is the antithesis of that process and it would fail FAC (I should know, I review enough articles on a regular basis). And to do so to make a point about a totally different subject is just not right. Basically, interfering with content to make a point about another article, the definition of WP:POINT, and wielding a "rent-a-consensus" over the legitimate concerns of editors to ensure this happens.

So, what needs to happen is that this natural merge needs to take place as agreed before the Israeli editors showed up. So we don't have two articles covering the same issue, one of which isn't really adequate and has drawn complaints and needs to be redirected. And then Tourism in Cuba can progress hopefully for good article/featured article status.

The editor(s) who seemed to think this is a minor disagreement have got it wrong. Creating quality articles is the highest priority and should be the goal of wikipedia editors, if that gets sacrificed to make room for POV manoeuvrings, then it's a major problem. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 05:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Zleitzen. From a quick look at the history of Tourism in Cuba, it looks as if the Israel-focused editors have not been involved since December. My suggestion is to try again with the edits that you want to make to that article. If you want to take Tourism in Cuba to Good Article or Featured Article status, I doubt that anyone will insist on edits that they know would cause it to fail GA and/or FA. I can imagine that the Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba article will probably be sticking around for some time, but that shouldn't stop anyone from improving Tourism in Cuba. I hope this helps :) Kla'quot 07:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Allegations of apartheid has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Terraxos 03:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A newly created article related to this one, Allegations of Chinese apartheid, has been nominated for deletion. Comments are invited on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid. -- ChrisO 07:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The verifiable material from the recently deleted article Allegations of Chinese apartheid have been merged into Human rights in the People's Republic of China based on the AfD closing statement.

My proposal is to find a suitable article to merge the content of this article, based on the same arguments. It could be merged into one of the articles related to social aspects in Cuba. I am placing similar proposals on all other articles in the "Allegations of XXXX apartheid" series. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I'm not opposed in principle to a merger, but I suspect it's not necessary. Renaming the article as Tourist apartheid analogy in Cuba, or something similar, would be an equally acceptable solution. CJCurrie 22:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Hi. For reasons discussed explicitly in the AfD, it would be wise to select a title that excludes both "allegations" and "apartheid." Instead, based on the AfD closing, it looks like acceptable Article Names would be "Tourism policies in Cuba" or something along those lines. Indeed, a more neutral self-identifying description of the article topic is found in the current second paragraph: "Cuban president Fidel Castro has described Cuba's tourism policies...." (emphasis added), which can be adjusted for wp naming conventions. Thanks. HG | Talk 03:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aye! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've taken the initiative of renaming this article following the recommendation of the closing admin in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba. I've followed the same basic nomenclature that I adopted a while ago in renaming "Allegations of Northern Irish apartheid" as Segregation in Northern Ireland. There are two compelling reasons to do so:

1) Whether or not "apartheid" is a word to avoid (currently it isn't), "allegations" certainly is - see WP:WTA#So-called, soi-disant, supposed, alleged, purported. Note in particular the following: "These all share the theme of explicitly making it clear that a given statement is not necessarily factual. This connotation introduces unnecessary bias into the writing; Wikipedia maintains a neutral point of view, and in general, there will be someone out there who will view a given statement as highly probable."

2) Policy requires that article titles comply with NPOV. See WP:NCON#Descriptive names (which, I should mention, I wrote a couple of years ago). This is more complicated than it may seem - the East Sea/Sea of Japan controversy is a case in point - but the core principle, as set out in WP:NCON, is that article titles should "not carry POV implications". The political term "apartheid" carries enormous POV implications; the sociological term "segregation" does not. When faced with a choice between a POV title and an NPOV one, we must choose the latter. This implies that we have to replace the term "apartheid" with something more neutral.

We can still discuss apartheid analogies in the text, but the central issue is clearly the segregation of tourists and locals in some parts of Cuba. The article can discuss that and the apartheid analogies perfectly well without having a title that everybody hates. -- ChrisO 07:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good move. A read over of the article indicates its rather seamless. Tiamat 10:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question. ChrisO, bold move, hope it help moves us to resolution. However, I am concerned about whether the wording "segregation" may represent a point-of-view not shared by all sides in Cuba. Would you please quote a reliable source that shows the Cuban government describing its policies with the word "segregation"? If not, it would be necessary to find even more neutral language, such as "policy", to cover the various POVs. Thanks. HG | Talk 11:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the interests of not having a pov tagged permanently appended to this article (as is the strong risk now), I have nominated this article for a POV check. Bigdaddy1981 22:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This section is completely false. All those sources use the phrase "tourist apartheid" not "tourist segregation." I suppose this will be cleared up in the merge though. -- 67.98.206.2 16:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]