Discrimination Template‑class

This 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.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Sociology Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Israel does not actually have segregation by ethnicity. There are ethnic arabs living right next to ethnic jews all over israel and Israeli arabs are not barred from living anywhere. There is political separation of Palestinian arabs from Israelis in the territories, but this is not in Israel proper. Based on this, I am removing Israel from the list and putting "Palestinian territories" on the list instead. Bigglove 18:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've changed it back. What were called bantustans in South Africa, we're just calling "territories" here. Segregation in the territories is due to Israel's policies, which is what that article we're linking to is about (actually, it's the larger segregation between Israel proper and what it terms "territories" which is a more clear cut case). This goes too far in giving into the language of the opposing view. They aren't even really Palestinian territories -- they are Israeli territories containing Palestinians. -- 146.115.58.152 02:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've also been bold and moved this link to the religious segregation section. That seems much more apropos to the overall situation. -- 146.115.58.152 04:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree with the non-reality based statements above, especially where you say that palestinian territories don't exisit! I'm sure it is NOT worth having this discussion with an anon editor. Take care, Bigglove 22:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again, please read the article. If you refuse to discuss the matter, I will simply restore the link. -- 146.115.58.152 06:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your statements above are biased and propagandist. This is not the Electronic INtifada, this is an encyclopedia. I created a section called "political separation" and put the article there Bigglove 12:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A fair compromise. -- 146.115.58.152 20:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another anon just undid it. Back to square one. Wikipedia templates are not here as your political soapbox. Bigglove^talk 13:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, The palestinian territory article link goes to "israel apartheid" but the saudi goes to "human rights" and "religious freedom". could we be consistent? I'm not sure I care what we do, but could we apply the same decsion to both links? Bigglove 20:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have you seen Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid? -- 146.115.58.152 03:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll look. Bigglove 17:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I appreciate the effort at compromise here, but Allegations of Israeli apartheid do not refer to something called "political separation", whatever that might be. Segregation in the Occupied Territories is between Jews and everyone else. The standard to travel on bypass roads, get waved through checkpoints, live without fear of arbitrary house demolition, etc is purely ethnic. Yes, we know that those Palestinians who managed to avoid being expelled in '48 were eventually granted citizenship, and do not live under circumstances of apartheid today. But "that don't confront" the West Bank and Gaza. < eleland // talkedits > 18:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't have much time to talk now, and the above contains so much inciting language that I don't really know how to reply. "ethnic separation" sounds racist. the unfortuante separation that exists is not based on racism or ethnicity. it is based on security. do you have a better term than "ethnic segregation" to suggest? Bigglove^talk 19:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wait, so Israel seizes land, illegally settles people on that land, and then the seizure is retroactively justified on grounds of security for the settlers? And I don't even know what "inciting language" is supposed to be, besides a really lame attempt to bring anti-semitism into the discussion as usual. < eleland // talkedits > 19:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It doesn't take one to be an expert at semantics and linguistics to infer that synonyms to "political segregation" are "segregation according to politics" and "segregation of people according to political views". 'Politics' means everything and nothing. Apartheid in South Africa was politics. The White Australia policy was politics. The French social situation in the banlieues is politics. The Troubles is politics. So is sex and religious segregation in Saudi Arabia (more precisely, it is part of a policy to promote wahhabism in order to keep the House of Saud in power).

Now to "segregation according to political views". One could claim that gerrymandering is a form of political segregation, to separate Democrats from Republicans. As blacks vote predominantly Democrat, it results in many districts being overwhelmingly black. The resulting segregation (of the African-American ethnic group) is correlated, but not causated, by political segregation through gerrymandering. You have to make an argument along similar lines to maintain that the segregation in [(parts of) the region between the Mediterranean and the Jordan] is sui generis: that security policies such as the barrier and the check-points are to separate people holding the political view that it is legitimate to use violence against Jews from those who don't. It just so happens that almost all Palestinians have that political view. Since that would be an extremist opinion, it isn't so. Consequently, the political opinion that it is legitimate to use violence against Israelis cannot be the cause of the fact that only Palestinian live in areas to be protected from and only settlers in the area protected by those policies. --Victor falk 03:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Victor, OK, I see what you mean. I just think ethnic doesn't really capture it. There is no separation because of anything to do with "ethnicity" in a racist sense. There is separation for the protection of lives. Could we try to come up with a better term? I'm chaning "israel" to "palestinian territories; on the template in the meantime. It is very very well documented that Palestinians who are Israeli Arabs within Israel have a much higher level of human rights that Palestinians in Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, or Egypt, so it seems like a slur to have the link say, "Israel." Eleland, I don't this is a good place for the discussion of the 67 war, the 73 war, or the UN resolutions which were made at the end of each one, but I find your analysis of these things, to be quite one sided and not really a credit to Wikipedia on this basis. Bigglove^talk 03:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Who said "racist"? I didn't. Ethnic segregation is often based (US segregation, Rhodesia, etc), but not necessarily, on a racist policy. Example: France. Racism is definitely a major factor, but the ethnic segregation in the banlieues is not due to a racist policy. I'm fine with "Palestinian territories". As the allegations of Israeli apartheid also concern Israel proper, I add it under religious segregation since it concerns (eventual) discrimination between Jews and non-Jews (cf Malaysia). --Victor falk 04:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This template (I think) is about segregation. Is this the same as discrimination? I think it is different. I also am not sure that you can say muslims are discriminated against in Israel any more than secular jews are or christians are. I feel that religious segregation is more like what goes on in places like saudi arabia where specifically non-muslims are or have been barred from certain areas, from visas, etc, on religious grounds. Bigglove^talk 16:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Obviously not, or else there wouldn't be two different words. But they are closely interrelated, ie synonyms. Depending on your sources, some will list them as synonyms[1] while others do not[2]. Note that the article is about, among other things (such as eventual ethnic segregation in the palestinian territories), allegations of religious segregation in Israel proper. --Victor falk 05:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no way to mark a template NPOV, unfortuantely, but I feel that this is a very POV inclusion. Bigglove^talk 14:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please refer to, in particular, Allegations of Israeli apartheid#Military service, inter-religious marriage, and property ownership, Allegations of Israeli apartheid#Marriage law, and Allegations of Israeli apartheid#Land and infrastructure. --Victor falk 15:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Third opinion request

My apologies, but this dispute does not fit WP:3O guidelines and no third opinion can be provided, as there are already more than two editors involved. Perhaps you should try one of the WP:RFC processes. --Darkwind (talk) 00:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should Cyprus be mentioned? --Error (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this only for current examples? In old Transylvania there was physical segregation between Saxons, Hungarians, Romanians and Roma people. --Error (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is not segregation, it is just the desire to set up a new state. The new state does not necessarily have to be ethnically prejudiced or prejudiced in any way. Therefore, I am removing it. --Yalens (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is a related topic. Historically, separatism has been used for segregationist ends: the Bantustans of South Africa immediately come to mind, c.f. White nationalism, Republic of New Afrika. Many people have and continue to object to separatism from an integrationist perspective. Therefore, I am restoring it. Quigley (talk) 21:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ghetto benches appears twice: once as Poland in the ethnic row, and once in the final row. Are both links to the same page necessary? 155.33.172.164 (talk) 19:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does the White Australia policy belong on this list? It was a racially discriminatory immigration policy, but I don't see how it constitutes a type of "segregation". The racial segregation article says that:

Racial segregation is the systematic separation of people into racial or other ethnic groups in daily life. Racial segregation can amount to the international crime of apartheid and a crime against humanity under the Statute of the International Criminal Court. Segregation can involve the spatial separation of the races, and mandatory use of different institutions, such as schools and hospitals by people of different races. Specifically, it may be applied to activities such as eating in restaurants, drinking from water fountains, using public toilets, attending schools, going to movies, riding buses, renting or purchasing homes or renting hotel rooms

Racially discriminatory immigration policies don't seem to fit that definition. Segregation is primarily about what happens to the ethnic/racial groups within a society, not about which groups are allowed to join it through immigration law. Mr248 (talk) 01:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]