Jump to content

Talk:Tourist apartheid

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article merged: See old talk-page here

Why was this article moved?

[edit]

I don't understand this. Compare [1] to [2]. Sourcing is thin either way, but Tourist apartheid is overwhelmingly the preferred term in the literature. -- 146.115.58.152 08:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's WP:BURO to apply that AfD to this article anyway. Still, another case of the wikiality of WP:NPOV overriding WP:RS. If reality hurts your feeling people, change reality, not wikipedia. -- 146.115.58.152 21:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True - I think its silly to use the current title also. Bigdaddy1981 23:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to Tourist apartheid. ProhibitOnions (T) 19:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current title is basically a neologism which the current([3]) lack of sourcing amply demonstrated. Compare [4] to [5]. Tourist apartheid is overwhelmingly the preferred term in the literature. -- 146.115.58.152 01:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed per WP:NEO - we should not be using neologisms. TewfikTalk 06:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The emotive word apartheid, like it or not, is part of the common name for the practice. Attempts to move this to a less emotive title are POV and without basis in the Wikipedia naming conventions. Andrewa 06:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As far as I know, apartheid is just one form of segregation – the one used in South Africa in the 20th Century. "Tourist apartheid" seems more like a neologism to me than "tourist segregation", which seems to be a more natural way of describing the phenomenon as such, regardless of how often one or the other term might have been used. –Ulla— 15:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree - the term was shown in the AfD and in other discussions to be widely used and is no longer a neologism. Yes, apartheid originally meant only the SA system, but its use has expanded to describe other phenomena - this is one of them. Bigdaddy1981 16:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge from secondary article

[edit]

Having removed the unreferenced cruft from this article, Cuba is the only country which remains. Therefor, this is redundant to Tourist segregation in Cuba and the two should be merged. -- 146.115.58.152 02:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Both still need some cleaning up, however. Best to clean up the target article before merging other material into it. Andrewa 06:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should be all set. -- 146.115.58.152 14:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Apartheid

[edit]

Even if the page were moved to "Tourist apartheid", the article does NOT belong in the category for "apartheid". The category is for articles that are actually about apartheid or are subarticles of it. "Tourist separation" or whatever you want to call it isn't "apartheid" by any definition, but only by analogy, no one is claiming the practice is equivalent or related to South African apartheid or crime of apartheid, or anything, it just has the word "apartheid" in the name (sometimes). It may be that the category is problematic, and needs to be renamed, merged, or whatever, but that's a separate issue to be dealt with elsewhere. For the time being, "tourist segregation" does not belong in it.--Cúchullain t/c 19:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would think tourist apartheid belongs in Category:apartheid in much the same way Boston terrier belongs in Category:terriers. I'm simply not following your reasoning here. Obviously the sources are suggesting this is a type of apartheid, just like global apartheid and urban apartheid, which also are in that category, which, I'll remind you again, is different from and should not be confused with its subcategory Category:Apartheid in South Africa. -- 146.115.58.152 22:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are not claiming this is a form of apartheid, they are drawing an analogy between a Cuban tourism policy and apartheid. Just because the word "apartheid" is in the name (sometimes) does not at all mean that this is a type of apartheid, or a sub-article. The article has nothing to do with apartheid by any definition, South African or global. Boston terrier might belong in the terrier category, but sea lion does not belong in the lion category. The real problem might be with the unspecific category "Category:Apartheid", but as I said that's an issue to be dealt with elsewhere. I'm not seeing any reason to have this article in the category beyond the name, it really ought to stay out. I'm afraid that stepping up the dispute resolution may have to wait until the ArbCom case wraps up, but that may be the only option in settling this.--Cúchullain t/c 07:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expand request

[edit]

This doesn't just happen in Cuba, see e.g. Khaosan Road or most any Club Med. Ewlyahoocom 03:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started the tourist segregation article, with sections about charter resorts ("ghettos"), North Korea, and Cuba (the current version is much the same as I edited it). Unfortunately it got caught up in the "allegations of Israeli apartheid" mess, hence the highly emotional fuss about the word "apartheid"--Victor falk 06:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The phenomenon might happen elsewhere, but it's certainly never called "tourist apartheid" anywhere but Cuba. If it is expanded the name will have to go back to Victor's title, or some other one.--Cúchullain t/c 06:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Outside of Cuba I'm not even sure if it has a name -- but no matter what it might be called it's still the same thing, isn't it? So "Tourist apartheid" is as good as any, I guess (sorry Victor but "tourist segregation" only gets 22 Google hits). Looking back at the history, this page seems to have been refocused to be purely about Cuba right about here. Should we revert to there and start over? Ewlyahoocom 09:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly not as good as any, apartheid is a very controversial word. You'd have a point if it wasn't, and if it hadn't been causing so much trouble around Wikipedia right now. Theoretically it's the best name for the Cuban practice, but it is not used elsewhere. If the article is expanded, the name must be changed (and the intro rewritten, etc.) Of course, that's assuming that tourist-resident seperation is really a notable subject that we should have an article on.--Cúchullain t/c 16:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My personal favorite would be Potemkin tourism -- but this term is slightly ambiguous (with e.g. a tourist to a Potemkin village); sadly, it also gets zero Google hits :-( Ewlyahoocom 16:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That'll would be a fun read! (:--Victor falk 00:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is baffling how little there's about it, considering how common a discussion subject it is you hear when travelling. I've found two or three papers like Lopez-Lopez, A., CUKIER, J. and Sanchez-Crispin, A. 2006 'Segregation of the Tourist Space on the Mexican Coastline: A Case Study', none of them online. And of course quite some traveblogviation, but it's hard to judge which ones are wp:rs and wp:v... It's understandable people are much more inclined to blow hot air about it than spill some ink, but still... --Victor falk 00:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be a stickler for WP:RS. I think there are good arguments here for expanding the article beyond Cuba, but it's not wikipedia's job to be on the leading edge of thought here. I must insist on sourcing to back this up. -- 146.115.58.152 04:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to WP:APARTHEID and related Articles for Deletion, Deletion Reviews, and Requests for Arbitrations for as to why this article is not called "tourist segregation" --Victor falk 05:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I don't know how that is relevant to your restoration of unsourced material here. I didn't say anything about tourist segregation. I actually proposed the move to the current title above. -- 146.115.58.152 06:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this is your preferred version, then I know understand your remark. But as best I can tell, the term "Tourist segregation" is something wikipedians have made up. I don't have too much of an opinion if you want to run off with the redirect, but this article is about Tourist apartheid and I've yet to see a single source discussing it outside of Cuba (with one exception discussing tourists going to visit relics of South African Apartheid, but that's obviously a different one-off use of the phrase). I sympathize with what you'd like the article to say, but unfortunately, we can't WP:SOAPbox here, unless some reliable source at least gets the ball rolling. -- 146.115.58.152 06:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe there's something we can agree on after all, anon. This is either about Cuban "tourist apartheid", or it has reliable sources justifying its inclusion of other countries (and obviously this would require another name). However, I'm sure this situation occurs in other countries and is just as notable as in Cuba, and probably ought to be discussed together if they're discussed at all, whatever other name is decided.--Cúchullain t/c 07:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some of what appear to be real published articles (the first 2 even use the term "tourist apartheid"!):
Again, I can think of no term that succinctly describes this phenomena as well as "tourist apartheid" -- feel free to make suggestions. Ewlyahoocom 07:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of those articles don't even use the term "tourist apartheid", those that do, are passing mentions. "Tourist apartheid" is somewhat regularly used to describe the situation in Cuba, but no where else. I don't care what the article is called, but the word is so inflamatory that this title shouldn't be used at any article that doesn't focus entirely on Cuba.--Cúchullain t/c 07:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're discounting a bone-fide use in an article by The Economist?! And it wasn't even put in quotes or italics or anything to indicate it's slang or a neologism or "foreign word"! You asked for articles, I've given you articles. Let's move on. Ewlyahoocom 08:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're last source demonstrates exactly what I'm talking about. Segregation is a different thing, with many different meanings. Besides, anyone in San Antonio can go to the River walk or The Alamo. And any tourist can hop on a city bus and end up in a "bad neighborhood" (and hopefully not an INS bus by mistake!) and sure, no city with a tourist industry really wants to encourage that. Maybe any city's discouragement of that is indeed tourist segregation, but that's rather different from the situation in Cuba, where Cubans can't go to their own beaches, and tourists can't leave their resorts. It might be worth a passing mention in the lead that the term has been extended to the Madives or Tunisia, though Cuchullain's point that these are more or less one-off uses is somewhat valid as well. -- 146.115.58.152 07:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It only goes to show that it is practiced/enforced to varying degrees in different places. Ewlyahoocom 08:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I discounted nothing, but one use of a phrase does not an article title make, nor do a handful of passing references. "Tourist apartheid" virtually always refers to Cuba, and ought to be used only for articles on that particular subject, considering how inflammatory the name is. I don't object to expanding the scope, but the name must reflect the change if that occurs.--Cúchullain t/c 08:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've gone from saying "it's certainly never called "tourist apartheid" anywhere but Cuba" to asking for "reliable sources" to now asking for more than "a handful of passing references" -- maybe you're just saying you don't like the name? If you have a better name in mind please suggest it -- I'll even propose the move at WP:Requested moves if you like. Ewlyahoocom 08:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What happens in Cuba, Costa del Sol, Khao San, Sharm el Sheik, etc are part of the same [the phenomenon] (that is, whatever the article should be called, be it "tourist segregation", "separation of the honourable visitors from us unworthy natives", "most welcome guest apartheid", "apartheid of tourists"... so let's call it "[the phenomenon]" for the moment, to avoid the problem of universals). --Victor falk 08:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because teh googlez says "no such string" when queried for [the phenomenon], doesn't mean there aren't no sources. I've read more than a couple stories about [the phenomenon] over the years, and that's just in my local paper. Then there is LexisNexis and library search engines to start with. Or your local library tout court. I mean, I haven't even checked google books at all yet... not to speak of the top 100 search engines no one ever heard of. That's one fun thing with wikipedia, improves your zearch zkillz! After that, you can always go over to the dark side of the net. If lack of sources bothers you so much, {{sofixit}} and look for [the phenomenon]! (: --Victor falk 08:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I didn't see that cuchullain had replied to anon ip before posting this
The burden is not upon me, per WP:ATT: Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. -- 146.115.58.152 08:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, if I understand you correctly:
QUERY:(source) CONTAINS ANY (word in title)?
YES => KEEP
NO => DELETE
Is that correct? --Victor falk 08:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if I understand you correctly:
Create a theory
Stick it in a wikipedia article
Stays? => Done
Gets removed? => restore, argue pet theory on talk page
Is that correct? To answer your question, I stand by what I wrote just below this, that a split may be in order. On the spectrum of human rights abuses, we're simply not experts on where segregation ends and apartheid begins. -- 146.115.58.152 09:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure a link exchange could be in order. But unless you can find a WP:RS equating separation of the honourable visitors from us unworthy natives with tourist apartheid, I couldn't support a merge. What kind of separation would your article even be talking about? Saying good bye and flying home? The Pauli exclusion principle? Divorce from bed-and-board? This doesn't seem to be the article you are looking for. -- 146.115.58.152 09:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's link a exchange? --Victor falk 10:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For example, a link in the respective "See also" sections of both articles to the other article. -- 146.115.58.152 11:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I interpret this as the sections not about Cuba would meet your criterions in an article named say, tourist segregation, tourism segregation or segregation of tourists. I hope I'm not confused? --Victor falk 11:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they are still not currently sourced, and I still think there's some WP:NEO when no source we have discusses this more general idea of "tourist segregation" per se. But I'm not going to follow you around if you create such an article. -- 146.115.58.152 12:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, tenuousness of your position is especially belied by the fact you don't even have a proper name here. I suppose that the tourist apartheid in Cuba could be reasonably considered a special case of tourist segregation policies elsewhere, so if you want to split your unsourced material over the redirect, I wouldn't really give it a second thought, beyond stamping it with an "unsourced" tag up top. Without a source equating policies in different countries to each other, trying to shoehorn your theory of some overarching "phenomenon" into this article is WP:Original Research. -- 146.115.58.152 08:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ewlyahoocom, there's no maybe about it - I don't think I could have made myself more clear that I don't like the name - for anything but what happens in Cuba. You proved me wrong that similar practices in other countries are "never" referred to as "tourist apartheid" by finding a handful of places where they are, but still, 2 articles using the phrase are not enough to justify having the word "apartheid" in an article title. I don't know what to call it if it's decided this article should include information in countries besides Cuba - perhaps something that's just a description, like "seperation of tourists and residents in third world resorts". As I said I don't object to the article being expanded, but I do object to this current name being applied to it if it is.--Cúchullain t/c 09:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I largely agree with Cuchullain here, Ewlyahoocom. When you write: It only goes to show that it is practiced/enforced to varying degrees in different places. Well, that's just disturbing, whatever "it" is ultimately called. We simply can't have one all inclusive article that acts as if the tourism policies of San Antonio, Texas and Cuba are different only by matter of degree, which is where combining Victor falk's unsourced theory with your reliable sources ultimately leads. -- 146.115.58.152 09:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you keep saying this is "unsourced" when I've give you 4 solid sources above. Should I spend all my time looking up sources because you 2 are too lazy to do any research? Secondly, this article originally had a global focus until User:146.115.58.152 hijacked it. And what do you find so special about the word apartheid and Cuba? The last time I checked it was Afrikaans. But if you 2 want to fork off to Tourist apartheid in Cuba, that would be fine with me. Here, I'll get you started. Ewlyahoocom 01:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added your two sources, despite my WP:UNDUE concerns. As for my laziness and hijacking for removing unsources material, the burden is not upon me, per WP:ATT: Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. -- 146.115.58.152 03:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I just ran across Talk:Tourist segregation in Cuba, seems you guys have been fighting about this for quite a while now. So what -- this page got started as a copy and paste move? Bad form guys, bad form. Ewlyahoocom 02:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, this was a consent merge. See #Merge from secondary article. -- 146.115.58.152 02:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Merging" a page that's been around for over a year into one that's been around for less than 2 months (and got it's start as a cut and paste dump job)? Now that's what I call a plan! Well, I'll take my leave now, and leave you three to enjoy your squabbling... Ewlyahoocom 03:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a little misleading, as this page began as Tourist segregation two months ago. With all the move wars which spilled over from Allegations of apartheid etc., I'm not exactly sure what the original title was here, but the bolded words in the lead of the oldest versionhere suggests this began life as Tourism apartheid. I have no objection to an article on tourist segregation, it's just that when I got here, and cleaned up the unsourced material, Cuba was all that was left. So I proposed the move, and then the merge, which made plenty of sense at the time, and still does in my mind. -- 146.115.58.152 04:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why are we losing material?

[edit]

In the last series of edits, good material that is well sourced has been lost. Why? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're not. We are pruning dead flesh from a footnote apparatus as cumbersome as a very obese and slightly asthmatic walrus.
I've removed the following:
  • Sources that didn't say nothing that wasn't said in other sources: [6]

[7] [8] [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] [14]

  • Editorial pieces that use this article's subject as just another stick to whip Fidel with: [15], [16], [17],
Gawd that one pissed me off.
But there is another even more reason for culling: WP:style.
What should an article in wikipedia look like, a encyclopedia britannica entry, or some academic test paper written by an undergraduate student terror-struck by exam angst?
That means:
  • WP:RS and WP:V don't mean every single little fact, no matter how trivial, is to be footnoted at least thrice.
  • A bad source is better than no source. But one good source is better than two (or three, or more) bad sources.
  • Summary, dense writing style.

I hope to have abided the above.--Victor falk 17:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tourist_apartheid&oldid=1137262836"