Talk:Tourist apartheid

message: I don't understand this. Compare  to .  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: True - I think its silly to use the current title also. Bigdaddy1981 23:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was this article moved? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Should be all set. -- 146.115.58.152 14:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from secondary article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Category:Apartheid