Talk:Religious segregation

message: Shouldn't be a section about Mount Athos in Greece?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.90.222.48 (talk) 06:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mount Athos 

message: There is no basis to believe that accusations of "apartheid" in Israel are in any way related to religious segregation. The accusers do not mention religion as a basis for what they call "apartheid" or "segregation". Pecher Talk 21:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the section is balanced as it makes the very point you do in the paragraph below. I don't particularly want to defend "apartheid" alligations but this is a noteable group in a religious conflict (ie arab-israeli conflict). Your point of view that this is not true is noted as it should be. But this section could be improved.Hypnosadist 21:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, my point is not whether the accusations are true or false; it's just that they are not about religious segregation. Pecher Talk 22:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I understand you don't think its religious segregation but many people do, add a more rebutals to this arguement ie the treatment of Muslims in Isreal proper etc.Hypnosadist 22:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps many people do, but they are not quoted in this section. I am removing it. Isarig 03:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That  segregation in this case has a religious basis is implicit in all the references. Or let me ask you: if it is not based on religion, then what is it based on? Restoring. Regards, Huldra 23:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  To th extent it exists, it is based on ethnic, not religious basis. As I wrote before, people who believe this is religion-based are not quoted in the cites sources - so out it goes. Isarig 04:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel section 

message: There's no mention in this article of the historic issues of religious segregation in housing in the U.S. (referenced in films such as Gentleman's Agreement and Auntie Mame) and in organizations such as country clubs. I realize these topics surely are treated in more specific articles, such as the one on antisemitism (a term commonly used in the U.S. to refer exclusively to anti-Jewish attitudes), but this article would be another good place to discuss it. And before you tell me to be bold, let me say that I would, but I have no time as I type this. I really don't even have time to type THIS, so ... Lawikitejana 22:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. housing and organizations? 

message: It may be worth considering that the British government is a form of religious segregation. See Sydney Morning Herald article. Quote: "The 1701 Act of Settlement, which prohibits a Catholic from acceding to the throne, and which prevents the heir to the throne from marrying a Catholic, is still on Britain's statute books." Maybe there should be a Britain section that includes both Northern Ireland and religious segregation in the Monarchy. Food for thought. Lester 23:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's certainly interesting. But where does the source say this is "religious segregation". What you have provided appears to be a case more of religious discrimination.Bless sins (talk) 02:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Britain - segregation in government 

message: restoring sourced content from banned user as it is sourced, relevant to the article, and adds to a balance of facts that constitutes an NPOV.Nambo (talk) 11:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: PLease don't proxy for a banned user. If you wish to delete that material, please indicate why you wish to remove it, independently per WP:BAN. What content have you restored? In this case material has been removed. You appear to be randomly redoing Hkelkar's edits. Relata refero (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Please don't spam talkpages. I have already responded to this concern here. Relata refero (talk) 13:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:BAN]]

message: It seems really odd that there is no historical perspective to this article. A one sentence intro and BAM!! suddenly you're in the midst of modern examples. It's jarring, at a minimum, and seems rather POV in the selection of examples. Mention should also be made of self-segregation, since not all separate-ness is involuntary and oppressive. Pairadox (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section? 

message: The following source is used to claim that Christians in India practice the caste system: "Francis Buchanan, Indian Census Record, 1883"
While the source may indeed say that, does the source specifically say that "religious segregation" resulted from this system? If it does, can someone provide the quote? Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source quote 

message: Please kindly keep unreliable sources out of the article. Here are some I found:
*Wiki travel. Any open wiki is unreliable.
*Christianity Today. No more reliable on third party issues than an Islamic website. It looks more like a spiritual website than one that would be a reliable source.
If there are any contentions, we can always take them up at WP:RSN.Bless sins (talk) 04:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Any minor, trivial, incidential reason to entirely remove a self-explanatory, unambiguous image that you don't like people seeing will do, it seems. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 15:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I mean, you are opposing references for the caption and as a result you remove the entire image -- not just the caption. There's reasonable limits to AGF. You've had enough WP experience to know that's not the proper action. If your goal is just to clean up refs, the proper method would be to remove the refs, or mark the content as dubious, or remove the caption. But for some reason, you remove the entire picture. What's the GF rationale there?- Keith D. Tyler ¶ 15:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Regarding Christianity Today: It's not a fringe outlet, but a published magazine catering to a particular demographic. That doesn't make it unreliable. Furthermore, the use of the citation was to show a published source that uses the term "religious apartheid" and to what it applies it. The statement it backed up was: The similar term religious apartheid has also been used for situations where people are separated based on religion. Thus, to back up the statement, a reference where the term "religious apartheid" was used for a situation where people are separated based on religion. Are you saying that the Christianity Today article did not use the term "religious apartheid" or that it did not use the term to describe separation based on religion? Do I need to have an additional source that says "Christianity Today used the term 'religious apartheid' to describe a situation where people are separated based on religion" ? Do I need yet a third source that says "source B says 'Christianity Today used the term "religious apartheid" to describe a situation where people are separated based on religion'"? No, of course not, because the best source for that assertion is to show where Christianity Today used that term to describe that situation. When citing attributions, the only valid cite is that where the attributed statement is made. If an article were to say "The National Enquirer said that aliens invented the transistor", the proper cite would be to a National Enquirer article where it says that aliens invented the transistor. Despite the fact that the NE is by an large an arguably unreliable source, this not only a valid cite, but the best cite for the content's assertion. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 16:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "That doesn't make it unreliable." That doesn't make it reliable either. Not all published sources are reliable. As per WP:V the burden of evidence (to provide a reliable source, and demonstrate its reliability) lies with you (see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence).Bless sins (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can always attribute it to the source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But that's only true when the source is reliable. Unreliable sources have no place in wikipedia (except maybe on thier own pages), don't you agree? BTW, the sources you restored are not at all about segregation, let alone a religious one.Bless sins (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

text:  Sure. We need WP:V verifiable and reliable sources. Why these are not reliable in your view? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By "these" I assume you mean the ones bieng discussed in this section. One of them seems to be a biased sourced and the other, well, is an open wiki that anyone can edit. Secondly, please note, both the sources were removed and replaced. So what's the dispute about? (Jossi, if you're referring to the sources in my recent edits, I never claimed they were unreliable, only that they didn't say what is claimed here. Please see the section "OR", regarding that).Bless sins (talk) 03:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreliable sources

message: In her book, The Saudis, Sandra Mackey describes her experience at Mecca. She does not make any large sweeping claims of "segregation" on the basis of religion. She talks of a "dividing line", but explains that she if talking about religion being an "entire way of life".
Secondly, I'd like to know why Mackey is considered a reliable source. If it is simply on the basis of personal experience, then that doesn't seem reliable enough to make generalization.Bless sins (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sandra Mackey

message: First of all, this:  isn't a good article, second of all ... it doesn't make any sense unless you twist the definition of segregation to mean anything other than a homogeneous community with a Muslim, Catholic, Sikh, Hindu, Black, Asian, European and disabled person on every block. You can't call it segregation if no one is enforcing it, if Muslims live in the same communities as other Muslims, if *any* minority tends to lives in a community together, it's NOT SEGREGATION. Get this garbage off the page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.97.108 (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK Segregation, seriously? 

message: I don't religious discrimination is necessarily the same thing as religious segregation. Religious segregation is to separate - in space - people by religion. Discriminating against people based on religion (e.g. by giving them a lower salary) is not segregation. If it was, then the US would be guilty of gender segregation, because women make less money than men.Wheatsing (talk) 06:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Iran

message: Seriously. BY LAW is one of the key tenets of segregation! Iranian Muslims do not choose, Saudi Arabian Muslims do not choose, Muslims in Israel do not choose. British Muslims DO choose.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.107.222 (talk) 12:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK is on there but Israel IS NOT? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Religious segregation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130610153003/http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_26173.shtml to http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_26173.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Religious segregation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sauditourism.gov.sa/sct/indexlist.php?catid=39&maincat=Travel_Tips
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120717012101/http://www.presstv.ir:80/detail/2012/07/13/250651/un%2Dfocuses%2Don%2Dmyanmar%2Damid%2Dmuslim%2Dplight/ to http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/07/13/250651/un-focuses-on-myanmar-amid-muslim-plight/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Religious segregation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120525144733/http://www.mideastyouth.com/2008/07/06/schools-out-for-the-bahais/ to http://www.mideastyouth.com/2008/07/06/schools-out-for-the-bahais/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/07/13/250651/un-focuses-on-myanmar-amid-muslim-plight/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090425140346/http://www.newagebd.com/2005/may/21/front.html to http://www.newagebd.com/2005/may/21/front.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is the accusation in citation 38 allowed to be on Wikipedia, since no evidence supporting this claim is given? 189.206.144.172 (talk) 00:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hearsay for citation 38?