Talk:Tourist apartheid in Cuba

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Wealth apartheid ? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Sources

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: That sounds awesome, Zleitzen.  The Literate Engineer 20:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Merge to [[Tourism in Cuba]]? 

message: Template: 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)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:Allegations of apartheid}}]]

message: 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)
thread_title:  Allegations of Chinese apartheid 

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text:  Aye! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: 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)
replies: text: Good move. A read over of the article indicates its rather seamless. Tiamat 10:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Rename and (slight) refocus 

message: 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)
thread_title: POV check

message: 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)
thread_title:  Broader implications