Talk:Social apartheid

Repeated removal of entire article.

Hiya folks. There is a process for removing articles. Blanking them out repeatedly is not it. Will suggest there is some moderation. n.b.: I didn't write this article, just catted it.:T L Miles 19:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Obviously I walked into the middle of somebody's longstanding dispute. I don't have a dog in this fight, so I'm walking away. But can I suggest WP:NAM? You folks'll give yourself thromboses! T L Miles 20:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The article hasn't been removed, it has been restored to the parent article, Allegations of apartheid. You'll find it all there. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not a "parent article" the material wasn't in Allegations of apartheid until you copied it from here and pasted it there. -- LOTHAR

The material was indeed in other articles, until you created the POVfork. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You said the material was from a "parent article" and that's completely false. You copied the material from here and pasted it there and then claimed that the copy was the source. -- LOTHAR

And you copied most of the material from Allegations of Brazilian apartheid. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

How funny

I was just going over the "allegations of" series of articles and thought to myself, most of the article problems would be solved by creating articles entitled Social apartheid and Urban apartheid, and other such encyclopedically named articles that would incorporate material in most of the articles created for WP:POINT. And I did a search for Social apartheid and lo and behold, here it is! Has anyone put this forth as a suggestion in the centralized discussion? Tiamat 22:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why someone would suggest that kind of WP:SYNTH. Make sure you ask User:G-Dett about "secondary sources" if you do. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

There are many, many sources out there on social apartheid and the article can be much longer than it is if people stop moving it around and let me and anyone else who is interested work on expanding it. Do you agree to end the dispute and let the article stay here so we can get it unprotected and work on improving it? -- LOTHAR

Your buddy User:G-Dett insists that all sources must be "secondary sources", not "primary", whatever that means. Anyway, you're still trying to delete "Allegations of apartheid" articles, so you're obviously not interested in ending the dispute. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Good thing I thought to check out this page, or I'd never have discovered how Jay's been misrepresenting me. I've never insisted "all sources must be 'secondary sources'" – a misrepresentation so extreme it almost looks intentional. What I did say, on multiple occasions, with my customary verbal clarity (if I do say so), is that Wikipedia's notability guideline defines sources as secondary sources, and that WP:NOR stresses that, except in "rare" circumstances, WP articles should rely primarily upon secondary sources. Jay is evidently unfamiliar with both WP:N and WP:NOR. Of course an article can include primary sources, but it should rely on secondary sources, partly insofar as these establish the notability of the topic in the first place. Get it straight, Jay, and never presume to relay my position on an issue if you haven't got the scruples to do it accurately.--G-Dett 23:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You're saying you'll only agree to leave the social apartheid article alone if I don't vote to delete allegations of apartheid articles? -- LOTHAR

No, I'm pointing out that you are insisting I not "delete" your apartheid articles, while at the same time you continue to try to delete "Allegations of apartheid" articles. So, I understand what you get out of this arrangement, but I'm not sure what you think you're offering me. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Merging of urban apartheid

I have merged the urban apartheid article into this one. The urban article was very short, and had little separate information - from reading them both, they appeared to even be about the exact same thing. It's not explained anywhere what the difference between the two terms are, if there is one, but I've made Urban apartheid a section in this article rather than removing the term entirely. Nearly everything was preserved and moved over, including references. *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 08:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Finland

In the section about Finland, the links do not work. By searching, however, the given links can be found: [1], [2]. In these links, however, there is nothing that is in the text before the references, and especially the concept "åpårtheid" cannnot be found from neither of the given sources. Also, the other parts of the whole text are written against the references given and it has little to do with what is said in the given sources. Therefore, I will remove the whole section that is written against the sources given and also otherwise has very litte or nothing at all to do with real circumstances.--Urjanhai (talk) 16:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Good catch! This "åpårtheid" concept was clearly a made-up POV neologism. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 16:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Definitely. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Additional Information and Clarity

Additional Content • In the opening section, social apartheid is defined, and its origin is explained. However, it would be helpful if content was added at the end of the description of South African Apartheid demonstrating the relationship between this example and social apartheid. Something along the lines of a clarification that this sort of separation occurs not only along racial lines, as was present in South Africa, but also along social and economic lines, resulting in a similar sort of segregation. • The other piece of content that appears to be missing is the implications of social apartheid. The concept is explained clearly and historical examples are given, but I think this article would be stronger if it addressed not only the ways in which social apartheid manifests itself, but what this means for society. An example of this is food deserts, the trend that many people isolated based on their economic or social status tend to live in areas that do not have adequate access to nutritional food sources.

Urban apartheid • This section does a good job of highlighting a specific type of social apartheid. However, it could use some clarity. In using the example of South African apartheid, it seems as though urban apartheid is something that is deliberately carried out by officials or through policy, such as through the Group Areas Act. However, my understanding is that social and urban apartheid largely result from social forces that are not as intentional. Therefore, in this section it would be helpful to clarify the ways in which urban apartheid develops, both through explicit action and as an unintended consequence that results from other social facts and institutions. --Morganmccaslin (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Potential Criticisms I wonder if there are any scholars that have criticized the use of the word apartheid in particular for this phenomena? It seems like some abuse the term, and I wonder if there are any potential instances of it here. i.e. food apartheid Homedpo (talk) 09:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)