Template talk:Segregation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject African diaspora. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles related to topics concerning persons of African descent and their cultures. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora for more information. (See: Category:WikiProject African diaspora for more pages in this project.)

NA

This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale.

	This article is within the scope of the Discrimination WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of discrimination topics. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

First, the word Segregation should be wikilinked. Second, Japanese internment shouldn't be included unless you include every other example of internment from the List of concentration and internment camps. TheMightyQuill 17:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll add that link. You should bring up your concern about internment at the

Discrimination2 template too. I inculded Japanese internment becuase it was on that template. I'm not an expert in that area. futurebird 17:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. I didn't wikilink becuase to get to the three kinds of segragation I wanted to inculde you need to go to the disambig page. Do you have an suggestions for a better way to link? Maybe, it could just be a template on Racial Segregation... futurebird 17:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you should add a few more events similar to the ones in the side box already. I edited it, so hopefully, they'll be added. User:Javanick28 17:01, 18 April 2007

[edit] Israeli apartheid is a form of segregation

Hence, it deserves inclusion in the template.--Kirby♥time 03:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Let it be noted that Israeli apartheid is a redirect. The actual article is named Allegations of Israeli apartheid. Is is customary to include redirects in templates?? Andyvphil 19:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Allegations of Israeli apartheid is only politics. Segregation is racism. Adding this category is a mockery of segregation, which is when African Americans were discriminated against in the hands of the racists of America. This does not compare to anything Israel did. Segregation is racism, and adding this category is like saying it is just politics.--Sefringle 04:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The treatment of the Palestinians under Israeli rule is racist apartheid segregation. Your denial of the racist treatment of Palestinians is not acceptable; and furthermore, you say it is racist (towards who???) to even claim that Palestinians are mistreated!--Kirby♥time 04:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

thats not racism, its retaliation. For all the suicide bombings of Hamas and Hizbollah, and those other Palestinians preform against Israel, and for nothing other than some building they call the Dome of the Rock, it is almost justified. There should almost be an article called Palestinian apartheid, because it is very similar. This is not racism, it is war. War alone is not racism. --Sefringle 04:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

War can involve racism, Gook, sandnigger.--Kirby♥time 04:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

But war alone is not racism. The Arab-Israeli conflict is not a war of racism, or if it is, it can easily be argued that calling the actions of Israel "apartheid" is an act of antisemitism.--Sefringle 04:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Arab-Israeli conflict is not being included in this template; Israeli apartheid is. There is a difference between racism by Israeli legislators towards Palestinians versus the terrorist actions of the IDF.--Kirby♥time 04:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Israeli apartheid is just labeling the actions of Israel in the Arab-Israeli conflict as a form of racism, and completely ignoring the actions of the Palestinians. Casualties during war are not necessarily racist in nature. Unlike the actions of Palestinian terrorists, where they are clearly targeting Jews.--Sefringle 04:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The "Jews" they are targeting are part of the Israeli armed forces. Since when is it racist to kill members of a country's armed forces? And don't try to say that they are "civilians". Every single Israeli citizen is required to join the IDF, so evey single one is a potential murderer/terrorist and the killing is justified, not racist.--Kirby♥time 05:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh really!? So the Haifa bus 37 massacre, the Jerusalem bus 20 massacre, the Matza restaurant massacre, Passover massacre, Ben Yehuda Street Bombing etc. were all attacks on armed forces. Is that what you are saying? Your arguement that there are no Israeli civilians goes both ways. Every Palestinian is a potential suicide bomber, and their killings are not justified; they outright border on antisemitism.--Sefringle 05:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Those are all legitimate attacks on military personnel. And wrong, not all Palestinians aren't potential suicide bombers, because they aren't required by law, unlike Israelis. --Kirby♥time 05:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

All Israelies are not soldiers. This is getting really stupid and offensive, so I'm done debating this.--Sefringle 05:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Kirby, thats a new one from you. After you denied the holocuast saying its "alledged" to have happenned, you are now saying that suicide attacks are justified.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 05:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)