Talk:Apartheid

Regarding the recent attempts at deletion...
Now I am no Apartheid or Middle East expert, but apparently something or somebody wants to tell us that an entire paragraph are - and I quote - "Lies straight from the pit of hell!". What should we say to that and how should we respond to that accusation? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Which paragraph and do you have a reputable source disproving it (or proof that the source 'proving' it is disreputable)? StickySock (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I am refering to an edit that removed the entire point four and all its sub-points and was quickly reverted. I protected the page for a day to enable civil discussion instead of edit wars. Apparently someone does not like that whole part of the article and I wanted to know why and whether we should change anything in this article as a response to that. Because even people who insult us may have a point... Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 21:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry about it. The I/P conflict has long been a hot-button topic here and it's led to more drama than the entire writing career of William Shakespeare. If they had countersources, they'd drop it here in the Talk page (or paste it in the justification, or write some long screed in the page itself, as drive-by vandals who think they have half a point have a larger tendency to do) rather than just blanking it. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Should Rhodesia be mentioned here?
I recently heard about Rhodesia where the white minority actually declared independence because their "colonial overlords" were too tolerant of the natives for their liking.... another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost)))  (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems like it deserves a mention.--JorisEnter (talk) 13:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

The deletionists don't want you to know...
... this. The brutal slaughter Apartheid and suppression of innocent Sahrawi men women and children by the brutal racist settler colonialist Moroccan dictatorship by king has to be exposed to all four corners of the earth! 62.212.73.246 (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Look here even the anti-Sahrawi Wikipedia cannot deny all of the truth! Intifada! 62.212.73.246 (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Dude, I only removed it because you didn't provide sources to your paragraph-long diatribe.
 * Add some sources - specifically ones which refer to it as apartheid and aren't terribly biased towards something - and it'll be all good. You need to chill a bit. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Liar! You want to hate Israel that's why you call it Apartheid but you are bought by the Morocco-lobby. And you ignore this, this and that. Just because the Morocco-Lobby is so strong that it keeps the Western Saharan Apartheid out of the media does not mean it is not real!!!! 62.212.73.246 (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Dude, I have no idea what you're talking about.
 * If those are sources, why don't you add them in what you're writing? --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That guy above is being tendentious and spouting Polisario propaganda. It is silliness. What he/she is referring to is the Western Sahara fracas. Basically Western Sahara is Western Morocco, it always was part of Morocco, and was liberated from the Spanish by Morocco, culminating in a peaceful march of Moroccans across the boarder. The racist claim is silly because Western Saharans, the Sahrawiya, are racially the same as Moroccans. A mix of Arab and Berbers (Amazigh). They are culturally basically Moroccans, if you go to Southern Morocco, a bit south of Marrakech, it's the same culture as Western Sahara. The brutal slaughter bit is also inaccurate -- at least now, though I honestly don't know if things were different under the previous king of Morocco, who was known as a brutal authoritarian and even tyrannical ruler. But at least today, there is no 'brutal slaughter' of Sahrawis going on now. And I am very skeptical that there ever was. Now, there have been police actions because the Polisario Front is a terrorist organization that every once in a while blows up something in Morocco or kills someone. But even here, it is exaggeration. The Polisario has been mainly quietist for a few years, probably because of the wall. Ah yeah, the wall. There is a security wall put up by Morocco's government because, again, the Sahrawi Polisario front are terrorists likes to blow things up in Morocco. But there is no apartheid going on there. Both sides are ethnically the same, racially the same, and before the Spanish took over Western Sahara they were part of the same country. All of that said, I think the Western Saharans do have some legitimate grievances and claims. 208.65.192.1 (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Why is half this article not about South Africa?
I though Apartheid was what happened in South Africa. Why is half this article about something entirely different?
 * Because while Apartheid was a system in South Africa, the word "Apartheid" has been used to describe other situations currently happening in the world. People searching for "Apartheid" might want either, or both, and both sections equally apply to the word "Apartheid". -- Onychoprion (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What about the gender separation in some Muslim countries?
 * Apartheid generally refers to separation by some concept of race (or in practice separation by ancestry), not by gender, class, political belief, language, religion, sexuality, or anything else that is sometimes used to divide people. Certainly discrimination against women merits an article, but it doesn't belong here. --Annanoon (talk) 10:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I think there are some issues worth going into in more detail
For example, the religious aspects of Apartheid (We barely scratch the surface on this front), the tensions within "polite white society", the apologetics and the "look at Zimbabwe" argument and at the very least a brief assessment which - if any - of the claims of Apartheid apologists came true after 1994. Evil Zionist (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not? 19:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Most of the article doesn't talk about south African apartheid at all
Why not split the debate about whether Israel banning Jews from certain areas constitutes apartheid into its own article?
 * I don't see that anything would be gained by a split, and it's important to have a description of apartheid while considering if Israel's oppression of the Palestinians is similar. If people feel the article should cover South African apartheid in more detail, they can expand the article. --Annanoon (talk) 10:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)