Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:41, 28 July 2011

Women's History Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 1/6/2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Merging with Sex_segregation Shouldn't this article be merged into Sex_segregation as a new section?

Iran

doesn't Iran have a long history of educating women and isn't it a moderate islamic state in terms of it's general treatment of women. I'm not sure it deserves to be singled out here (how many female presidents in the US?) Will TALK 02:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The phrase has been used to describe Iran, rightly or wrongly (see the citation provided in the article and the external links). Feel free to write a paragraph on criticisms of the phrase (but use citations if you do so). Homey 02:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

RfM

{{RFMF}} SlimVirgin 01:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Merging Islamic apartheid

Is there any opposition to merging Islamic apartheid into this article?Homey 23:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Restored the article

I restored the article after it had been reduced to a redirect to Sex segregation without discussion, as can be seen. Apparently there was supposed to be a merge, but the content that this article originally consisted of does not currently appear in Sex segregation. Gender apartheid and gender segregation are separate phenomena, as are racial apartheid and racial segregation. Segregation is institutionalized separation between groups but with theoretical or actual equality, whereas apartheid is institutionalized discrimination against a particular group or groups. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

This is an obvious fork of Sex segregation and the daughter article Sex segregation and Islam. Could you please change this back into a redirect to Sex segregation. Thanks, Passionless -Talk 23:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Though obviously someone has to do the work of merging any information. CarolMooreDC (talk) 10:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Working on the article, I am coming to like the phrase as I see it has been applied to practices of fundamentalism in other religions, and in other societies, which I'm still adding. Considering there is an article on Gender segregation and Islam, that section is WP:UNDUE, especially length of quotes. So what I'll do is move some of the material over to that talk page for others to include in that article if they choose. If someone wants to find current refs for dead links, do so. Otherwise I'll delete in a few days. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

"Pejorative term"

I see at this search gender apartheid has been described as pejorative in four articles (til it was removed here), even though none of these articles has a source that specifically calls it that. Obviously, since apartheid is not seen as a good thing by most people, it is pejorative. Should Misplaced Pages describe it as such. I'm not sure myself, but the policy should be same for all articles that use the phrase. (And some of them seem redundant, but another issue for another time.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I think yes, because "gender apartheid" is not such a common term, and less pejorative near-equivalents such as sex segregation are in common use. In any use of the word not corresponding to the crime of apartheid, "apartheid" is a derogatory epithet, much like "fascist" or "dictator". Quigley (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Apartheid analogy

A recent change to a section title saying "apartheid analogy" is of interest since the article Israel and the apartheid analogy has been a long standing debate, with many saying that it is in fact apartheid. (I guess we'd have to look at their WP:RS calling it an analogy:

The State of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians has been compared by United Nations investigators, human rights groups and critics of Israeli policy to South Africa's treatment of non-whites during its apartheid era. Israel has also been accused of committing the crime of apartheid.

So this brings up the question, should this article be similarly titled? CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

No. Because one is clearly false (have you ever been to Israel?), and one isn't (ever been to Saudi or the IR of Iran?). JerryDavid89 (talk) 03:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Davis, Uri (2003). Apartheid Israel: possibilities for the struggle within. Zed Books. pp. 86–87. ISBN 1842773399.
2. Shimoni, Gideon (1980). Jews and Zionism: The South African Experience 1910-1967. Cape Town: Oxford UP. pp. 310–336. ISBN 0195701798.
3. "Why "Apartheid" Applies to Israeli Policies" (PDF). US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation. Retrieved 21 October 2010. "Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state." —Former South African President Hendrick Verwoerd, Rand Daily Mail, November 23, 1961

• Unassessed Women's History articles
• Unknown-importance Women's History articles
• All WikiProject Women-related pages
• WikiProject Women's History articles