Talk:Religious segregation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] Israel section

There is no basis to believe that accusations of "apartheid" in Israel are in any way related to religious segregation. The accusers do not mention religion as a basis for what they call "apartheid" or "segregation". Pecher Talk 21:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the section is balanced as it makes the very point you do in the paragraph below. I don't particularly want to defend "apartheid" alligations but this is a noteable group in a religious conflict (ie arab-israeli conflict). Your point of view that this is not true is noted as it should be. But this section could be improved.Hypnosadist 21:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
No, my point is not whether the accusations are true or false; it's just that they are not about religious segregation. Pecher Talk 22:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I understand you don't think its religious segregation but many people do, add a more rebutals to this arguement ie the treatment of Muslims in Isreal proper etc.Hypnosadist 22:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps many people do, but they are not quoted in this section. I am removing it. Isarig 03:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
That segregation in this case has a religious basis is implicit in all the references. Or let me ask you: if it is not based on religion, then what is it based on? Restoring. Regards, Huldra 23:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
To th extent it exists, it is based on ethnic, not religious basis. As I wrote before, people who believe this is religion-based are not quoted in the cites sources - so out it goes. Isarig 04:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. housing and organizations?

There's no mention in this article of the historic issues of religious segregation in housing in the U.S. (referenced in films such as Gentleman's Agreement and [[Auntie Mame]]) and in organizations such as country clubs. I realize these topics surely are treated in more specific articles, such as the one on antisemitism (a term commonly used in the U.S. to refer exclusively to anti-Jewish attitudes), but this article would be another good place to discuss it. And before you tell me to be bold, let me say that I would, but I have no time as I type this. I really don't even have time to type THIS, so ... Lawikitejana 22:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OR

Edits such as these are inappropriate.[1]

WP:NOR, and WP:V are very clear that sources must be provided for all content. If these sources are not provided content may be removed. If there is any misunderstanding of WP:NOR and WP:V, I'd be happy to help you out. But please realize that you *must* provide sources.Bless sins 20:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Karl Maier, can you please top adding unsourced content that appears to be original research to this article.[2]
Please consult WP:V and WP:OR.Bless sins 03:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Still OR

The current section (on Saudi Arabia and Iran) is based on the following sources.

Here is one of many applicable quotes from this citation. Remember segregation as defined by this article refers to seperation of any kind. It is not limited to the BS term "physical seperation".

"The Government required noncitizens to carry iqamas, or legal resident identity cards, which contained a religious designation for "Muslim" or "non-Muslim." There were reports that individual mutawwa'in pressured sponsors and employers not to renew iqamas of non-Muslims they had sponsored for employment if it was discovered or suspected that those individuals had either led, sponsored, or participated in private non-Muslim worship services. Additionally, there were reports that mutawwa'in pressured employers and sponsors to reach verbal agreements with non-Muslim employees, who must promise that they will not participate in private or public non-Muslim worship services."

Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 22:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "segregation" refers to physical separation. Secondly what is the discrimination here? If non-Muslims break Saudi laws (which prohibit non-Muslim worship) then they are told to leave the country. The U.S. or any other country would also deport criminals. Whether the Saudi laws are fair or not, is another matter.Bless sins 03:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
That's just silly. A law which prohibits non-Muslims the same religious freedom as Muslims is inherently discriminatory and racist. That's the whole point. Any implementation of discriminatory laws which results in the expulsion of people based on religion is per definition religious segregation. I'm sure you'd agree that if Israel made a law forbidding non-Jewish worship and expelled non-Jews to leave the country, then it too would constitute religious segregation. Weather it's law or not. Rune X2 14:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
This entire reference deals with the seperation and unequal treatment on non-muslims. see for example the second paraagraph;

"There was a further deterioration of the extremely poor status of respect for religious freedom during the reporting period, most notably for Baha'is and Sufi Muslims. The country's religious minorities include Sunni and Sufi Muslims, Baha'is, Zoroastrians, Jews, and Christians. There were reports of imprisonment, harassment, intimidation, and discrimination based on religious beliefs."

Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 22:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Lack "of respect for religious freedom" is not religious segregation.Bless sins 03:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
If lack of respect is official and constitutes such physical things as imprisonment, harassment, intimidation etc. then it is segregation. Rune X2 14:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Full of proof od discrimination including this;

"The Government did not officially permit non-Muslim clergy to enter the country for the purpose of conducting religious services, although some came under other auspices. Such restrictions made it very difficult for most non-Muslims to maintain contact with clergymen and attend services. Catholics and Orthodox Christians, who require a priest on a regular basis to receive the sacraments required by their faith, particularly were affected."

Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 22:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

According to the above paragraph, "Catholics and Orthodox Christians" already exist in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi government is only prohibiting the entry of a few Christians who declare that they are coming to Saudi Arabia to violate its laws (public non-Muslim worship is prohibited in Saudi Arabia). Similarly the U.S. has prohibited the entry of anyone affiliated with HAMAS or Hezbollah. That doesn't mean there is religious segregation.Bless sins 03:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Comparing individual Catholic or Orthodox Christians with emissaries from terror organizations reveals a complete lack of understanding. Members from Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaida, etc. and other official terror organizations are not barred from entering the USA based on their religion. It doesn't even enter into the question. They could Christians, Buddhist or any other thing - they'd still be barred from entering. What SA is practicing is religious segregation at its borders, and by its racist policies whereby life for religious minorities becomes almost impossible, religious segregation inside. Rune X2 14:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yet none of these sources (as far as I have read) accuses Saudi Arabia or Iran of segregating people by religion. Nowhere it is stated that Muslims and non-Muslims travel on different roads, or live in different settlements. If the allegation of "religious segregations" is not clear, I will remove the section.Bless sins 18:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the section because not one source accused the countries of "religious segregation". It also contained nonsense like "Saudi Arabia deny non-Muslims some of the civil rights and voting privileges they grant to Muslims". The source simply didn't say that.Bless sins 00:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

BS doesn't address the Amnesty International report included in the massive slab of referenced text he just removed. I am going to revert this vandalism until BS can learn not whitewash everything he doesn't like, just because one reference in the section doesn't mention the exact phrase "religious segregation". Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 01:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Does any reference talk about religious segregation?Bless sins 02:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is the lead of this article; Religious segregation involves the separation of people on the basis of religion. The Saudi Arabia and Iran sections go into vast amounts of detail describing how these countries seperate people on the basis of religion. The BS line of thought that limits it to "physical segregation" defies its definition and moronic to boot. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 04:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is the Merriam Webster dictionary of Segregation'; 1: the act or process of segregating : the state of being segregated2 a: the separation or isolation of a race, class, or ethnic group by enforced or voluntary residence in a restricted area, by barriers to social intercourse, by separate educational facilities, or by other discriminatory means b: the separation for special treatment or observation of individuals or items from a larger group <segregation of gifted children into accelerated classes>3: the separation of allelic genes that occurs typically during meiosis. Again this disproves the BS allegation that segregation is a "physical" phenomena and vindicates the text he keeps removing under false pretenses. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 05:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

"the separation or isolation of a race, class, or ethnic group" Note how you definition doesn't talk about "religious group". Bless sins 21:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, you haven't responded to my comments above. Finally, does any of your sources consider Saudi/Iranian laws as examples of "religion segregation"?Bless sins 21:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because the definition of "segregation" does include religion does not mean there is no such thing as "religious segregation". Segregation includes the concect of "seperation" and all of the sources that you claim is OR contains information about seperation in Iran and Saudi Arabia. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 09:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

"the definition of "segregation" does include religion" No the definition of segregation that you provided does NOT include religion. Secondly, even if you do succeed in providing such a definition you will have proved nothing. Using two different sources to advance a position is a violation of WP:SYNTH.Bless sins 01:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

While in the above discussion, editors try to define religious segregations through their original research, none has brought up a source that actually says "religious segregation". I still await such a source.Bless sins (talk) 03:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for a response.Bless sins (talk) 05:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You need to state that you have read the dictionary definition. You need to explain why you think "seperation" and "segregation" are different. You need to explain how you are being WP:DISRUPTIVE given that all sources in this article have the same issue. You need to explain why you would keep removing one section and retain all the others in violation of WP:POINT? You also need to explain how you are not in violation of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DISRUPT when you have reverted by multiple editors. Prester John (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Not one of your sources, Prester John, makes any comment about "religious segregation" - the topic of the article. Sure there is religious discrimination, but not religious segregation. If you disagree provide direct quotes from your sources to show that they indeed allege "religious segregation". BTW, you have also not provided any dictionary definition of "religious segregation".Bless sins (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You are following this talk page discussion correct? I suggest you read it one more time, the defintion is included above. Prester John (talk) 22:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No definition of "religious segregation" was provided. A definition for "segregation" was provided, but as you know this article is about "religious segregation" not simply "segregation". None of your sources say "religious segregation". If any do, please quote them - I have asked you to do so several times over and and over.Bless sins (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
There's a lot of original research going on here. The section in question is currently a mishmash of different sources saying different things (ironically, none of which actually assert religious segregation). The section as it stands is currently a tendentious generalised tract about 'non-Muslims in the Muslim world' which consists of sources reporting specific issues in Saudi or Iran (which seem to be implying "discrimination" rather than "segregation").
The best way to nip this in the bud is thusly: either find reliable sources making this specific assertion, or refrain from inserting such material which currently constitutes an original synthesis of sources. ITAQALLAH 15:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Britain - segregation in government

It may be worth considering that the British government is a form of religious segregation. See Sydney Morning Herald article. Quote: "The 1701 Act of Settlement, which prohibits a Catholic from acceding to the throne, and which prevents the heir to the throne from marrying a Catholic, is still on Britain's statute books." Maybe there should be a Britain section that includes both Northern Ireland and religious segregation in the Monarchy. Food for thought. Lester 23:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That's certainly interesting. But where does the source say this is "religious segregation". What you have provided appears to be a case more of religious discrimination.Bless sins (talk) 02:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] WP:BAN

restoring sourced content from banned user as it is sourced, relevant to the article, and adds to a balance of facts that constitutes an NPOV.Nambo (talk) 11:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

PLease don't proxy for a banned user. If you wish to delete that material, please indicate why you wish to remove it, independently per WP:BAN. What content have you restored? In this case material has been removed. You appear to be randomly redoing Hkelkar's edits. Relata refero (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I now feel it is prudent to show other users of your editing patterns particularly concerning removal of sourced content in Hindu articles. There must be an underlying prejudice or personal opinion underlying your zeal in keeping lots of information out. [3][4] [5][6] [7]. Your valiant upholding of WP policy on the removal of banned users edits for obvious reasons in this case, actually takes away from the encyclopedia in this instance.Nambo (talk) 12:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't spam talkpages. I have already responded to this concern here. Relata refero (talk) 13:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History section?

It seems really odd that there is no historical perspective to this article. A one sentence intro and BAM!! suddenly you're in the midst of modern examples. It's jarring, at a minimum, and seems rather POV in the selection of examples. Mention should also be made of self-segregation, since not all separate-ness is involuntary and oppressive. Pairadox (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Source quote

The following source is used to claim that Christians in India practice the caste system: "Francis Buchanan, Indian Census Record, 1883"

While the source may indeed say that, does the source specifically say that "religious segregation" resulted from this system? If it does, can someone provide the quote? Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)