Talk:Tourist apartheid

Article merged: See old talk-page

I don't understand this. Compare [1] to [2]. Sourcing is thin either way, but

• It was moved due to the POV of pro-Castro partisans - see AfD debate. Bigdaddy1981 17:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's

WP:RS. If reality hurts your feeling people, change reality, not wikipedia. -- 146.115.58.152 21:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

True - I think its silly to use the current title also. Bigdaddy1981 23:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having removed the unreferenced cruft from this article, Cuba is the only country which remains. Therefor, this is redundant to

Agree. Both still need some cleaning up, however. Best to clean up the target article before merging other material into it. Andrewa 06:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should be all set. -- 146.115.58.152 14:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the page were moved to "Tourist apartheid", the article does NOT belong in the category for "apartheid". The category is for articles that are actually about apartheid or are subarticles of it. "Tourist separation" or whatever you want to call it isn't "apartheid" by any definition, but only by analogy, no one is claiming the practice is equivalent or related to South African apartheid or crime of apartheid, or anything, it just has the word "apartheid" in the name (sometimes). It may be that the category is problematic, and needs to be renamed, merged, or whatever, but that's a separate issue to be dealt with elsewhere. For the time being, "tourist segregation" does not belong in it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would think

urban apartheid, which also are in that category, which, I'll remind you again, is different from and should not be confused with its subcategory Category:Apartheid in South Africa. -- 146.115.58.152 22:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The sources are not claiming this is a form of apartheid, they are drawing an analogy between a Cuban tourism policy and apartheid. Just because the word "apartheid" is in the name (sometimes) does not at all mean that this is a type of apartheid, or a sub-article. The article has nothing to do with apartheid by any definition, South African or global. Boston terrier might belong in the terrier category, but sea lion does not belong in the lion category. The real problem might be with the unspecific category "Category:Apartheid", but as I said that's an issue to be dealt with elsewhere. I'm not seeing any reason to have this article in the category beyond the name, it really ought to stay out. I'm afraid that stepping up the dispute resolution may have to wait until the ArbCom case wraps up, but that may be the only option in settling this.--Cúchullain ^t/c 07:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't just happen in Cuba, see e.g. Khaosan Road or most any Club Med. Ewlyahoocom 03:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started the

tourist segregation article, with sections about charter resorts ("ghettos"), North Korea, and Cuba (the current version is much the same as I edited it). Unfortunately it got caught up in the "allegations of Israeli apartheid" mess, hence the highly emotional fuss about the word "apartheid"--Victor falk 06:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The phenomenon might happen elsewhere, but it's certainly never called "tourist apartheid" anywhere but Cuba. If it is expanded the name will have to go back to Victor's title, or some other one.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of Cuba I'm not even sure if it has a name -- but no matter what it might be called it's still the same thing, isn't it? So "Tourist apartheid" is as good as any, I guess (sorry Victor but "tourist segregation" only gets 22 Google hits). Looking back at the history, this page seems to have been refocused to be purely about Cuba right about here. Should we revert to there and start over? Ewlyahoocom 09:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not as good as any, apartheid is a very controversial word. You'd have a point if it wasn't, and if it hadn't been causing so much trouble around Wikipedia right now. Theoretically it's the best name for the Cuban practice, but it is not used elsewhere. If the article is expanded, the name must be changed (and the intro rewritten, etc.) Of course, that's assuming that tourist-resident seperation is really a notable subject that we should have an article on.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My personal favorite would be Potemkin tourism -- but this term is slightly ambiguous (with e.g. a tourist to a Potemkin village); sadly, it also gets zero Google hits :-( Ewlyahoocom 16:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That'll would be a fun read! (:--Victor falk 00:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is baffling how little there's about it, considering how common a discussion subject it is you hear when travelling. I've found two or three papers like Lopez-Lopez, A., CUKIER, J. and Sanchez-Crispin, A. 2006 'Segregation of the Tourist Space on the Mexican Coastline: A Case Study', none of them online. And of course quite some traveblogviation, but it's hard to judge which ones are wp:rs and wp:v... It's understandable people are much more inclined to blow hot air about it than spill some ink, but still... --Victor falk 00:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be a stickler for

Please refer to

WP:APARTHEID and related Articles for Deletion, Deletion Reviews, and Requests for Arbitrations for as to why this article is not called "tourist segregation" --Victor falk 05:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm sorry, I don't know how that is relevant to your restoration of unsourced material here. I didn't say anything about tourist segregation. I actually proposed the move to the current title above. -- 146.115.58.152 06:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If

WP:SOAPbox here, unless some reliable source at least gets the ball rolling. -- 146.115.58.152 06:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Maybe there's something we can agree on after all, anon. This is either about Cuban "tourist apartheid", or it has reliable sources justifying its inclusion of other countries (and obviously this would require another name). However, I'm sure this situation occurs in other countries and is just as notable as in Cuba, and probably ought to be discussed together if they're discussed at all, whatever other name is decided.--Cúchullain ^t/c 07:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some of what appear to be real published articles (the first 2 even use the term "tourist apartheid"!):

• "The Maldives: Waving or drowning?", The Economist, Dec 19th 2006 "Thanks to its geography, the Maldives operates a unique form of tourist apartheid that has allowed visitors to ignore the signs of growing discontent."
• "Tunisia: tourism’s trap", Le Monde diplomatique, August 2004 "The tourists are shepherded by guides and isolated from real communication with any locals other than those who work for the tour company or hotel: a tourist apartheid makes it impossible to create any understanding between the two quite different worlds."
• "Strategies: Keeping It Real", Condé Nast Traveler, April 2004 "Travel unprepared to a culturally rich destination such as Mexico or Kenya or even New Orleans and you risk slipping into a parallel reality manufactured for and populated only by tourists."
• "Tourist attraction, rising oxymoron", Harvard University Gazette, Mar 11 2004 "Converted cities, such as Detroit and San Antonio, have more uneven development, and attempt to keep tourists segregated from the rest of the city in special districts."

Again, I can think of no term that succinctly describes this phenomena as well as "tourist apartheid" -- feel free to make suggestions. Ewlyahoocom 07:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those articles don't even use the term "tourist apartheid", those that do, are passing mentions. "Tourist apartheid" is somewhat regularly used to describe the situation in Cuba, but no where else. I don't care what the article is called, but the word is so inflamatory that this title shouldn't be used at any article that doesn't focus entirely on Cuba.--Cúchullain ^t/c 07:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're discounting a bone-fide use in an article by The Economist?! And it wasn't even put in quotes or italics or anything to indicate it's slang or a neologism or "foreign word"! You asked for articles, I've given you articles. Let's move on. Ewlyahoocom 08:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're last source demonstrates exactly what I'm talking about.

tourist segregation, but that's rather different from the situation in Cuba, where Cubans can't go to their own beaches, and tourists can't leave their resorts. It might be worth a passing mention in the lead that the term has been extended to the Madives or Tunisia, though Cuchullain's point that these are more or less one-off uses is somewhat valid as well. -- 146.115.58.152 07:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

It only goes to show that it is practiced/enforced to varying degrees in different places. Ewlyahoocom 08:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I discounted nothing, but one use of a phrase does not an article title make, nor do a handful of passing references. "Tourist apartheid" virtually always refers to Cuba, and ought to be used only for articles on that particular subject, considering how inflammatory the name is. I don't object to expanding the scope, but the name must reflect the change if that occurs.--Cúchullain ^t/c 08:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've gone from saying "it's certainly never called "tourist apartheid" anywhere but Cuba" to asking for "reliable sources" to now asking for more than "a handful of passing references" -- maybe you're just saying you don't like the name? If you have a better name in mind please suggest it -- I'll even propose the move at WP:Requested moves if you like. Ewlyahoocom 08:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What happens in Cuba, Costa del Sol, Khao San, Sharm el Sheik, etc are part of the same [the phenomenon] (that is, whatever the article should be called, be it "tourist segregation", "separation of the honourable visitors from us unworthy natives", "most welcome guest apartheid", "apartheid of tourists"... so let's call it "[the phenomenon]" for the moment, to avoid the problem of universals). --Victor falk 08:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because teh googlez says "no such string" when queried for [the phenomenon], doesn't mean there aren't no sources. I've read more than a couple stories about [the phenomenon] over the years, and that's just in my local paper. Then there is LexisNexis and library search engines to start with. Or your local library tout court. I mean, I haven't even checked google books at all yet... not to speak of the top 100 search engines no one ever heard of. That's one fun thing with wikipedia, improves your zearch zkillz! After that, you can always go over to the dark side of the net. If lack of sources bothers you so much, {{sofixit}} and look for [the phenomenon]! (: --Victor falk 08:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't see that cuchullain had replied to anon ip before posting this

The burden is not upon me, per

WP:ATT: Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. -- 146.115.58.152 08:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• So, if I understand you correctly:

QUERY:(source) CONTAINS ANY (word in title)?

YES => KEEP

NO => DELETE

Is that correct? --Victor falk 08:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I understand you correctly:

Create a theory

Stick it in a wikipedia article

Stays? => Done

Gets removed? => restore, argue pet theory on talk page

Is that correct? To answer your question, I stand by what I wrote just below this, that a split may be in order. On the spectrum of human rights abuses, we're simply not experts on where segregation ends and apartheid begins. -- 146.115.58.152 09:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So, tourist apartheid in cuba becomes magically "just a pet theory", would it be part of an article called separation of the honourable visitors from us unworthy natives?--Victor falk 09:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure a link exchange could be in order. But unless you can find a

tourist apartheid, I couldn't support a merge. What kind of separation would your article even be talking about? Saying good bye and flying home? The Pauli exclusion principle? Divorce from bed-and-board? This doesn't seem to be the article you are looking for. -- 146.115.58.152 09:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

What's link a exchange? --Victor falk 10:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For example, a link in the respective "See also" sections of both articles to the other article. -- 146.115.58.152 11:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I interpret this as the sections not about Cuba would meet your criterions in an article named say,

tourist segregation, tourism segregation or segregation of tourists. I hope I'm not confused? --Victor falk 11:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, they are still not currently sourced, and I still think there's some

WP:NEO when no source we have discusses this more general idea of "tourist segregation" per se. But I'm not going to follow you around if you create such an article. -- 146.115.58.152 12:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

BTW, tenuousness of your position is especially belied by the fact you don't even have a proper name here. I suppose that the

WP:Original Research. -- 146.115.58.152 08:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Ewlyahoocom, there's no maybe about it - I don't think I could have made myself more clear that I don't like the name - for anything but what happens in Cuba. You proved me wrong that similar practices in other countries are "never" referred to as "tourist apartheid" by finding a handful of places where they are, but still, 2 articles using the phrase are not enough to justify having the word "apartheid" in an article title. I don't know what to call it if it's decided this article should include information in countries besides Cuba - perhaps something that's just a description, like "seperation of tourists and residents in third world resorts". As I said I don't object to the article being expanded, but I do object to this current name being applied to it if it is.--Cúchullain ^t/c 09:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I largely agree with Cuchullain here, Ewlyahoocom. When you write: It only goes to show that it is practiced/enforced to varying degrees in different places. Well, that's just disturbing, whatever "it" is ultimately called. We simply can't have one all inclusive article that acts as if the tourism policies of

San Antonio, Texas and Cuba are different only by matter of degree, which is where combining Victor falk's unsourced theory with your reliable sources ultimately leads. -- 146.115.58.152 09:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't know why you keep saying this is "unsourced" when I've give you 4 solid sources above. Should I spend all my time looking up sources because you 2 are too lazy to do any research? Secondly, this article originally had a global focus until User:146.115.58.152 hijacked it. And what do you find so special about the word apartheid and Cuba? The last time I checked it was Afrikaans. But if you 2 want to fork off to

Tourist apartheid in Cuba, that would be fine with me. Here, I'll get you started. Ewlyahoocom 01:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I've added your two sources, despite my

WP:ATT: Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. -- 146.115.58.152 03:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Wow, I just ran across

copy and paste move? Bad form guys, bad form. Ewlyahoocom 02:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

No, this was a consent merge. See #Merge from secondary article. -- 146.115.58.152 02:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Merging" a page that's been around for over a year into one that's been around for less than 2 months (and got it's start as a cut and paste dump job)? Now that's what I call a plan! Well, I'll take my leave now, and leave you three to enjoy your squabbling... Ewlyahoocom 03:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a little misleading, as this page began as

Tourism apartheid. I have no objection to an article on tourist segregation, it's just that when I got here, and cleaned up the unsourced material, Cuba was all that was left. So I proposed the move, and then the merge, which made plenty of sense at the time, and still does in my mind. -- 146.115.58.152 04:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

In the last series of edits, good material that is well sourced has been lost. Why? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're not. We are pruning dead flesh from a footnote apparatus as cumbersome as a very obese and slightly asthmatic walrus.

I've removed the following:

• Sources that didn't say nothing that wasn't said in other sources: [6]

[7] [8] [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] [14]

• Editorial pieces that use this article's subject as just another stick to whip Fidel with: [15], [16], [17],

• Dead links: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]

• Very obnoxiously, this link to a bloody Word doc giving the schedule for a lecture on "Tu Jinterísmo, Tourist Apartheid and the State for Itself? Evaluating the Nature, Purpose and Impact of Cuba's Radical Reforms and State Capitalism since 1993 in the course "History 362a, Colony, Nation and Diaspora: Cuba and Puerto Rico" (Yale University) to November, Sixteenth (Of what year?? We don't know, but note that not one of the books on the course litterature list was from this century...)

Gawd that one pissed me off.

• Finally, thanks to that
  wikilinks about'em added by yours truly
  that weren't here before.

I hope to have abided the above.--Victor falk 17:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]