| Revision as of 20:11, 12 July 2006 editDeodar~enwiki (talk | contribs)5,122 edits →Move to []: different subject - request?← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:31, 12 July 2006 edit undoJayjg (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators134,922 editsm →Move to []Next edit → | ||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| ::::On a different subject matter: Can you speedy delete ] and ]? --] 20:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC) | ::::On a different subject matter: Can you speedy delete ] and ]? --] 20:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :::::Sure. See how helpful impartial individuals can be? By the way, regarding your question ''Do all scientific entries need now to be prefixed with the term "Theory of "?'', please see ], ], ], ], ], ], ], etc. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 20:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:31, 12 July 2006
Move to Tourism apartheid in Cuba
Can we move this back to Tourism apartheid in Cuba pronto, please. The above title is misleading in the extreme.--Zleitzen 19:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- User:Briangotts wrote "moved Tourism apartheid in Cuba to Allegations of Cuban apartheid: Move without discussion was totally uncalled for; these are indeed allegations, to call it "apartheid" without qualification is to render the term meaningless."
- Hi Brian, the discussion prior to the article creation was with respect to the title "Tourism apartheid in Cuba" or "Tourist apartheid in Cuba" -- see ]. It was you, in my opinion, that arbitrarily picked a new title and imposed it without discussion, not myself. So far, it is just you who feel that it should be called "Allegations of Cuban apartheid" - it was not agreed to by Jayjg (who didn't comment at all), Homey (who seemed to support the new article and didn't comment on the name), myself (who suggested the name "Tourism apartheid in Cuba), and Zleitzen (who makes him opinion clear above.)
- It is important to say what type of apartheid it is in the title since normally one assumes apartheid has to do with race, when in fact, in the case of Cuba, it is related to tourist vs. non-tourist divide. Also the whole article is oriented around the term "tourist apartheid" -- you'll notice this if you read through the article. --Ben Houston 19:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- That seems reasonable. Nevertheless, Leifern expressed a concern, which I share, that the use of the term apartheid is watered down to the point of meaninglessness, and moreover, the use of "apartheid" to describe situations like the Cuban one is so controversial that it should not be approached lightly. I would agree to a title along the lines of "Allegations of tourism apartheid in Cuba" or "Alleged tourism apartheid in Cuba". Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, whatever the title is, it needs to be neutral. Just stating that Cuba practices apartheid is not neutral, one can only allege it. Jayjg 20:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- The above is an empty statement. Do all scientific entries need now to be prefixed with the term "Theory of "? But I understand this is part of a meta-argument thus I'll let it go. Hopefully, eventually, impartial individuals will come in and fix it. --Ben Houston 20:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Here I am Ben. What do you need me to fix? :-) Jayjg 20:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- On a different subject matter: Can you speedy delete Allegations of Tourist apartheid in Cuban and Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuban? --Ben Houston 20:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sure. See how helpful impartial individuals can be? By the way, regarding your question Do all scientific entries need now to be prefixed with the term "Theory of "?, please see Theory of relativity, Theory of everything, Theory of computation, Theory of mind, Theory of descriptions, Theory of computation, Theory of forms, etc. Jayjg 20:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)