Jump to content

Talk:Honorary whites: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 11: Line 11:
}}
}}
{{WikiProject Human rights |class=Start |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Human rights |class=Start |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Anthropology|class=|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Ethnic groups|class=|importance=}}
}}
}}
{{Image requested|in=South Africa}}
{{Image requested|in=South Africa}}

Revision as of 23:59, 21 February 2023

Tag requests

Though the tag for unreferenced material is justifiable, the tag original research is unwarranted under Wikipedia policy (see the template Original research for guidelines). This template should not be applied without explanation on the talk page, and should be removed if the original research is not readily apparent when no explanation is given. As it is, the user Kemet, who is responsible for the tagging, did not provide the required explanations on this talk page. Edit reverted. Noula69 11:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conscription

While I don't like the OR myself, is the exemption from conscription really considered a drawback from the privileges of whites? It'd probably be more of a "relieved of the obligation of..." or even a "benefit". Anyway, what do the sources say? 118.90.85.30 (talk) 03:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the Japanese were treated as white non-naturalized foreigners. Hence, they wouldn't be conscripted or allowed to vote, just as a German citizen or a Canadian citizen would not. If it is so, please make it clear. Or does it apply to naturalized Japanese-born South-Africans (if any existed). --Error (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was honorary white an official term, or just a colloquial description of a rather more complicated status?124.197.15.138 (talk) 09:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese

I've tagged the Chinese section for WP:POV. While the sources are fine, protracted quotations about the offence taken at the Chinese not being extended the same terms as the Japanese reads as editorialising. It needs to be toned down, but I'm logging off for the day. If no one else has the time to review it, I'll get back to it in the next couple of days. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]