Talk:Apartheid in South Africa/Archive6

Impartial language

As an inexperienced wikipedia editor, I realise that I'm jumping in at the deep end here. However, it seemed to me that the last edit to the History of SA in Apartheid era page raised interesting questions about impartiality and factual representation. Consider the following sentences from recent edits to this page: -

• 1) Apartheid legislation classified South Africa's inhabitants and visitors into racial groups (Black, White, Coloured and Indian) and then separated people using this arbitrary and unscientific classification, allocating grossly unequal civil rights.
• 2) Apartheid legislation classified South Africa's inhabitants and visitors into racial groups (Black, White, Coloured and Indian).

An anonymous editor changed (1) into (2). I don't think this is a real improvement because

• (1) comes across as a partial account, mainly because of the use of all the adjectives ("arbitrary", "unscientific",

"grossly unequal")

• (2) uses no partial adjectives, but the nouns it uses "black" "white" "coloured" and "indian" in fact reproduce the language and categorisations of apartheid as "facts". By deleting the second half of (1), it looks like the worst thing Apartheid legislation did was to classify people, whereas (1) makes the connection that the legislation was just legal permission for the physical separation of people, in order to treat them differently, and to legalise the many acts of brutality that were required to enforce this segregation.

I know that Wikipedia strives to be impartial, but I feel that (2) doesn't do justice to the historical facts: There was (and I hope there is still) an international consensus that apartheid was indeed a criminal systemn of government.

I added the following sentence to reflect the contemporary global consensus of opposition to apartheid. The page does have a section about this, but I think it's important and should be reflected in the Introduction.

"In 1973, an International Convention of the United Nations General Assembly ruled that this system amounted to a crime against humanity, and defined the crime of apartheid as "inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them."[1]

It could probably be expanded to refer to the anti-apartheid movement as a whole

And I also added a couple of sentences so that the artice's coverage of "internal resistance" to apartheid is reflected in the Introduction. I added a link to that section, not sure if it is created correctly, someone please advise.

Would welcome any comments or guidance on this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by KaliG (talk • contribs) 09:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Soweto uprising 16 June 1976

Hello,

This is quite a long article. I didn't realise the world so adored our past :)

Anyway, I had a quick look and didnt' see any reference to the two whites murdered in Soweto by the students... maybe someone can update that.

Regards, Eben Roux —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.25.174.203 (talk) 08:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you know of a reference that can support this? --SAcit777 (talk) 07:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at this (Afrikaans): http://www.news24.com/Beeld/Suid-Afrika/0,,3-975_2131050,00.html -- mention is made of the two white state employees (Afrikaans: twee wit staatsamptenare) that were murdered. Also: http://www.sahistory.org.za/pages/governence-projects/june16/extract-soweto-uprising.html

One of the whites murdered was Dr L.M. Edelstein. It is difficult finding sources (more in Afrikaans) since the ANC terrorists have been spreading countless lies about our past, vilifying whites in our country to cover up their own inadequacies. But as the Bible says: all that is in the darkness shall come to light. EbenRoux (talk) 05:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ja ja, the Boer aluta continua, etc etc. The killing of Edelstein was a tragedy, of course; even more so because he was deeply opposed to the apartheid system. Your "terrorists" haven't been very effective in suppressing this story though, because Edelstein's name is mentioned on plenty of websites about the Soweto uprisings, including Wikipedia. Perhaps if you kept your far-right views to yourself your contributions would be more useful. Zaian (talk) 07:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Zaian, i do not believe that any right-wing sentiments have been expressed here. I'm sure you will concede to the fact that the death of Edelstein had an impact on what happened during the Soweto uprising, and should for that reason be mentioned here. Please feel free to debate this issue, but try to keep your own contributions both civil and neutral.--SAcit777 (talk) 09:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you may have missed EbenRoux's references to "ANC terrorists" "spreading lies" and "vilifying whites", which are fairly typical views of the far right. He has also expressed plenty of fanatical far-right views in his contributions to the Boeremag page, which were so POV as to be completely unsalvageable. I think I've been fairly restrained and not particularly incivil? I've no objections to Edelstein's death being mentioned here, and it seems to have been notable. I have some reservations about the desire to highlight two white deaths among the hundreds of black deaths - they shouldn't be used to excuse the actions of the police. Zaian (talk) 09:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

My bad Zaian, I checked the references but neglected to read the rest of EbenRoux's comments. I agree with you completely that the death of Edelstein does not excuse the actions of the police, but it might shed a bit more light on the situation, and for that reason I agree that it should be mentioned. Eben, please remember that propaganda was used extensively by both sides during Apartheid, and that the primary role of the police was to 'protect the people.' Note that this includes all South African citizens, and for that reason the consequences of the Soweto uprising was inexcusable on their part. Please keep your comments neutral and your opinions to yourself.--SAcit777 (talk) 08:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Split Prop

Right now this is the largest content (non-list) article on Wikipedia. I'm proposing it be split to include more linked subpages. Mbisanz (talk) 10:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

"SA army met with defeat in Angola"

Because of the controversy surrounding this issue, I think it best to remove the following line:

"but the government suffered a massive setback to its pride when its army met with defeat in Angola."

Please feel free to post objections here, though first refer to the article 'Battle of Cuito Cuanavale.' If the segment is to be restored, please first cite appropriate references in this discussion. SAcit777 (talk) 10:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Given that the claim is entirely ridiculous, I do not think their will be any serious objection to the removal of that.

http://www.rhodesia.nl/cuito.htm

In fact the South African armed forces were never defeated by any of their foreign sponsored enemies. They only got their way by treason in the White camp and not by the force of their own arms.--196.207.47.60 (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Addition idea

[1] claims, "The collapse of the Soviet Union after 1989 cost the ANC much of its funding and forced it to adopt a more conciliatory tone." If accurate, that would be interesting to mention. -- Beland (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Carnegie Commission on the Poor White Problem in South Africa

I just made this article it may be of use to some of you here since it shows what some of the origins of Apartheid were, and also provides connection to racial fear in the US. It cites a lot of sources that some of you may wish to use in this article. futurebird (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

When speaking about the poor White problem why did you miss the Anglo-Boar wars? --Mazarin07 (talk) 07:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nelson Mandela Being Sworn In.jpg

Image:Nelson Mandela Being Sworn In.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Shortening proposal

The apartheid legislation section seems to me excessively detailed given that there is a whole article on that topic.

How about shortening each bullet point to a one-liner?

Philip Machanick (talk) 04:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

A bit more work than I thought -- this is actually more detailed in part than the "main article" and has a few errors to fix. If no one else gets to it by the time I can, I'll give it a go. Example: I think the correct name of the late-50s law is "Promotion of Bantu Self-Government Act", not "Black", which was not a favoured term of the government of the day. It's also listed as 1958 and 1959 in different places, which needs to be made consistent with the facts. Philip Machanick (talk) 05:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Go to it! I agree the best course of action would be to clean up the "main article" first and then refer to it in a short précis paragraph. Alice^✉ 08:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

RFC: Shortening the title

The current title is quite long and, I think, a bit redundant. I'd like to suggest "Apartheid in South Africa" as it puts the key word, apartheid as the first word and since it accurately describes the article's content. Does anyone disagree? Reggie Perrin (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I see the page has now been moved in good faith after the above request for comments but without any discussion taking place. There is a long history of argument about the title and History of South Africa in the apartheid era was the result of a compromise. I for one oppose the change unless further discussion takes place here first. I think it's important that others comment here. Zaian (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Aside from your procedural objection to a move being done before more discussion do you have any problem with the actual proposed title of "Apartheid in South Africa" once there is further discussion (say a week) ? As far as I can tell the historical objection has been to calling this article apartheid - that isn't what's being proposed here. Instead, I'm proposing a shorter version of the current title ie Apartheid in South Africa since the current title is far too wordy and cumbersome. This new proposed title does not raise the problems that came with the apartheid title as far as I can see in my quick review of the history of this article. Reggie Perrin (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, the proposed title is the same as the title for the infobox so there's a certain logic in making the change. Reggie Perrin (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. I'm not opposed to a shorter name, and your proposal seems sensible. As an aside, I'd love to shorten it all the way to "Apartheid", but unfortunately it needs to mention South Africa otherwise the page gets dragged into the argument about whether or not Israel is an apartheid state. That's where the compromise came from.

In the mean time I have moved the page back to its original name and I would welcome more discussion. Zaian (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

How about: History of Apartheid South Africa, or History of South African Apartheid? I believe 'history' should be in the title, since "Apartheid" went through numerous changes, there was never a "perfect" version of it and it is impossible to examine it in detail without discussing the changes that were made from year to year. BillMasen (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Apartheid in South Africa - a history ? I don't think the current title is too long. Alice^✉ 21:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think the term "history" is not needed as it's self-evident in the same way that it's not necessary to call World War II "History of World War II". I suppose we could call the article Apartheid in South Africa (history) but as there are no other articles named Apartheid in South Africa using the term history as a disambiguation device is not necessary. Please, let's try to have a title that's simple and straight forward. But, if people insist on having "history" then Bill's suggestion of History of South African apartheid would be a slight improvement over the current title as it is (slightly) more succinct. Reggie Perrin (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I will move the article to History of apartheid South Africa. BillMasen (talk) 00:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that works for me. Reggie Perrin (talk) 02:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I've no objection. Alice^✉ 02:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like an improvement on the existing title to me. "Apartheid in South Africa" was better. Under History of Spain there are separate articles like Spain under the Restoration, First Spanish Republic and others - no standard naming and "History" is not part of the title. Zaian (talk) 06:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Zain - with a History of South Africa article in existence, calling another article History of South African apartheid or something along those lines is redundant. Apartheid in South Africa is the best title. However, History of apartheid South Africa is an improvement so if we have no consensus for my preferred title let's at lest change it to Bill's suggestion (but continue the discussion). Reggie Perrin (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say leave it where it is while it's under discussion. The title "History of apartheid South Africa" bothers me slightly. I think it's because the term "apartheid South Africa" smacks faintly of a POV label - kind of like "apartheid regime". To me it sounds like an abbreviated form used in a newspaper headline rather than an encyclopedia article title. I have a similar problem with the title "Apartheid in South African - a history" which sounds a bit self important, like a book title. Zaian (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Split the article. Have Apartheid in South Africa cover the details of the system and this current title cover the history of the matter. Basically focus on the "nuts and bolts" in one article and the "historical events and impact" in the other, respectively. As an example, the "Apartheid system" section would be a good candidate for splitting into a "basic details" article. The split would help keep the length of the articles more manageable, as well as help with the organization of the information. It may be worthwhile to split the "International relations" section off to International response to South African apartheid, considering its length and the amount of available material. When considering splits, it should be considered whether or not the split material would be notable in and of itself. It should also be considered what material has enough reliable sources to produce a full article. I believe that the South African apartheid system itself, the general history of it and the international response to it are all notable topics with plentiful sources. Vassyana (talk) 12:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Splitting the article is necessary but I don't think the current title needs to be retained for that to happen. Reggie Perrin (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I also don't think you can have an article about apartheid in the abstract. It has to be in context, and the context is the history. I think the article should be shortened, and parts of it summarised and moved into sub-articles, but I don't think a split is the way to go. Zaian (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there any serious objection to Apartheid in South Africa then? Reggie Perrin (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

: : I suggested "History of apartheid South Africa", but I'm not that happy about using "apartheid" as an adjective in page title. I'm not absolutely wedded to the word "history" in the title. However, I agree with Zaian that "apartheid" is inseperable from this period of SA history. Moreover, this is currently the article in the History of South Africa series for this period. Therefore, I would want something in the title which indicates that this is about South Africa during that period. We could cut "history of", and make it 'South Africa in(during?) the Apartheid era'. Or perhaps 'South Africa during(under?) apartheid'? BillMasen (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

My pick is still "Apartheid in South Africa". I like having "apartheid" first because this is essentially the article about Apartheid. I've listed some options:

• Apartheid in South Africa
• Apartheid era in South Africa
• The apartheid era in South Africa
• South Africa during apartheid
• South Africa under apartheid
• South Africa during the apartheid era
• South Africa in the apartheid era

Zaian (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I would be in favour of any of those, except Apartheid in South Africa, which does not convey the sense of time and history. My fave is South Africa under Apartheid. BillMasen (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

South Africa under apartheid is a common phrase and would make sense as a title. Reggie Perrin (talk) 07:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

History of Apartheid South Africa? Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggested that, but people weren't so happy with it, if you look above.

On reflection, I'd prefer 'during' to 'under', but 'under' is still ok. BillMasen (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think "during" really works because, strictly speaking, the term apartheid doesn't refer to a period of time but to a set of laws and regulations. A country can be said to be "under" a law or series of laws but I don't think referring to a country "during" a law is quite correct grammatically. eg, we speak of Poland "under martial law" but it's not really correct to say Poland "during marital law" (though I'm sure some people have). Reggie Perrin (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

In that case, perhaps 'Apartheid era in South Africa' or even 'Apartheid era South Africa'. BillMasen (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Bill, are you still ok with South Africa under apartheid? Let's try to see if there's support for one proposal. If we keep throwing out new suggestions we'll never decide on anything. Reggie Perrin (talk) 11:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this article going to be about a period in SA history when apartheid happened to be in force (meaning that non-apartheid related events that happened can be talked about too), or is it strictly about the apartheid system itself (in which case other events in the same period need to be covered in a separate history of SA article)? If you look at some of the suggested article titles, they tend to fall into one category or the other, e.g. South Africa under apartheid vs Apartheid in South Africa Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The article, I think, should be on the apartheid system et al since there is no other such article. Otherwise, we might as well just call it History of South Africa (1948-1992). Reggie Perrin (talk) 11:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

All right, I guess SA under apartheid will do for now. BillMasen (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

So is someone gonna move it? I can't as SA under apartheid has a disambig page. Non-admins can only move to a page which doesn't exist. BillMasen (talk) 12:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just put in a request. Reggie Perrin (talk) 15:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have done it as I believe people wanted it done. Message me if this is incorrect SGGH ^speak! 16:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

From RFC: In order to agree on a name for the article, the purpose of the article needs to be agreed on. Does this article concern the details of Apartheid? Does it concern the period of South African history that involved Apartheid? Or does it simply concern the causes and effects of Apartheid on South Africa? In other words, is the focus on apartheid or is it on the history of South Africa (as part of series)? Consensus on this will determine whether the article should be titled South Africa under Apartheid or Apartheid in South Africa. —BradV 04:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Poor referencing

Given the size and importance of this article, as well as the wealth of information available, I'm disppointed that it's so poorly referenced. While I haven't researched my suspicion and therefore cannot back it up, I get the distinct impression from the lack of citations and links that some sections may have been cut/paste from somewhere. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Libya

Did Libya actually have nuclear weapons [2] or was it merely working towards aquiring them? MBisanz ^talk 00:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Merely working. If they'd actually developed them, the balance of power in the Middle-East would be quite different. 76.106.145.195 (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:War04.jpg

Image:War04.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for split and merge

Coming at this entirely fresh there seems to be an easy way to shorten the article: split Legacies of apartheid, which deserves an upgrade anyway, and merge the section on establishment of the Crime of Apartheid with the main article Crime of apartheid. That will only cut around 600 words, but it's a start. More importantly, those sections just don't fit the current (consensus-built) title; it is all post-Apartheid stuff. Thoughts? Objections? 9Nak (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

A sensible proposal. Reggie Perrin (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems good enough to me SGGH ^speak! 10:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. John Carter (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No dissent, so I'll implement those changes straight away. 9Nak (talk) 05:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I've also moved the section on HIV to Legacies of apartheid. Seems a better fit there, and it could also do with some expansion. 9Nak (talk) 17:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Additional split/merge suggestions

• It might be best to summarize the "International relations" section in a few paragraphs and merge the bulk of the section into Foreign relations of South Africa, which is currently a fairly short article with little discussion of the topic.

• "Internal resistance" might be best split off into a subarticle Internal resistance to South African apartheid and summarized in a few briefer paragraphs here.

This would significantly cut down on two of the longest sections of the article. It may also be worth considering if "Creation of apartheid" would be suitable for spin-off into its own article (such as Origins of South African apartheid or Establishment of South African apartheid).

An additional consideration for article naming is whether "South African" is truly required or not in the above title suggestions. Just some thoughts for additional possibilities. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 04:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It probably is necessary to use "South African" for the same reason we've had trouble calling this article "apartheid". The term has acquired several other meanings in the past 15 years (see Apartheid (disambiguation)) They might be of dubious legitimacy but that hasn't stopped some of them from being used widely. Reggie Perrin (talk) 05:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That's makes perfect sense. It was just a secondary thought that occurred to me as I was about to post. Vassyana (talk) 06:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Both those splits seem right to me. They would leave this article nicely focussed, and a lot more readable. 9Nak (talk) 10:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've created Internal resistance to South African apartheid without much cleaning, but summarising it for this page is a bigger job than I thought. If anybody wants to jump in, feel free :-) 9Nak (talk) 14:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Also implemented the foreign relations merge; the page will now rank as #469 in Special:LongPages when it updates (as opposed to being in the top 30). Still too long, methinks, but it also looks like the low-hanging fruit are gone. Any more suggestions? 9Nak (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"Urine food"

How about this? Abdullais4u (talk) 08:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This article covers the period 1948-1994. Zaian (talk) 11:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Did not happen during apartheid. It was not urine it was 'Oros'. A yellowish cooldrink. --143.160.124.40 (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The missed point

I was able to learn from this article, that Whites in South-Africa created some hospitals and schools for the black people, but providing "lower quality" services, compared to what the Whites were granted. Can you explain why other African states with no White citizens did not built any hospitals or schools (and the few institutions of this kind have been established by Western charity foundations)? If I follow the logic of this article all those pure Black African countries were even more racist against their own people compared to what the ugly apartheid did.--Mazarin07 (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

: Umm other countries in Africa had hospitals too. And the article does not "follow that logic". That was not by any means the only complaint against apartheid. Incidentally, if you want to raise this in the article, you need to find some reliable sources which compare the lives of black SA'ns favourably with those of other african countries. BillMasen (talk) 20:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

: :I agree with Mazarin07 on that the abundant nation of South Afica provided much more care for the black immigrants than their own nation usually did. The reason for this being that because South Africa was so blessed it was able to bless others. Invmog (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, find a source or your opinion is not relevant. And apparently they didn't "bless" black people enough to allow them a vote in the country they were forced to reside in, due to the laughably tiny allocation of land to the "homelands". BillMasen (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Factual error

Factual error in main article under South West Africa section: "South Africa formally excluded Walvis Bay from the mandate and annexed it as an exclave." Correct position: "Walvis Bay was annexed to the Cape Colony by Britain in 1878. It thus became part of the Union of South Africa in 1910. South Africa was graned a "C" Class mandate by the League of Nations to administer SWA as an integral part of South Africa. The South African government transferred administration of Walvis Bay to SWA in 1922 and then transferred it back to the Cape Province again in 1977." Sunbeam16 (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Apartheid

In the republic of south Africa a rigid policy of segregation of the nonwhite population.

Apartheid

In the republic of south Africa a rigid policy of segregation of the nonwhite population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.174.73.181 (talk) 23:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds about right.... but its not that simplistic. SGGH ^speak! 12:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)