This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Among `white' South Africans were Europeans as well as people from Near East origins. Lebanese, Turks and Iranians were accepted as white but not Indians , why? They are mostly Caucasoid and could claim Aryan heritage. What would a European looking Anglo-Indian like Saira Mohan have been classified as? She could have assumed another identity and passed herself off for fully European(Mediterranean). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.47.77 ( talk • contribs)
Could we consider removing some of the links that don't go anywhere in this article? I would not know how, I'm just a newbie. Take Care, SonicBoom95 16:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
"Many of the inequalities created and maintained by apartheid". I don't know for sure, but I'd bet that this sentence fragment is almost certainly factually incorrect. These inequalities existed during apartheid, but most were probably not created by it, in that they existed before apartheid. 69.111.198.49 00:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Another link-related comment: Under "The apartheid system" there is a link labelled homeland that goes to the Bantustan article. Since I didn't know about the homeland system yet, that confused me. I thought it was a broken link. Perhaps the link should go to the homeland section of this article, which then has a link to the more detailed Bantustan article.
74.128.174.46
14:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me, I'm a newbie, but the page has been vandalised a bit-- a lot of "dfdfdf" for no good reason. Could someone fix it, or tell me how to go about reverting it? Thank you. Ipsenaut 05:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone contribute to the discussion of why links to the Immigration Act of 1924 and the Jim Crow laws are necessary? It seems they are associated with apartheid South Africa for no better reason that they pertain to racial issues in institutional policy. This intermingles American and South African politics erroneously in that the associations are too broad, which is why I request that these links in the See Also section be removed. EnglishEfternamn talk contribs 22:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that these hatreds weren't created by the apartheid policy, perhaps the racial seperationary culture of South Africa prior to Apartheid should be added more to the beginnings.
82.14.87.191 09:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Until recently the opening sentence stated that apartheid "was enforced in South Africa from 1948 to 1994". The end date was recently changed to 1990, which is the date when De Klerk announced the beginning of negotiations. I've changed it back to 1994.
Impi's edit comment justified the date of 1990 by saying that the state ceased enforcing apartheid laws in 1990, but this is only partly true. Apartheid was more than enforcement of individual laws, it was about a racially-based state that was only replaced by a multi-racial government in 1994. Even at the level of laws, many were still enforced after 1990. The most fundamental apartheid law - the Separate Representation of Voters Act - prevented blacks from voting in by-elections and in the referendum of 1992. De Klerk's speech in 1990 was a major step towards ending apartheid, but it is simplistic to say that it was the end of apartheid. The elections in 1994 are, IMHO, more significant as a moment marking the end of apartheid.
Perhaps the opening sentence should be expanded to read "that was enforced in South Africa from 1948, and dismantled through negotiations between 1990 and 1994". Encarta dodges the issue, saying "until the early 1990s". Britannica says "In 1990–91 most apartheid legislation was repealed, but segregation continued on a de facto basis. In 1993 a new constitution enfranchised blacks and other racial groups, and all-race national elections in 1994 produced a coalition government with a black majority. These developments marked the end of legislated apartheid, though not of its entrenched social and economic effects."
Incidentally, giving the years as 1948-1990 disagrees with the title and scope of the article. Zaian 18:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I need help. An IP Address is making quite a lot of edits and I don't particular like one of them where the user deleted a couple sentences and replaced them, including removing a few references. Tried to use Undo, but didn't work. So just making note that there has been a lot of edits that should be checked over. Thanks. Gilawson 20:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The section says that 90% of the poor are black, and then points out that 10% of the population is white. The statement should tell us what percentage of the population is black to be consistent. The way it's worded, assuming the vast majority of citizens are either ethnically black or white, it does not sound at all strange that if 90% of the population is black, that 90% of the poor are black. 76.81.41.58 17:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Dave Cart
There needs to be a section on SA's economic growth, industries, and international position during this period. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.4.116.14 ( talk) 20:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
I thought that I was reading an article about the Apartheid but somehow it ended up talking for more than a paragraph about the Israeli/Palestinian situation. I felt these paragraphs were not only unnecessary, loosely related to the topic at hand, but also incredibly biased. These paragraphs, to me, bring down the whole standard of the article and thus, should not be included in it.
Someone has vandalized this article with profanity and some very offensive terms. Someone who knows how to fix it PLEASE do so.
I removed Template:Discrimination sidebar because I find it too long and too broadly focused and it was placed too prominently in the article. It is nice that Wikipedia has articles about so many discrimination topics and it may even be useful to list them together, but it doesn't belong at the start of the article on apartheid, a fairly specific topic. Maybe at the bottom of the apartheid article, the general discrimination topic guide may be more useful. -- CGM1980 23:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Template:Allegations of apartheid has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Terraxos 02:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
but where is the rest of world now? why dont they ban them from sport. because they have oil! the old south afrika was a threat to america and europe. whit a army no weaker than any other in the world. fokin de klerk!
I am trying to assume good faith in the many edits from 130.102.2.60 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). However, many of the changes from this address seem to be designed to excuse or whitewash the actions of the apartheid government. As an example, I am reverting this change which removes a damning quote about the attitude of the police towards the victims of the Sharpeville Massacre. I'm surprised other editors are not doing more to prevent the systematic change in emphasis from this anonymous editor.
Another change by this editor which I am uncomfortable with:
Woohoo, great times everyone! Zaian 10:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
There is some discussion at this page about a rename proposal to Apartheid (alternate meanings). I would like to have input from editors working on this article. There is a growing recognition that while apartheid has traditionally and primarily refers to the South African situation, that its use in other contexts is increasing. See Crime of apartheid, Social apartheid, Israeli apartheid, Social apartheid in Brazil, etc. Your input is valued. Tiamat 23:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the solution now is to move the article back to where it was a couple of months ago when the "A" in apartheid in the title was in lower case. In my opinion, none of this pointless discussion would have been engendered if it had been left by Hayden5650 as History of South Africa in the apartheid era. Phase4 16:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. -- Stemonitis 17:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Some of you may wish to discuss the proposed merge from allegations of apartheid ongoing at Talk:Apartheid -- 146.115.58.152 04:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
See my above comments under the heading "Apartheid apologist?". This same editor has been repeatedly editing the opening paragraph to avoid the term "racial segregation" and to add a slightly peculiar interpretation of what signalled the end of apartheid. I have been reverting them, for reasons described below.
As this editor seems to be unaware of edit summaries and talk pages, I've taken the unusual step of (temporarily) adding a message to them, as an HTML comment, in the article itself.
Mr Louw, I have repeatedly removed your edits to the opening paragraph, for the following reasons:
Please use edit summaries, please log in when editing, and please engage in discussions on the talk page. Zaian 07:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I think this article is unfortunately a bit of a mess, and is in need of some sweet lovin', so I've decided that I'm going to attempt a rewrite of it. I think the biggest problem here is that there's no real organisation, and related to this is that there's some confusion as to the scope of the article.
Now I haven't edited this article before, but I've browsed through the talk archives so I now realise why the article has ended up at this title. However, I don't think that decision is a useful one for the long term, because it has meant that we no longer have an article that is solely about the apartheid policy that was maintained in South Africa in the latter part of the twentieth century. Making things less clear can only harm our readers.
This article should at least be entitled "Apartheid in South Africa" or something like that, so that the scope is clear and other parts of South African history don't have to be accommodated in the article. Obviously apartheid is intimately intertwined with the rest of South African history during the period, but given that this article will obviously be in summary style because of its size,
I've drawn up a draft outline of what a rewritten version might include, available here. Hopefully it provides a clearer structure. I would appreciate any comments that people have on the outline, particularly as to what people think it ought to include; that is, have I missed out anything significant. -- bainer ( talk) 08:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I noticed an awkwardly worded image caption towards the bottom of the page. I'm not quite sure how to fix it, but I wanted to call it out. I've included the box to the right of this comment.
I don't really know what the image is or if it even contributes anything to the article, nor do I really feel that the caption is unbiased or even particularly sensible.
Corwinlw 05:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of Lucky Dube in this article, since according to the Economist he provided the soundtrack to the anti-apartheid movement? Thanks 201.221.71.25 16:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
This article does not meet the basic standards of a good article. It is largely unsourced, much of it is in bullet form and certain areas, including the introduction, are quite lacking in content. Perspicacite (c. 9:33, 3 November 2007)
Wikipedia's MoS clearly says not to use bullets, use paragraphs. Users with accounts should not edit anonymously: WP:SOCK. Jose João ( talk) 05:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm surprised you don't change your user account name again and get rid of the additional baggage.
On the proximate point of bulleted lists within articles, this reference may educate you. Please pay particular attention to the section "Indented List with content" where it states:
However, it can be appropriate to use a list style when the items in list are "children" of the paragraphs that precede them. Such "children" logically qualify for indentation beneath their parent description. In this case, indenting the paragraphs in list form may make them easier to read, especially if the paragraphs are very short. For example:
— Wikipedia Manual of Style: Embedded list
I realise that you are a much more experienced Wikipedian than I, but it is dangerous to be so dogmatic and combative.
May I remind you that I am still waiting for a source within our project for your assertions about passive voice ? Alice.S 02:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Among `white' South Africans were Europeans as well as people from Near East origins. Lebanese, Turks and Iranians were accepted as white but not Indians , why? They are mostly Caucasoid and could claim Aryan heritage. What would a European looking Anglo-Indian like Saira Mohan have been classified as? She could have assumed another identity and passed herself off for fully European(Mediterranean). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.47.77 ( talk • contribs)
Could we consider removing some of the links that don't go anywhere in this article? I would not know how, I'm just a newbie. Take Care, SonicBoom95 16:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
"Many of the inequalities created and maintained by apartheid". I don't know for sure, but I'd bet that this sentence fragment is almost certainly factually incorrect. These inequalities existed during apartheid, but most were probably not created by it, in that they existed before apartheid. 69.111.198.49 00:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Another link-related comment: Under "The apartheid system" there is a link labelled homeland that goes to the Bantustan article. Since I didn't know about the homeland system yet, that confused me. I thought it was a broken link. Perhaps the link should go to the homeland section of this article, which then has a link to the more detailed Bantustan article.
74.128.174.46
14:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me, I'm a newbie, but the page has been vandalised a bit-- a lot of "dfdfdf" for no good reason. Could someone fix it, or tell me how to go about reverting it? Thank you. Ipsenaut 05:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone contribute to the discussion of why links to the Immigration Act of 1924 and the Jim Crow laws are necessary? It seems they are associated with apartheid South Africa for no better reason that they pertain to racial issues in institutional policy. This intermingles American and South African politics erroneously in that the associations are too broad, which is why I request that these links in the See Also section be removed. EnglishEfternamn talk contribs 22:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that these hatreds weren't created by the apartheid policy, perhaps the racial seperationary culture of South Africa prior to Apartheid should be added more to the beginnings.
82.14.87.191 09:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Until recently the opening sentence stated that apartheid "was enforced in South Africa from 1948 to 1994". The end date was recently changed to 1990, which is the date when De Klerk announced the beginning of negotiations. I've changed it back to 1994.
Impi's edit comment justified the date of 1990 by saying that the state ceased enforcing apartheid laws in 1990, but this is only partly true. Apartheid was more than enforcement of individual laws, it was about a racially-based state that was only replaced by a multi-racial government in 1994. Even at the level of laws, many were still enforced after 1990. The most fundamental apartheid law - the Separate Representation of Voters Act - prevented blacks from voting in by-elections and in the referendum of 1992. De Klerk's speech in 1990 was a major step towards ending apartheid, but it is simplistic to say that it was the end of apartheid. The elections in 1994 are, IMHO, more significant as a moment marking the end of apartheid.
Perhaps the opening sentence should be expanded to read "that was enforced in South Africa from 1948, and dismantled through negotiations between 1990 and 1994". Encarta dodges the issue, saying "until the early 1990s". Britannica says "In 1990–91 most apartheid legislation was repealed, but segregation continued on a de facto basis. In 1993 a new constitution enfranchised blacks and other racial groups, and all-race national elections in 1994 produced a coalition government with a black majority. These developments marked the end of legislated apartheid, though not of its entrenched social and economic effects."
Incidentally, giving the years as 1948-1990 disagrees with the title and scope of the article. Zaian 18:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I need help. An IP Address is making quite a lot of edits and I don't particular like one of them where the user deleted a couple sentences and replaced them, including removing a few references. Tried to use Undo, but didn't work. So just making note that there has been a lot of edits that should be checked over. Thanks. Gilawson 20:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The section says that 90% of the poor are black, and then points out that 10% of the population is white. The statement should tell us what percentage of the population is black to be consistent. The way it's worded, assuming the vast majority of citizens are either ethnically black or white, it does not sound at all strange that if 90% of the population is black, that 90% of the poor are black. 76.81.41.58 17:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Dave Cart
There needs to be a section on SA's economic growth, industries, and international position during this period. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.4.116.14 ( talk) 20:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
I thought that I was reading an article about the Apartheid but somehow it ended up talking for more than a paragraph about the Israeli/Palestinian situation. I felt these paragraphs were not only unnecessary, loosely related to the topic at hand, but also incredibly biased. These paragraphs, to me, bring down the whole standard of the article and thus, should not be included in it.
Someone has vandalized this article with profanity and some very offensive terms. Someone who knows how to fix it PLEASE do so.
I removed Template:Discrimination sidebar because I find it too long and too broadly focused and it was placed too prominently in the article. It is nice that Wikipedia has articles about so many discrimination topics and it may even be useful to list them together, but it doesn't belong at the start of the article on apartheid, a fairly specific topic. Maybe at the bottom of the apartheid article, the general discrimination topic guide may be more useful. -- CGM1980 23:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Template:Allegations of apartheid has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Terraxos 02:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
but where is the rest of world now? why dont they ban them from sport. because they have oil! the old south afrika was a threat to america and europe. whit a army no weaker than any other in the world. fokin de klerk!
I am trying to assume good faith in the many edits from 130.102.2.60 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). However, many of the changes from this address seem to be designed to excuse or whitewash the actions of the apartheid government. As an example, I am reverting this change which removes a damning quote about the attitude of the police towards the victims of the Sharpeville Massacre. I'm surprised other editors are not doing more to prevent the systematic change in emphasis from this anonymous editor.
Another change by this editor which I am uncomfortable with:
Woohoo, great times everyone! Zaian 10:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
There is some discussion at this page about a rename proposal to Apartheid (alternate meanings). I would like to have input from editors working on this article. There is a growing recognition that while apartheid has traditionally and primarily refers to the South African situation, that its use in other contexts is increasing. See Crime of apartheid, Social apartheid, Israeli apartheid, Social apartheid in Brazil, etc. Your input is valued. Tiamat 23:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the solution now is to move the article back to where it was a couple of months ago when the "A" in apartheid in the title was in lower case. In my opinion, none of this pointless discussion would have been engendered if it had been left by Hayden5650 as History of South Africa in the apartheid era. Phase4 16:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. -- Stemonitis 17:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Some of you may wish to discuss the proposed merge from allegations of apartheid ongoing at Talk:Apartheid -- 146.115.58.152 04:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
See my above comments under the heading "Apartheid apologist?". This same editor has been repeatedly editing the opening paragraph to avoid the term "racial segregation" and to add a slightly peculiar interpretation of what signalled the end of apartheid. I have been reverting them, for reasons described below.
As this editor seems to be unaware of edit summaries and talk pages, I've taken the unusual step of (temporarily) adding a message to them, as an HTML comment, in the article itself.
Mr Louw, I have repeatedly removed your edits to the opening paragraph, for the following reasons:
Please use edit summaries, please log in when editing, and please engage in discussions on the talk page. Zaian 07:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I think this article is unfortunately a bit of a mess, and is in need of some sweet lovin', so I've decided that I'm going to attempt a rewrite of it. I think the biggest problem here is that there's no real organisation, and related to this is that there's some confusion as to the scope of the article.
Now I haven't edited this article before, but I've browsed through the talk archives so I now realise why the article has ended up at this title. However, I don't think that decision is a useful one for the long term, because it has meant that we no longer have an article that is solely about the apartheid policy that was maintained in South Africa in the latter part of the twentieth century. Making things less clear can only harm our readers.
This article should at least be entitled "Apartheid in South Africa" or something like that, so that the scope is clear and other parts of South African history don't have to be accommodated in the article. Obviously apartheid is intimately intertwined with the rest of South African history during the period, but given that this article will obviously be in summary style because of its size,
I've drawn up a draft outline of what a rewritten version might include, available here. Hopefully it provides a clearer structure. I would appreciate any comments that people have on the outline, particularly as to what people think it ought to include; that is, have I missed out anything significant. -- bainer ( talk) 08:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I noticed an awkwardly worded image caption towards the bottom of the page. I'm not quite sure how to fix it, but I wanted to call it out. I've included the box to the right of this comment.
I don't really know what the image is or if it even contributes anything to the article, nor do I really feel that the caption is unbiased or even particularly sensible.
Corwinlw 05:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of Lucky Dube in this article, since according to the Economist he provided the soundtrack to the anti-apartheid movement? Thanks 201.221.71.25 16:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
This article does not meet the basic standards of a good article. It is largely unsourced, much of it is in bullet form and certain areas, including the introduction, are quite lacking in content. Perspicacite (c. 9:33, 3 November 2007)
Wikipedia's MoS clearly says not to use bullets, use paragraphs. Users with accounts should not edit anonymously: WP:SOCK. Jose João ( talk) 05:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm surprised you don't change your user account name again and get rid of the additional baggage.
On the proximate point of bulleted lists within articles, this reference may educate you. Please pay particular attention to the section "Indented List with content" where it states:
However, it can be appropriate to use a list style when the items in list are "children" of the paragraphs that precede them. Such "children" logically qualify for indentation beneath their parent description. In this case, indenting the paragraphs in list form may make them easier to read, especially if the paragraphs are very short. For example:
— Wikipedia Manual of Style: Embedded list
I realise that you are a much more experienced Wikipedian than I, but it is dangerous to be so dogmatic and combative.
May I remind you that I am still waiting for a source within our project for your assertions about passive voice ? Alice.S 02:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)