![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 |
the number of people killed differs in Sharpeville massacre from Pan_Africanist_Congress which is correct? Engleman 02:33, 2004 Jun 1 (UTC)
There was no command given to shoot, it wasn't the apartheid goverments policy to shoot at black protestors.
I've flagged the article for several issues, but mainly they can all be summarised as so: the article presents the information in a narrative form as if the article itself is a report on the incident. It does not have the correct encyclopedic "arm's length" view, which could be achieved by properly referencing other published works. In one fell swoop this means the article has problems of verifiability, original research, neutrality and bias. This should be addressed by rewriting in said arm's length "encyclopedic tone". In addition, the title, although popular in the media, implies a very clear and strong point of view which should be avoided. "Sharpville shootings" seems like a viable alternative. Zunaid 15:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I thought the people gathered was 3000-5000?... LazyManJackson 14:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
My textbooks say that the pass books were passed in S.Africa before the Sharpeville Massacre! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skippytim ( talk • contribs) 04:43, 24 October 2006
The article currently has a very dubious section added in a single anonymous submission in February 2005, saying the following:
This portrayal of the police is ludicrous - it sounds like PW at his most cynical, or Cliff Saunders the SABC apartheid apologist. I don't have the 1960 text of The Times article, but I found other sources referring to it. The White Tribe of Africa (BBC, 1987) quotes it referring to the "wicked myth of apartheid" and the "blind obstinacy of Verwoerd", and [1] refers to "an editorial in The Times of London uncharacteristically critical of the police". I think it's very unlikely that it portrayed shocked and helpful policeman rushing forward to help their victims.
The paragraph goes on to water it down further, portraying the massacre as a sort of accident, with the following POV excuse:
Can anyone supply the actual text of the Times article? Otherwise I think this section should be completely removed or rewritten. Zaian 20:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I have now removed the offensive paragraph. Zaian 20:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Is there any picture of this event? -- Vojvodaen 13:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The term for the tragical incident is loaded language. The police actually acted in self defence. ( 41.208.204.69 16:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)).
The picture shown here was branded a fake at the time. This is mentioned in several History books including the one I used at school in the 1970's (sorry I haven't a reference). If you look carefully in the centre of the picture a guy who appears to be dead is looking up at the camera.
In addition the emotive term massacre used here was a media invention. I believe in terms of the definition of the word this does not qualify since there was clearly provocation although its disputed whether it was armed or unarmed (ie if stones were thrown or not). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.161.173.180 ( talk) 23:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I just wrote an article on United Nations Security Council Resolution 134 and while it does indeed condemn the actions of the Government of the Union of South Africa, as far as I can tell, the Council never "sat to "consider seriously the apartheid colonial oppression of the African people in South Africa"". Unless a somebody can find a refference to that I'm going to change it. - Schrandit 07:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to question the neutrality of this article especially loaded terminology like "massacre". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.207.47.60 ( talk) 20:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I personally knew many of the people involved on that day and posted a highly detailed account of what they said besides listing the most authorative books and PhD theses on the subject. However this was all removed a day later from this forum. Mind you, Wikipedia is not alone for such stupidity. I once sent 18 hours recorded interviews plus photos documents of the PAC leaders and others involved on a DVD data disk to Boston University library and they told me they had no use for it and were destroying it! Fortunately Cape Town, Michigan, and otherr universities welcomed it. It is true PAC did prepare for violence at Sharpeville but Sobukwe overruled it. It si a pity whoever controls this blog is either an ANC/SACP stooge or an ignoramus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ntsukunyane Mphanya ( talk • contribs) 04:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
If the "mood began turning unexpectedly hostile. The increasingly agitated mob now adopted a common attitude which was later described as "insulting, menacing, and provocative"". So why does the introduction persist in saying that the crowd was peaceful? Royalcourtier ( talk) 04:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
While taking into account the fact that certain chapters of "The Plot against South Africa" can be a bit exaggerated, Vaque's section on the Sharpeville Massacre, in my opinion, is not just pro-apartheid and pro-police apologist nonsense. He provides credible sources, including quoted statements from South African officials and witnesses who were there at the time. On another note, the incident at Cato Manor was a massacre for the police. Have you actually checked the Cato Manor article and read about how brutally the captured white and black constables alike were treated? They were indeed "savagely murdered". -- Katangais ( talk) 21:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I feel it expedient to start a new sub-thread. "The Plot against South Africa" is listed as authored by some Charles Thomas McGhee, not Kraus D. Vaqué. Are there two books sharing their title? If not, when and perhaps why has this mistake been introduced? — Be as it may, concern has been raised above about Kraus Vaqué's neutrality on the topic. Given that the book is already quite old, wouldn't it be more adequate to tag the claims about the Sharpeville massacre as in need of better citation? Specially considering as the article's introduction states that there is ambivalence in the historical records about whether the student movement was aggressive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.148.9.204 ( talk) 19:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Could this be usefully added to the Aftermath section?
The widespead sdoption of the ill-defined but highly-charged word 'massacre' to describe the events which took place at Sharpville amplified its significance far beyond the bare facts. In much the same way that the 'Peterloo Massacre' of 1819 acquired semi-legendary status amongst the British working class political movement, so the use of the word massacre to describe the deaths at Sharpeville also ensured they quickly became part of the fusion of fact and emotion which characterises all political revolutions.
(Just as a postscript, the foundation mythology of all nations is a fascinating topic. That of the USA is particulalry instructive since it is in historical terms quite recent and is well documented. Everything from the Boston Tea Party to George Washington's cherry tree and on through to the use of the word 'patriot' have been mythologised to the point where popular US history often bears little, and sometimes no, relationship to the facts).
S. Ainsworth United Kingdom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.0.73 ( talk) 10:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
No, surely these are facts not opinion: 1. the word massacre is factually ill-defined, 2. the word is emotive. and 3 the use of that word did help propel Sharpeville into an iconic and thus 'quasi-mythical' event which in turn contributed to the eventually political revolution. This does not downplay Sharpeville but rather the other way around, in that both the actual events AND the name they were given have an objective significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.21.253 ( talk) 19:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
No, you misunderstand. The name of the event is 'The Sharpville Massacre'. That is what it was and is called, and what it should therefore rightly remain. But my point is that the choice of any name also has an objective significance beyond, or distinct from, the events - and that the choice of the word 'massacre' had in its own right consequences worthy of note. S Ainsworth 30.1.12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.11.211 ( talk) 14:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
No, I simply refer you back to the first paragraph in this section. S Ainsworth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.3.250 ( talk) 09:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is know for biast reporting and deleting of information it don't want the public to know. The Marikana Massacre vs Sharpville Massacre will be another good example. Wikipedia already indicated it will not dedicate a page to compare these two massacres, as it will be against the biast nature of the Wikipedia encyclopedia if it allows such a page. Wikipedia is in the business of apartheid bashing & one-sided reporting.
According to Mg.co.za, estimated police killed more than 30 striking platinum miners in the bloodiest security operation since the end of white rule. South African Minister for Safety and Security, Nathi Mthethwa, put the number of dead at "more than 30", while the NUM put the figure at 36. We already have public holiday on the 21 march for human rights I wonder what kind of democracy now will make 16 August second human rights holiday to commemorate Marikana platinum plant killed by police or just remove 12 much seems like there is nothing to celebrate .
The Sharpeville Massacre occurred on 21 March 1960, at the police station in the South African township of Sharpeville in the Transvaal (today part of Gauteng). After a day of demonstrations, at which a crowd of black protesters far outnumbered the police, the South African police opened fire on the crowd, killing 69 people. Sources disagree as to the behaviour of the crowd; some state that the crowd were peaceful, while others state that the crowd had been hurling stones at the police, and that the shooting started when the crowd started advancing toward the fence around the police station.
In present day South Africa, 21 March is celebrated as a public holiday to commemorate the Sharpeville Massacre and to celebrate South Africa's democratic government enforcing equal human rights.
What is the difference between Lonmin Marikana of 16 August 2012 when so called democratic police open fire on the crowd of black protesters killing more 30 people, to the 21 March 1960 Sharpeville township massacre near Johannesburg, when apartheid police opened fire on a crowd of black protesters, killing more than 50 people?
Just do an internet search on "Wikipedia Bias"
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100046255/wikipedia-bias-jimmy-wales-does-the-right-thing/ http://wikipediabias.com/ http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v06n16.shtml http://www.ahealedplanet.net/wikimass.htm
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Sharpeville massacre. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
With all due respect the information you have is incorrect Thato Maseko ( talk) 09:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Rectify it!?! Queen mash ( talk) 05:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 |
the number of people killed differs in Sharpeville massacre from Pan_Africanist_Congress which is correct? Engleman 02:33, 2004 Jun 1 (UTC)
There was no command given to shoot, it wasn't the apartheid goverments policy to shoot at black protestors.
I've flagged the article for several issues, but mainly they can all be summarised as so: the article presents the information in a narrative form as if the article itself is a report on the incident. It does not have the correct encyclopedic "arm's length" view, which could be achieved by properly referencing other published works. In one fell swoop this means the article has problems of verifiability, original research, neutrality and bias. This should be addressed by rewriting in said arm's length "encyclopedic tone". In addition, the title, although popular in the media, implies a very clear and strong point of view which should be avoided. "Sharpville shootings" seems like a viable alternative. Zunaid 15:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I thought the people gathered was 3000-5000?... LazyManJackson 14:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
My textbooks say that the pass books were passed in S.Africa before the Sharpeville Massacre! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skippytim ( talk • contribs) 04:43, 24 October 2006
The article currently has a very dubious section added in a single anonymous submission in February 2005, saying the following:
This portrayal of the police is ludicrous - it sounds like PW at his most cynical, or Cliff Saunders the SABC apartheid apologist. I don't have the 1960 text of The Times article, but I found other sources referring to it. The White Tribe of Africa (BBC, 1987) quotes it referring to the "wicked myth of apartheid" and the "blind obstinacy of Verwoerd", and [1] refers to "an editorial in The Times of London uncharacteristically critical of the police". I think it's very unlikely that it portrayed shocked and helpful policeman rushing forward to help their victims.
The paragraph goes on to water it down further, portraying the massacre as a sort of accident, with the following POV excuse:
Can anyone supply the actual text of the Times article? Otherwise I think this section should be completely removed or rewritten. Zaian 20:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I have now removed the offensive paragraph. Zaian 20:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Is there any picture of this event? -- Vojvodaen 13:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The term for the tragical incident is loaded language. The police actually acted in self defence. ( 41.208.204.69 16:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)).
The picture shown here was branded a fake at the time. This is mentioned in several History books including the one I used at school in the 1970's (sorry I haven't a reference). If you look carefully in the centre of the picture a guy who appears to be dead is looking up at the camera.
In addition the emotive term massacre used here was a media invention. I believe in terms of the definition of the word this does not qualify since there was clearly provocation although its disputed whether it was armed or unarmed (ie if stones were thrown or not). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.161.173.180 ( talk) 23:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I just wrote an article on United Nations Security Council Resolution 134 and while it does indeed condemn the actions of the Government of the Union of South Africa, as far as I can tell, the Council never "sat to "consider seriously the apartheid colonial oppression of the African people in South Africa"". Unless a somebody can find a refference to that I'm going to change it. - Schrandit 07:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to question the neutrality of this article especially loaded terminology like "massacre". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.207.47.60 ( talk) 20:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I personally knew many of the people involved on that day and posted a highly detailed account of what they said besides listing the most authorative books and PhD theses on the subject. However this was all removed a day later from this forum. Mind you, Wikipedia is not alone for such stupidity. I once sent 18 hours recorded interviews plus photos documents of the PAC leaders and others involved on a DVD data disk to Boston University library and they told me they had no use for it and were destroying it! Fortunately Cape Town, Michigan, and otherr universities welcomed it. It is true PAC did prepare for violence at Sharpeville but Sobukwe overruled it. It si a pity whoever controls this blog is either an ANC/SACP stooge or an ignoramus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ntsukunyane Mphanya ( talk • contribs) 04:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
If the "mood began turning unexpectedly hostile. The increasingly agitated mob now adopted a common attitude which was later described as "insulting, menacing, and provocative"". So why does the introduction persist in saying that the crowd was peaceful? Royalcourtier ( talk) 04:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
While taking into account the fact that certain chapters of "The Plot against South Africa" can be a bit exaggerated, Vaque's section on the Sharpeville Massacre, in my opinion, is not just pro-apartheid and pro-police apologist nonsense. He provides credible sources, including quoted statements from South African officials and witnesses who were there at the time. On another note, the incident at Cato Manor was a massacre for the police. Have you actually checked the Cato Manor article and read about how brutally the captured white and black constables alike were treated? They were indeed "savagely murdered". -- Katangais ( talk) 21:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I feel it expedient to start a new sub-thread. "The Plot against South Africa" is listed as authored by some Charles Thomas McGhee, not Kraus D. Vaqué. Are there two books sharing their title? If not, when and perhaps why has this mistake been introduced? — Be as it may, concern has been raised above about Kraus Vaqué's neutrality on the topic. Given that the book is already quite old, wouldn't it be more adequate to tag the claims about the Sharpeville massacre as in need of better citation? Specially considering as the article's introduction states that there is ambivalence in the historical records about whether the student movement was aggressive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.148.9.204 ( talk) 19:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Could this be usefully added to the Aftermath section?
The widespead sdoption of the ill-defined but highly-charged word 'massacre' to describe the events which took place at Sharpville amplified its significance far beyond the bare facts. In much the same way that the 'Peterloo Massacre' of 1819 acquired semi-legendary status amongst the British working class political movement, so the use of the word massacre to describe the deaths at Sharpeville also ensured they quickly became part of the fusion of fact and emotion which characterises all political revolutions.
(Just as a postscript, the foundation mythology of all nations is a fascinating topic. That of the USA is particulalry instructive since it is in historical terms quite recent and is well documented. Everything from the Boston Tea Party to George Washington's cherry tree and on through to the use of the word 'patriot' have been mythologised to the point where popular US history often bears little, and sometimes no, relationship to the facts).
S. Ainsworth United Kingdom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.0.73 ( talk) 10:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
No, surely these are facts not opinion: 1. the word massacre is factually ill-defined, 2. the word is emotive. and 3 the use of that word did help propel Sharpeville into an iconic and thus 'quasi-mythical' event which in turn contributed to the eventually political revolution. This does not downplay Sharpeville but rather the other way around, in that both the actual events AND the name they were given have an objective significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.21.253 ( talk) 19:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
No, you misunderstand. The name of the event is 'The Sharpville Massacre'. That is what it was and is called, and what it should therefore rightly remain. But my point is that the choice of any name also has an objective significance beyond, or distinct from, the events - and that the choice of the word 'massacre' had in its own right consequences worthy of note. S Ainsworth 30.1.12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.11.211 ( talk) 14:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
No, I simply refer you back to the first paragraph in this section. S Ainsworth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.3.250 ( talk) 09:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is know for biast reporting and deleting of information it don't want the public to know. The Marikana Massacre vs Sharpville Massacre will be another good example. Wikipedia already indicated it will not dedicate a page to compare these two massacres, as it will be against the biast nature of the Wikipedia encyclopedia if it allows such a page. Wikipedia is in the business of apartheid bashing & one-sided reporting.
According to Mg.co.za, estimated police killed more than 30 striking platinum miners in the bloodiest security operation since the end of white rule. South African Minister for Safety and Security, Nathi Mthethwa, put the number of dead at "more than 30", while the NUM put the figure at 36. We already have public holiday on the 21 march for human rights I wonder what kind of democracy now will make 16 August second human rights holiday to commemorate Marikana platinum plant killed by police or just remove 12 much seems like there is nothing to celebrate .
The Sharpeville Massacre occurred on 21 March 1960, at the police station in the South African township of Sharpeville in the Transvaal (today part of Gauteng). After a day of demonstrations, at which a crowd of black protesters far outnumbered the police, the South African police opened fire on the crowd, killing 69 people. Sources disagree as to the behaviour of the crowd; some state that the crowd were peaceful, while others state that the crowd had been hurling stones at the police, and that the shooting started when the crowd started advancing toward the fence around the police station.
In present day South Africa, 21 March is celebrated as a public holiday to commemorate the Sharpeville Massacre and to celebrate South Africa's democratic government enforcing equal human rights.
What is the difference between Lonmin Marikana of 16 August 2012 when so called democratic police open fire on the crowd of black protesters killing more 30 people, to the 21 March 1960 Sharpeville township massacre near Johannesburg, when apartheid police opened fire on a crowd of black protesters, killing more than 50 people?
Just do an internet search on "Wikipedia Bias"
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100046255/wikipedia-bias-jimmy-wales-does-the-right-thing/ http://wikipediabias.com/ http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v06n16.shtml http://www.ahealedplanet.net/wikimass.htm
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Sharpeville massacre. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
With all due respect the information you have is incorrect Thato Maseko ( talk) 09:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Rectify it!?! Queen mash ( talk) 05:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)