Talk:End Conscription Campaign

Ethnopunk (talk) 10:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Anti-war?

While the ECC certainly included people with anti-war sentiments, it wasn't generally an anti-war organisation. Its campaign against conscription was based on the fact that conscription was used to enforce apartheid. I think the anti-war category should be removed. Zaian 18:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The comment above about the ECC not being anti-war per se is correct. They opposed the war in Angola because it was an aggressive proxy Apartheid war - not because they were anti-war. After all, they didn't oppose the war against Apartheid... If you think that I and the person who made the comment above are wrong: source it. Otherwise I agree with the removal from the anti-war category --Adam Brink 09:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think another point to be remembered is some of us had already served two years and then did not do camps. Those who approached the issue from a "Just War" debate were not opposed to war but in fact opposed to the system of Apartheid and did not want to be part of maintaining the status quo! Yes there were those who were "pacifists" eg Jehovahs Witnesses - but most Christians who participated were following the churches Just War Stance. This was in line with the South African Council of Churches 1974 Hammanskraal decision. Namely it stated that "the SADF was "Defending a fundamentally unjust and discriminatory society" and challenged Christians to become CO's" (Out of Step published by Catholic Intitute of International Relations 1989) -One of the main campaigns in the 80's was the Troops Out campaign which was not a pacifist statement but rather a value judgement on Government policy which is why there was a backlash! From the This group were not pacifists so were then liable for time and a half imprisonment! CRDMorley (talk) 07:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CRDMorley (talk • contribs) 07:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Moving with the Times

You're forgetting about opposition to the Angolan War. While you are right that not everybody was anti-war, and some people like Johno Handler had a "just war" approach, others were pacifists or anti-apartheid. However, the page gets lost if its simply another anti-conscription page. I would feel happier with ECC being included in the Peace Movement debates of today, so that we all have the opportunity to re-examine our positions, and to see how, if at all, they have changed. Remember, most of us were pretty young. Conscripts were 18 years of age, and those at the tail end, just before the banning of 1988, never got to articulate clear positions before mass desertions hit the SADF and the system collapsed.

Ethnopunk 12:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree - While it was a peace movement it incorporated a lot more - To only focus the opposition to the Angolan conflict is to do an injustice - The Troops out of the township campaign was big focus. Remember the troops were being deployed to counter the UDF's Making the country Ungovernable campaign. ECC was aligned with the broader Anti Apartheid movement and therefor was more than a Peace Movement - It was a small part of a broader resisence to the Apartheid (eg UDF etc) CRDMorley (talk) 08:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Bit of a clean-up

I have done a bit of a clean up. I think that the article could be improved with more information about (1) the exact details of who was subject to conscription and when - not all white South Africans were, only between certain ages (what were they?) and certain times. It is vague at the moment; (2) who the founders were; (3) other COs - if there was a register where is it now, why not archive it?; (4) when was it dissolved?; (5) what did it do between 1989 and 1993 - bit of a blank at the moment; (6) the ISBN for the source book; (7) a better pic - even better, though, would be to archive all the posters available and link to them; (8) clarity about whether the ECC had a solely anti-Apartheid stance, or whether they were an umbrella-organisation for all objectors (pacifists and the like). from I have taken out the odd comment that reflects POV and I have taken out the reference to the old and new governments failing to recognise ECC COs - it sounds, and please take a deep breath before taking offence, a little petulant: Conscientious objection was driven by a spirit of self-sacrifice not a drive for recognition, and many people, some of them in government, still remember that sacrifice. And expecting the old government to honour the ECC is a bit like expecting the Nazis to honour Raoul Wallenberg! That said: If you can reference it, put it back in. --Adam Brink 09:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't lump everything into one header called "Chronology". This is confusing to readers and doesn't represent the fact that the page is a project that is moving towards completeness. Also you're falling into the trap of assuming your own point of view is neutral. I've reverted to the previous version, and you are free to merge some of your edits back into the article. Check out the page history to access your edits. If you feel that something is a "comment" please report this as a point of view rather than deleting the view point. Also, if there are problems you feel need to be addressed regarding referencing, a simple does the trick, rather than bombing or defacing the page and wiping out other editors' contributions. Here endith the lesson. Ethnopunk 10:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No, here endeth not the lesson. Ethnopunk, I think the way you reverted Adam's contribution was an unconstructive approach. Wholesale reverting is what you do for generally worthless contributions. It seems that Adam put some thought into this article, and came up with a new structure that, while it changed the order somewhat, did not alter the content in a significant way, and makes no less sense than what you may see as "your" version. He also took the time to explain his changes. That seems a pretty constructive approach to writing a collaborative encyclopedia and I don't think he deserved your instant revert. No-one owns this page, whether it's the original author, the main contributor, whoever. Zaian 11:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Listen, if you want my wholesale attention, then follow some kind of structure that doesn't turn the page into one big mess. There was basically nothing here when I arrived, and we can revert back to the very first edit if you carry on this way. Please don't waste my time by starting debatesa bout copytheft, because I don't have time to piss around with copywriters who think they own the ampersand. A simple is all that was needed, and my comments about chronology stand. When I have time, I will take the trouble to look at the other versions, but right now, I don't. Ethnopunk 13:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

My considered opinion is that Adam had put some thought into making a good faith contribution. It's silly to call his version one big mess, even if you dislike it. May I suggest you're being rather touchy about some constructive criticism. Zaian 14:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I need to defend myself or my edits more than Zaian has done for me (for which I thank him). --Adam Brink 14:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Suspected copyright violation

A portion of the article (the reference to Kobie Coetzee) has been lifted verbatim from the source. Could whoever did it either demonstrate that this use is permitted or paraphrase it so it is not verbatim? --Adam Brink 09:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Please add the source as a reference rather than getting stuck in the world of copyviolation. Its not useful and quite destructive if you see everything in the world from the point of view of copyright. I've gone and added a <reference/> tag under References to speed this process up.

Ethnopunk 11:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, its very suspicious that there seems to be no User:Adam Brink, so he could be a spy or a government plant. Who knows. Anybody remember the spying saga at UCT campus? Is he about to edit out Vlok's comments about the ECC? Ethnopunk 14:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a bit paranoid. He is a valid user, he just hasn't created a user page. I'm out of this discussion now. Zaian 14:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Zaian is correct. On the copyright point, this isn't an issue of citation. No citation is needed because it is easy to see where the text is lifted from. The only internet-based cited source (http://www.wri-irg.org/co/rtba/index.html)says "On 24 August 1993 Minister of Defence Kobie Coetsee announced the end of conscription. In 1994 there would be no more call-ups for the one-year initial training. But although conscription was suspended it was not entirely abandoned. Indeed in January 1994 for the first time there was no call-up for initial training, but at the same time conscripts who had already undergone training could be subject to "camp" call-ups. Actually "camp" call-ups reached record proportions over the period of the April 1994 elections, and for the first time in history the ECC called on conscripts to consider these call-ups to be different from previous call-ups. Until the August 1994 moratorium on prosecutions for not responding to call-ups, several of those who did not respond to "camp" call-ups were fined". The article says: "On 24 August 1993 Minister of Defence Kobie Coetsee announced the end of conscription. In 1994 there would be no more call-ups for the one-year initial training. But although conscription was suspended it was not entirely abandoned. Indeed in January 1994 for the first time there was no call-up for initial training, but at the same time conscripts who had already undergone training could be subject to "camp" call-ups. Actually "camp" call-ups reached record proportions over the period of the April 1994 elections, and for the first time in history the ECC called on conscripts to consider these call-ups to be different from previous call-ups." The article simply lifts the words verbatim from the source, violating its copyright. This is not how I understand Wikipedia to work. And to suggest that I am a police spy is uncivil. I would welcome an apology if you feel up to it. --Adam Brink 14:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Ethnopunk, are you going to clear up this copyright issue? --Adam Brink 14:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see wikipedia's policy on Fair use. One can use certain types of material without worrying about copyright and the issue is one of citation I believe. I'm going rectify this on the page.Also please see WP:HECEthnopunk 13:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for referring me to the HEC. Not sure what you are implying, given the above, but I will assume you mean no harm and will be sure to bear the HEC in mind. About the copyright though: I am not sure that it falls under the 'fair use' exception. Wikipedia policy is that when there is doubt, one should assume that it is not fair use and respect the author's moral rights of authorship (this is what respecting copyright is...). But if you wish to fall under the fair use you should at the very least put the lifted text in quotes and say where you lifted it from, which is what I presume you intend. But the simplest remedy is to paraphrase the work instead of lifting long passages word for word. Why would one not do that? --Adam Brink 14:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

First off, you're crazy to assume that one paragraph is a "long passage". This is not like pages and pages or anywhere near the lenght of the piece you quoted above. Secondly, the War Restisters International material is copyright free to non-profit organisations. I asked Andreas Speck, and this is the reply

Hi Ethnopunk, there is no problem with using material from our site, as long as it is somehow sourced... This is especially true for non-profit projects (which Wikipedia certainly is).

Best wishes, Andreas Speck WRI Office Coordinator

Please respect the wishes of the people who created the material in the first place, and stop driving a hardline view on copyright that you seem to have gained from code writing or something.

Ethnopunk 09:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, you've resolved the issue by getting the permission of the person who created it. Was that so hard? Of course you also manage to throw some petty little digs in. You have been warned about civility repeatedly. Re-read WP:CIVIL. --Adam Brink 15:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh please, you're going on about camp call-ups and sounding like a queen.Ethnopunk 10:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm. A little homophobia rounds your contributions off nicely. Even if you thought the pun was clever (if you spotted it at all). I think I will just leave you to stew in your own juice. No more responses from me: cheers. --Adam Brink 15:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Chronology

A chronology should be a short, precis of events, done in point form so as not to confuse us and to allow readers to an idea of the historical landmarks that lead to the formation of the ECC, various events whilst it was operating, and its eventual banning etc etc. Perhaps this should be a seperate page. BTW I've just found an excellent chapter on resistance to war by Jacklyn Cock, with good references to the ECC as an organisation. Ethnopunk 11:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Jacklyn Cock wrote Maids and Madams, which Blew My Mind when I was at school. I think I read it a million times. --Adam Brink 14:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that conscription was only cut to one year's initial service in 1990, but am far from a source to confirm this. Does anyone have access to the SAIRR yearbooks?Grant McKenna 23:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Register of Conscientious Objectors

I was a CO in 1988; there was a register- but I'm buggered if I know where it landed up. The state had a file listing those of us who had formally refused service [I refused in 1988, but my hearing was in 1989, so I was listed from then. The National Register run by the churches was maintained in Bloemfontein, iirc; that was because that was where the Board sat to hear our cases. Grant McKenna 23:42, 30 September 2007 (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)

Bias ?

The article makes the deserters out as heroes.

My opinion is that citizens should not be able to make arbitrary choses as to which laws to obey, especially when those citizens and their families have the right to vote. Aren't the real heroes the people who did their military service and then tried to reform the government and the National Party from within ?

Isn't it bias that my opinion is not represented ?

The article also mentions "suppressing civil war" as the main motive behind the operations in the townships. Wasn't the main motivation the enforcement of law and order ? After the operations ceased the murder rate has shown a huge increase leading me to conclude they were a small price to pay to prevent many deaths, even amongst Blacks. -- Nic Roets (talk) 08:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me be the first to remind you that apartheid was and still is a crime against humanity. Disobeying apartheid laws is known as civil disobedience, and like Bonny & Clyde, those who disobeyed the apartheid regime are now heroes.Ethnopunk (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's what the UN did decide on (so it has to be true?). Seriously that decision was certainly not unbiased. --41.151.107.52 (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Bonny & Clyde were gangster thugs (in real life). If you are referring to the movies, we can agree that the fictionalised versions of the Bonnie & Clyde story portray them as heros. But let's not mix fact and fiction. Nic Roets' statement that "they were a small price to pay to prevent many deaths, even amongst Blacks" has a whiff of racism, as it implies that black (small letter b for this construct please) people's lives are cheaper than white people's lives. 92.29.32.90 (talk) 20:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually it's the opposite: White males paying a relatively small price (being conscripted) to establish and maintain law and order within black areas, which lead to lower murder rates among all races. The deserters refused to pay that "small price". -- Nic Roets (talk) 22:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the deserters paid a comparatively "big" price - jail, ostracisation by society, job loss, banishment etc. And one person's law and order under apartheid was another's political suppression. In any event, this is not a general discussion forum for personal views about this article, so unless you have a reference for your point of view, it's WP:OR.Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

POV

The references to "The apartheid government" are POV. It was the South African government.Royalcourtier (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC) The correct terminology should be apartheid regime. It wasn't a government recognised by most of the world. It had no legitimacy and was undemocratic. For most of the 80s it was effectively a military junta. If anything, the article should correct the impression that there was a government.Ethnopunk (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on End Conscription Campaign. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140731235844/http://www.wits.ac.za/histp/kairos/AG2918series7.html to http://www.wits.ac.za/histp/kairos/AG2918series7.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)