Talk:History of South Africa/Archive 1

Archive 1

Added a refernece to the bantustans/homelands and migrant labour, it needs some filling out. anyone with more info? Peregrine

This article needs beefing up. I wanted to link to an area called "ant-apartheid movement" and then discovered that there wasn't one. This article makes it sound like the calendar solved apartheid: "...the 1990s ushered in a new government...". Need some knowledgeable people to fill in here in this important topic.

I've been writing in chronological order and working towards that time frame, but as you can see I've only got to Soweto so far. Please do go ahead and add some stuff if you can. -kwertii

--

The stuff about everyone rushing off to Australia and the economy going into rapid decline is nonsense. I've replaced it, but it needs much more detail - an analysis of RDP and GEAR, increase in growth rate at the same time as the increase in unemployment, AIDS, etc

-- Can you cite a case of UK etc AIDS money going to cars? The KZN AIDS fiasco meant the money was lost, not misused.

---

This is a good article. But there is some duplication between this and apartheid. Paul Beardsell 19:46, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Xhosa

You have confused Xhosa who are a Bantu-speaking people with the Khoisan, who include Khoi-Khoi (once known as Hottentots) and San (formerly Bushmen) who speak distinctive click languages, with sounds made by clicking the tongue. The archeological evidence suggests that the Khoisan were the hunter-gatherer people who dominated until around 200 A.D. when they were dispalced by an iron-age cattle herding people, presumably the Bantu. This is based on archeological evidence which can only confirm the material culture, but fits with the linguistic evidence and continuity to historical times. There is some inter-action, the Khoi-Khoi had iron tools and cattle by the time of the Dutch arrival and it is presumed that the acquired them by trade or escaped slaves from the Bantu.

---

The above anonymous contribution may or may not be correct but the point is: Edit boldly! Edit the article, not the talk page. Paul Beardsell 11:40, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What's SA doing now that the shine is off Novirapine's marble?[1] Kwantus 19:35, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC) (Who has been crisped quite enough Boldly Editing Sacred Cows thankyouverymuch.)

Rewrite

I just posted a large rewrite to this article. While I highly appreciate the contributions of everyone who has worked on this article before, I found that the previous article did not flow every well, and the apartheid section was quite massive while other sections did not seem to join into the next. I tried to address that with this rewrite, as well as adding images. I am more than willing to re-incorporate content from the previous version, in fact, I would appreciate it. Thanks so much! Páll 21:31, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I tried to make article NPOV, as it was clearly anti-apartheid. Maybe I moved it too far, but if I did at some places you can change those places into something else. Also I changed names of paragraphs which were uninformational and emotional, and it wasnt clear from reading them what the paragraph would be about. Also written a new chapter about downsides of current south africa. Edit if you want but I dont think there is a need to revert page, as the previous form of article was really biasedDeirYassin 04:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While I agree that there are parts of the article that isn't as NPOV as I'd like, there are a lot of bad changes (grammar and inflection) that you are introducing. For that reason I think it is best to revert it; maybe you would find it usefule to tackle the article section-for-section, so that we can work on it systematically? Dewet 10:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, now that I've thought about it, this article is way too long already. Maybe it would make sense to split it into subarticles by date, similar to the Cape Colony series?

If there are changes you agree with, I think you should leave them there ; if you cannot corect mistakes yourself, I am sure someone else would soon if the article is left on, that's how it always happens; English is not my native language. While after deleting useful info and changes and NPOVing, it will take a way longer time before someone else would decide to do itDeirYassin 12:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with yoru statements, DeirYassin. Your changes made the article worse, and in only few ways better. You introduced spelling mistakes, grammar mistakes, and made the flow of the article much less elegant. It is much better to start slow, then to make huge changes and then complain when people blanket revert them ebcause they don't want to go through the text sentence by sentence to fix spelling mistakes introduced by someone. Páll 14:26, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

POV-check

Given the sensitivity of the topic, I'll spell everything out on the talk page. I've rewritten some statements I considered too POV. Mind you, I agree with them.

"Darkest times"—too emotionally loaded.

"Gusto" implies an inappropriate enthusiasm.

"Most odious" by whose standards?

JRM · Talk 08:42, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)

Quite like your edits, keep up the good work! Páll 08:45, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Images

As discussed in the FAC nomination, there were problems with a bunch of the images. Someone has discovered that a lot of the apartheid-era photos are actually available from the UN without the noncommercial restriction, and has retagged them -- yay! I've also gone through and replaced some of the legally problematic images with ones from the UN that don't have the legal problems, and I've added some more images from the UN archive. In some cases, this has resulted in the juxtaposition of photos from one time period with text from another. For instance, next to the discussion of the Separate Amenities Act, I've placed a photo of a segregated beach from 30 years later. There are simply a lot more images available from the end of the 20th century than from the beginning, and it's not practical to cram them all in at the end of the article. In some cases I had to put a photo in a subsection before or after the subsection where it really belonged, just because of formatting concerns.--Bcrowell 16:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Splitting up article?

Now that the History of South Africa article has been renominated for FA, there has been some discussion about taking out some of its content and moving it into other articles. Some people think the apartheid-era section of the HSA article is out of proportion to the article as a whole. Other people, including me, think that it's not out of proportion, but that the article as a whole is simply too long, and should be split up. (The recommended upper limit on length of 32k is a rough guideline, but the HSA article is currently about 60k, which is indeed very big.) Complications: (1) the HSA article is currently being discussed as an FA candidate, and splitting it into pieces might derail that; (2) a lot of the apartheid-era history is duplicated in the apartheid article, but that article has been enduring a revert war. To me, it would make sense to split the HSA article into three parts: before apartheid, apartheid era, and post-apartheid. I don't think there's any useful distinction between the kind of stuff that's now in the apartheid article and the kind of stuff that's now in the apartheid-era section of the HSA article, and I think the useful contents of both should be merged, and should replace the current apartheid article. User:Maveric149 originally volunteered to move a bunch of stuff out of HSA and into apartheid this weekend, but doesn't seem to have done it, and has not responded to my attempts to initiate discussion about how to do it -- probably he's just been busy.--Bcrowell 21:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes - I was busy this weekend. On the spur of the moment my partner and I decided to spend most of the weekend in Great Smoky Mountains National Park. I think your idea for splitting makes a great deal of sense in the long term but there still will be a need for a general survey-level article that introduces the whole history of South Africa. As a first step I can split off the ==Apartheid== section to history of apartheid, leave an abridged summary of that here (just under half the length of the current section) and then create a lead section for the history of apartheid article from the abridged summary. This should take me a couple hours. That new article can stay as-is until the revert war at apartheid settles down. Then we can merge the two if that makes sense. Once the ==Apartheid== section is thus reduced we can get a better idea of what else needs to be trimmed and by how much. I think it will be very hard to do justice to the history of this country with anything less than 40KB. It is always harder to be comprehensive using less text but the result is often much more useful to readers. --mav 00:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like a good plan to me. It's great that you're willing to put in the work! Let me know if you can use a hand with anything.--Bcrowell 03:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've looked back at the FA discussion, and my perception is that the discussion is no longer active, and there is not going to be a consensus in favor, so the article will fail to become an FA. If other people agree with my perception, then I don't think the FA process should stop us from going ahead and doing major changes. Or...hmm...maybe I'm wrong; it looks like Maveric149 may be saying that he'd change his vote once text was moved, and Carnildo has crossed out most of the objections about the copyright status of the images...? --Bcrowell 21:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Somebody will also need to add a whole bunch of inline cites as well before I remove my objection. But I'll help with the summarizing either way if there is consensus to go down that path. I'll be able to do this after work on Tuesday. --mav 00:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is harder than I thought it would be and will take longer than I estimated. But I'm still working. Since I'm reducing text it does not matter if others edit the longer version since all those edits will be moved once I'm done. --mav 03:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've run out of time for now (have a vacation to get ready for). That, combined with the fact that nobody seems interested in providing the needed inline cites means that this FAC will almost certainly fail. What little I've done so far is at Talk:History of apartheid. Much work still needs to be done and I'll try to get back to this sometime after I get back from vacation. What is really needed is for somebody more familiar with this country's history to work on the summary. I simply don't know what bits are more important than others. It might be easier to start with a really old version of the longer sections and just clean them up to act as summaries. --mav 01:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Apartheid article has more or less recovered from its revert war, and is no longer protected. There is discussion now on Talk:Apartheid, under "interpretation of vote; starting from 1948," which I hope people who care about the History of South Africa article will take a look at. If Apartheid becomes something like History of South Africa in the Apartheid Era, and absorbs the relevant content from the HSA article, then HSA will actually be the only article discussing the colonial period. That might have the effect of moving the revert war to HSA, since the revert war revolved around a description of colonization. However, there has been a vote on Talk:Apartheid, which has clearly established a strong consensus about how to resolve the revert war (by a majority of either 78% or 92%, depending on whose criteria you like for voting eligibility), and I think the anon's efforts are waning, since he has to realize now that with so many editors against him, his version won't stand.--Bcrowell 8 July 2005 22:22 (UTC)

Since I originally posted about this back in June, and nobody has objected, I've gone ahead and created a History of South Africa in the Apartheid Era article by merging the text of Apartheid with the relevant parts of History of South Africa. I'm going to go ahead and start cutting out the duplicated content from this article.--Bcrowell 9 July 2005 17:41 (UTC)

Forced removals in the 1960s

I see very little here about the forced removals of non-whites in the middle years of apartheid - am I missing something somewhere? This is a critical issue for the non-white South African folk using Wikipedia and hoping to see some detail about the circumstances that led to forced removals, and (more importantly) left the unfortunate souls involved in desperate circumstances. We are researching some of this in the context of the Swartland (the 'Riebeek Valley' in the Western Cape) where there is a published history that seems to presume that there were no forced removals. There were ...

Any comments?

Arrival of the Dutch

Most survivors were left with no option but to work for the Europeans in an exploitative arrangement that differed little from slavery.

Does "exploitative arrangement that differed little from slavery" mean "indentured servitude"? It's not very clear what the arrangement was, exactly. 74.74.221.4 03:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Jason

POV

The anonymous editor 193.254.155.48 has made fairly large changes to this article, carefully inserting pro-Boer bias wherever possible, and removing anything remotely critical. There are also good-looking factual changes included as well, so I don't just want to revert everything. However, it does need some more work to remove the bias. For convenience, here's a link to the changes made by this editor: [2] Greenman 16:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Seems like quite a lot of work went into this. Do we know this editor ? They have only done this page from this IP, but perhaps someone recognises the style ? Wizzy…☎ 14:51, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted the changes. As I see it, the problems with this batch of edits were as follows: (1) lots and lots of spelling, grammar, and formatting problems; (2) strong pro-Boer POV; (3) too much done all at once; (4) too many controversial edits done without consultation on the the talk page. It's quite possible that the article had somewhat of a pro-British/anti-Boer slant before, but these edits simply dripped pro-Boer POV. If 193.254.155.48 wants come back and work on this in a more consultative way, that would be great.--Bcrowell 15:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

And now there is anti Boer slant included. Something like "so-called" Boer Republics. This is prejudicial at least. Please check the text for relating issues. --41.135.5.123 (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Need a good image for lead; or continue process of spinning off sub-articles?

This article really looks bare without an image next to the lead. Any ideas? Looking through the images in this article, and in History of South Africa in the apartheid era, I'm not finding much that seems appropriate. Another possibility would be to do it sort of like History of the United States, where you have one main article that starts with a table of contents, and does little more than point to the sub-articles. To me, the current state of the article seems a little strange and asymmetric, since the apartheid-era stuff has been spun off, but the colonial and post-apartheid stuff hasn't. Maybe the difficulty of finding a properly iconic image is really a symptom of the fact that the article is in this strange state. If people agree with the idea of continuing the spinning-off process, what would be a good periodization, and good titles?--Bcrowell 15:30, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Improvement drive

A related topic, spice trade, is currently nominated on WP:IDRIVE. Support or comment on the nomination there if you are interested.--Fenice 09:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

South Africa's missing history

"Although many important events occurred during this period, apartheid was the central fact around which most of the historical issues of this period revolved."

Sure, apartheid happened. But alot more happened in South Africa! The weapons trade with Israel? The nuclear bomb development? The differing governments and their policies?

Just because apartheid is what the rest of the world focuses on does not mean it was the sole event in this period of South Africa's history. I'd hope that this article does not get featured article status before this issue is addressed - Political Correctness should not coax the editors of this article into swaying away from an integral part of the country's history.

- G 13:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

British and Dutch version of this Article

The British and Dutch version of this article concerning the British colonization of South Africa do not match. --Martin253 22:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The French Revolution and its effect on the History of South Africa

I need to verify this and shore up the facts, but... The arrival of the English at the Cape was not simply to 'fill a vacuum'! What I believe happened is this. After the French Revolution, the possibilty of a revolution spreading through Europe placed the position of European royalty and nobility in jeopardy. The surrounding Monarchies rallied behind what was left of the deposed French nobility and under threat of war attempted to sway the revolutionaries to reinstate the monarchy. The revolutionaries retailated by threatening to take the revolution to these countries. The Dutch Prince of Orange approached the English Monarchy for help, and the Cape of Good hope was traded for the protection of the Dutch royalty. Though no revolution occurred in the Netherlands, Napoleon's army invaded. The British sent a warship to the Cape, and when they landed on the shores of False Bay and presented to the Dutch settlers the news that the Cape was now English sovereign territory, the settlers did not believe them and the Battle of Muizenberg ensued. The British were victorious. When, some months later, the news arrived from the Netherlands that the English had indeed been given the Cape, Gordon - the commander of the Dutch force at the Cape - after whom Gordon's Bay is named, committed suicide. Potion 21:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Transition Period Missing

South Africa didn't simply go from the Apartheid era to Post-Apartheid. There was a wonderful transition that seems to have gotten lost, beginning 1990 when the ANC was unbanned and Mandela was released, and ending in 1994 with the first democratic election. Does anybody want to write a main article on the transition period? Please lets not forget our heritage Ethnopunk 11:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

re: Main articles - these are usually spun out when they get too big for the original (this ..) article. Can you try (as you are doing) expanding it here, and if size warrants, then doing a separate article ?

Also, do check 1990 in South Africa, 1991 in South Africa, 1992 in South Africa, 1993 in South Africa, etc.., but, you are right, it needs expansion here. Wizzy…☎ 11:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Initial Colonization

I remember hearing that when the Dutch first colonized South Africa, the boers colonized in areas that were completely uninhabited, and it wasn't until the English arrived that there was any contact between Europeans and Africans in the region. Can anyone confirm this? R'son-W 06:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Simply not true, although the fiction of an empty land colonised by Europeans suited successive white governments. Early colonisation was characterised by continous contact between Europeans and Khoikhoi in the frontier zone - ships had been bartering with Khoikhoi inhabitants of Table Bay for 60 years before the Dutch founded a settlement at Cape Town - and there was contact between Europeans and Bantu-speaking African people from the early 1700s. Humansdorpie 20:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Into the Future

I think that ending this article with comment on emigration and gated communities is POV. In fact, though gated communities may be fairly prevalent in Johannesburg's northern suburbs, that's really only of concern to wealthy people who reside in Johannesburg, a fraction of the country's population.

I propose (me or someone else) rewriting the end to be more NPOV. I'll park that thought for now - any ideas are appreciated. Caroline Greenway 09:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

kingdom to republic

when did south africa become a republic and how? I can't see it mentioned in the article 82.110.109.208 14:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The move from Union - not Kingdom :) - gets a brief mention at History_of_South_Africa_in_the_apartheid_era#International_relations, a sub-article of this one. Could do with a mention here though, and a more complete writeup. Greenman 23:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot about the move to republic in the article on H.F. Verwoerd, the NP prime minister who got the referendum through. The Union was a Dominion of the British Empire previously and the British monarch was also monarch of the Dominions, including South Africa. Wikipedia has an article on King of South Africa. Under Union, the head of state was the British high commissioner; with republic, S.A. got an independent state president -- mostly ceremonial until the 1983 constitutional revision which abolished the Westminster style parliament & established a strong executive presidency, comparable to de Gaulle's changes in France. Chris Lowe 05:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

From 1910 to 1931, the Dominion was just a semi-autonomous region of the British Empire. From 1931 onwards, under the terms of the Statute of Westminster, the old Dominions became independent kingdoms, or, as they are normally called today, Commonwealth realms. The 6 realms at the time (Australia, Canada, the Irish Free State, Newfoundland, New Zealand, and South Africa) recognized the same physical person, i.e. the British monarch, as their "King", but the Crowns of Australia, Canada, South Africa, etc. were split from the UK Crown and became therefore a separate legal entity, both in domestic and international law. The British monarch would be no longer the Sovereign of South Africa in his capacity as "King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", but rather as the legally separate "King of South Africa". The name "Kingdom" used by the OP in his/her question is therefore technically correct to refer to South Africa post-1931.

South Africa ceased to be a kingdom though in 1961 when it became a republic and withdrew from the Commonwealth.161.24.19.112 (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Article should be delisted as Good Article

This article fails to meet at least three major Good Article criteria: quality of writing, logical structure, and breadth of coverage. There are some factual accuracy issues as well although sometimes they may derive from writing problems or lack of breadth problems.

The most fundamental problem is the lack of breadth which also is a POV problem. The article greatly overemphasizes the history of white South Africans and narrow political & military history at the expense of the majority of the people and of economic and social history in which the sources of much of the political history are to be found.

The logical flow problems are related to this content bias. It has an intro, then an overview of "modern South African history" i.e. the period of white colonization and settlement down to the present, then a very cursory and factually problematic discussion of the history prior to white arrival, reflecting virtually none of the archaeological, historical linguistic and historical scholarship of the last 50 years on precolonial history. Then we launch into "modern" i.e. mostly white history again, repetitiously, with more political-military detail, Africans appearing mainly as military enemies. In the 20th century there is a tremendous imbalance in the stress on participation in the World Wars.

The person who complained about overemphasis on apartheid is sort of right although partly for the wrong reasons -- it is not that the emphasis is p.c., but that it doesn't deal with the social and cultural transformations that shaped 20th century South Africa, created by the mineral and industrial revolutions. Those forces drew or forced first a majority of Afrikaner boers (farmers) off the land, often in conditions of considerable poverty, along with many Coloured and Indian South Africans, and did the same to Africans at a lagging rate proportionally, though because of the African demographic majority even an urban-oriented minority rivalled the urban white population.

Without that context, the creation of Afrikaner nationalism as a populist movement, the rise of National Party dominance, and the appeal of apartheid to S.A. whites cannot be understood. Even more significantly, the tremendous social and cultural changes in African life are almost completely invisible (to give just one example, the first S.A. Union census shows about 10% of Africans as Christian; by 1990 the figure would be about 90% self-reported, although maybe half of those belonged to "independent" churches some of which were not recognized by many orthodox denominations, esp. the more conservative). Likewise neither the sources nor the effects of the bantustan policies, whether in population removals or efforts to de-nationalize Africans and deny them S.A. citizenship, can be understood without grasping the history of land and its use, and the forms of segregation and economic domination created prior to 1948, by both Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking whites.

To a very large extent this reads like a high school or maybe basic university textbook written for English-speaking white South Africans from about the 1970s.

I would simply move to delist the article as "Good" except that a) I need to figure out how to do the technical stuff and b) it appears that good etiquette requires raising the issues here first. Those who may be concerned should consider (some of, by no means all in detail) the issues raised.

Chris Lowe 06:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

fair comment,chris. --Severino 17:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, Chris Lowe this article is also very confusing. One cannot produce one article from neolithic to present and simply call it "South Africa" Then, much of this article is POV, even some of the citations are known to be inaccurate. There is so much that happened, a rich tapestry of events that seems to be dominated by European POV, (In case my own bias is not apparent: want to say Afrikaner POV) :) Zarpboer (talk) 11:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Mandela: The Authorised Biography

I am trying to expand this article, mainly focusing on the differences between this book and other accounts (books and otherwise) of South Africa throughout this period. Any comments or suggestions are appreciated on the peer review page: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Mandela:_The_Authorised_Biography" BillMasen 17:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

President

quote: "This was the first time that there was a South African president in sixty years, since the days of the old Transvaal South African Republic when President Paul Kruger was exiled by the British in 1900. "

unlike swart, kruger wasnt president of south africa, only of transvaal("south african republic"). you cant compare the one with the other. --Severino 22:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral article?

Some of the sources given for the crime section are erroneous. Sarcastic Sid 02:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Some very dodgy contributions in the crime section on here. I've made some changes which I hope give the article a bit more credible clout.

Regards. Sarcastic Sid 04:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Failed-GA

Neutrality is disputed and almost none of this content has been attributed. Perspicacite 05:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

nelson mandela

        nelson mandela was a freedom fighter and was a symbol of freedom.

by:shadae graham — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.67.197 (talk)

Wheat?

"The Bantu-speakers not only had domestic animals, but also practiced agriculture, farming wheat and other crops."

I have a feeling that should be sorghum, the drought resistant grass imported from Northern Africa, and the dominate staple crop until it was replaced by (the less healthy and famine inducing) maize 500 years ago.

Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 10:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorghum is still popular and very much part of entrenched culture (beer, sour porridge, etc). Was maize introduced to the area all that long ago? --Zalatunzi (talk) 02:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

gained international respect

"Most significantly, the new Union of South Africa gained international respect with British Dominion status putting it on par with three other important British dominions and allies: Canada, Australia, and New Zealand."
At this point in the article those different once-sovereign nations were recently conquered by a hostile alien invader in a series of brutal and terrible wars. They had lost children, men, freedom, kings, land, rights, heritage, etc. It may be POV to state that the newly grouped-together bunch of defeated nations gained a new respect because of dominion - as if it was a favour the aggressor bestowed on them.
The article has a number of these POV slants that may just be insensitive.
--Zalatunzi (talk) 02:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

South African "indegenous population" debate

The San people are the original native South Africans and anything saying otherwise is a filthy politically motivated lie! The original natives are a completely different race to the Xhosa and Zulu, and their hunter-gatherer way of life has almost been driven to extinction by the brutal waves of migration by European settlers and other African tribes. The Xhosa and Zulu are just as guilty or more than the Boer for destroying the indigenous population of this country. Why are the San never mentioned and only the Xhosa and Zulu who are so prominent in the modern day are constantly praised and supported? This indicates populism and racist bigotry. Clearly this article assumes a position of political and racist bias to strengthen a violent racist political cause which asserts that only the Xhosa and Zulu majorities have heritage there.

This the same lie responsible for the current crisis of racial attacks in South Africa, where the Boer and San are both faced with a genocidal bloodbath at the hands of a violent vengeful negro population with a presumtous belief that the land all belongs to them.

It is really shocking to see the level of blindness, naiveness and pig ignorance from Western scholarship that allows puke like this to be passed off as credible factual material.

Wow. You sure are a stupid one, aren't you? Have you read this article?

Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 01:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

British segregationist legislation ?

I disagree with the reference to certain examples of segregationist legislation mentioned in the last two paragraphs of Section 6 as being specifically "British" in origin. In my opinion, that qualification would apply to legislation introduced in the Natal colony prior to the dominion era, but does not apply directly for example to the Native Land Act, the Urban Areas Act or other similar major pieces of legislation of the 1910-1948 period.

My point is that the aforementioned acts were actually acts of the Union parliament, as opposed to British colonial assemblies. Even though English-speaking whites were represented in parliament and even in government, the Union parliament was nonetheless from its inception dominated by Afrikaners. In fact, the two major parties of the 1910-1934 period, namely the South African Party and the National Party, had Afrikaner roots and all South African prime ministers of that era (Botha, Smuts, and Hertzog) were of ethnic Afrikaner descent.

Please note that I do not deny the complacency with or even collusion of English-speaking South Africans in the increasing body of discriminatory legislation enacted by the Union parliament in the pre-apartheid period. However, given the composition and correlation of forces in the national legislature, I stand by my point of view mentioned above that it is misleading to refer to that series of parliament acts simply as "British segregationist legislation" as the Wikipedia article literally does.

On a more controversial note, I would also object to the inclusion of the pre-Union Franchise and Ballot Act (1892) enacted by the Cape colonial legislature in the list of examples of "segregationist legislation". I say so because, even though the net effect of the said act was effectively to restrict black franchise on grounds of income and education, the legislation per se was not racially oriented, as it was the case BTW of most "British" legislation in the Cape colony following the 1828 ordinance that established equality before the Law between whites and non-whites, see Cape liberalism.

Finally, it must also be added that even the post-Union Native Land Act 1913 excluded in particular the Cape territory and the Urban Areas Act (1923) was largely not enforced in the Cape due to resistance of local authorities and black/coloured franchise and property rights. 200.168.20.65 (talk) 11:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

new sub-section: extra-parliamentary activities

New subsection started (death squads, JMC;s etc) Communicat (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I have checked the first reference, correcting the author's name. It's a bit hard to tell, since Del Boca's work is only in snippet view, but there are several things the source does not support. Bergh is not mentioned at all.[3] It's unclear if Vorster is mentioned.[4] The Ossewa Brandwag did not evolve into the Broederbund, it joined the National Party.[5]. The Broederbond was founded long before that.[6] The sentence about "the fundamental precepts of fascism became firmly enshrined in South African law" appears to have no basis in the work.[7] I'll check the other references for this section later to to see if the statements added are similarly unsupported. I've also removed Winer, as his website shows, he's a fringe theorist. Edward321 (talk) 14:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with what you've claimed above, but I'll check my sources againg when I have time, and make corrections if warranted. Thanks for pointing out suspected errors. However, You certainly don't know what you're talking about re Ossewa Brandwag / Broederbond and a few other things. What's your problem? Why are you stalking me? Never mind. Rhetorical question. Communicat (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Better still, why don't YOU do some hard work here and make some meaningful contribution to this rather neglected article yourself? (Instead of going out of your way to find alleged faults with my contributions) Communicat (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

If you follow the links I provided they will show that you errors are not "suspected" or "alleged". The source you list either does not support the claims you made or at times completely contradicts your claims. Personally attacking me, as you have done, does not change that and is not the wisest course when you are fresh off of a block for personal attacks. Edward321 (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if both of you avoided personal attacks in discussing this.

With that said - There seems to be a credible case that the source cited does not support the statements made in the article. That is a very serious issue on Wikipedia - falsification of sources.

Communicat - please as soon as possible clarify the situation, what sections of the source you were relying on and what they specifically said that led you to put those items in the article. If there is a reasonable explanation or something was legitimately misinterpreted then there's no problem here, you just need to be more careful. If there are sections that Edward321 didn't find in his search that support your specific claims, then that's a valid refutation of the concerns. But we need to see what you were operating off of.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

There is an article on Hendrik van den Bergh (police official). I do not know if any of you have ever read it, but it seems to collaborate what Communicat has introduced into this article. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Georgewilliamherbert asked me to comment here. The dispute seems to be about this content, now reintroduced by Petri Krohn. This seems to be materially different from the first version originally introduced by Communicat. If I understand correctly, Georgewilliamherbert's concern is that, among others, the sentences "the fundamental precepts of fascism became firmly enshrined in South African law" and "the Ossewa Brandwag evolved into the Broederbond" in Communicat's version are not supported by the source, "Angelo de Boca & Mario Giovana, Fascism Today: A world survey, New York: Random, 1969, pp. 381-3". The full text of the book is not online, so we can't easily check. I agree that Communicat should provide the exact quote of the source text that he believes supports these statements, and I also note that Communicat's attitude ([8], [9]) is unnecessarily aggressive and uncollaborative. I am looking forward to see Communicat address these concerns; otherwise administrative action may be warranted.  Sandstein  05:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The material differences (exept the additional references I have added) are best visible in this diff. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 09:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. – Now, if any of you want to deal with editors who willfully misrepresent sources to distort Wikipedia to fit their POV, I suggest that you look into this incident: Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes#According to professor Michael Ellman... -- Petri Krohn (talk) 09:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I have revised the sources according to Fascism Today hardcopy book which is right here beside me, and I've added a couple of others. As for the rest of above, I'm not going to be drawn into all this mudslinging (yet again), except to say I'm not "willfuly" misrepresenting sources to fit "my" POV. You will have noticed that this article requires a great deal of work. Why don't some of you knuckle down and do it, instead of going out of your way to stalk me from one project to another and find fault with my work in progress. Nobody's perfect, not even these countless critics of mine. My contributions to this article will be tweaked and improved as and when I have time, and in line with whatever arises from sensible discussion.

Re Petri's sensible comment above, van den Bergh was (incidentally) not just a "police official", he was head of the Bureau of State Security or BOSS, viz., security police intelligence / counter-intelligence. Just a small point. He failed to present himself at the TRC, so there's nothing on record about him there, but I have other reliable sources concerning this very big wheel in the apartheid killing machine, as currently conspicously absent from the article.

Edward, please don't revert my stuff again without first discussing in accordance with WP:CONS . Georgewilliamherbert I trust you will endorse this procedure. Thank you.

Distractions and disruptions aside, the CIA graphic next to Apartheid section looks pretty but is difficult / too small to read. I suggest, if it is to be retained, that it be moved up to the Union sections, where there's a big block of text without illustration. I have a good pic of Vorster which can go righthand of Extra-parliamentary activities section, to fill space left by CIA graphic if it's moved. Any objections to this? Communicat (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Replies re WP:BURDEN: Two sentences questioned:

• "Fundamental precepts of fascism enshrined in law", Del Boca & Giovana, pp.388-9 summarised in precis, section titled "A Nazi Legislation", together with entire p.385, all too long to retype here. Trust me.

Trust, but verify. 67.122.211.178 (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• "OB evolved into Broederbond" -- typo error. Should be "...evolved into Boerenasie". Del Boca & Giovani, p382.

Communicat (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I can verify that there is a chapter titled "A Nazi Legislation" starting from page 388. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

There certainly is a chapter by that title. OTOH, "summarised in precis" is original research. To claim that the "fundamental precepts of fascism were enshrined in law" you need to show which specific laws the source is referring to and why they are not just fascist, but "fundamental precepts" of fascism. Even then term "enshrined" is clearly POV, and since the term is used nowhere in the source [10] that appears to be your POV, not the source's. That's a very interesting misspelling - it would require you to mistype every letter but the first and add a letter to correctly spell a different organization. The source doesn't appear to say the OB became the Boerenasie, [11] while it clearly says the OB became part of the National Party.[12]. Edward321 (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Many Thanks Petri for tidying and tweaking refs and TRC ref/quote etc.

Edward321: I really don't want to be drawn into WP:BATTLEGROUND editing with you which, as we all know, is considered misconduct if it goes on for too long. To that end, please be WP:COOL and propose briefly some concrete text and refs showing how, if summarising is not to be allowed, you think the work should be done. Scores of individual nazi-style statutes are stated in the original work cited, and they constitute a substantial chunk of source text. On the face of it, it seems you're asking me to break copyright laws through plagiarism, i.e. by quoting directly all of one and a half pages from the original source? As I understand it, precis written summary is not original research or POV pushing. It's called editing. If you disagree, perhaps someone should be asked to do an Rfc on this? Communicat (talk) 22:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Communicat, obviously you have to summarize. The issue is whether your summaries faithfully preserve the sense and tone of the original. Re this cite, somebody really has to check whether that faithful preservation has happened, or whether the edit contains yet more WP:SYNTH. Unfortunately, my local library doesn't have this Del Boca book. They can get it through regional interlibrary loan but that would take around a week. Maybe someone at WP:SHARED#Libraries can get it faster. Or if Communicat has a scanner or digital camera, perhaps he could send an image of the cited page to GWH or Sandstein by email and they can check it against the edit.

I wouldn't say Communicat is falsifying sources deliberately, but he has shown a serious enough disregard for precision in some earlier cites and summaries that I think at least a few of his cites above have to be checked thoroughly. The hope is he will soon get used to the level of rigor that we expect and be able to stick to it without such close attention, but for now he needs monitoring and guidance. 67.122.211.178 (talk) 23:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Petri Krohn (talk) evidently has copy of book, has been very helpful here, and can probably verify if you don't trust me. Communicat (talk) 13:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile, if nobody objects, I propose shuffling parts of sections "Apartheid" / "Extra-parliamentary" for narrative cohesion. (Apartheid section very short, JMC's to go in there. All will become clear. Trust me.) Communicat (talk) 13:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

PS: No, I don't have a scanner or digital camera. I use my low-end technology purely for wordprocessing and online research. Moreover, I happen to be living in a remote region of a Third World country where there is regretably no ASDL and no internet cafe on every street corner. (That's probably why a frequent combination of connectivity problems, edit conflicts, power failures, editing disputes, viruses, etc etc sometimes makes me lose my cool). Anyway, I'm sorry, but you might just have to obtain the book for yourself for purposes of verification. If/when you obtain it, you might notice the section I've been referring to is quite dense (probably because that's in the nature of a survey, and also because it's been translated from Italian). It's not all that easy to follow the sometimes disjointed and scattered bits and pieces of information etc, which was a challenge in itself. I'll conveniently blame that for the one glaring error that crept in and which was quickly corrected after somebody not too politely pointed it out to me. Nobody's perfect. Communicat (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it's helpful that Petri has the book. Maybe he can supply a scan. I wasn't bothered about the Broederbund/Boerenasie thing, which looked like a straightforward transcription error (we all make those sometimes). I'm more concerned about use of words like "enshrine" unless the book uses the same word. Even if the book does use that word, it should be quoted to signify that it's a POV that the source expresses. Otherwise it comes across like a POV that Wikipedia expresses, which is something that we never want. 67.122.211.178 (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

(outdenting)

Communicat - It would help to disambiguate things if we could get short sections copied in - a few sentences, along with chapter name and page number - to verify that you're accurately reporting what the source says, Communicat. I don't want to ask you to retype large sections, but a more specific reference for specific content challenges would help.

Edward321 - if you could cooperate by making specific notes of what facts or statements sourced here you are specifically trying to challenge?

Petri - Anything you want to provide as well, supporting specific info / updates made, be it transcribing or sending someone a high res image of a page or what.

IP 67.. - Good comments. Especially about POV and quoting sources rather than asserting things in the "Wikipedia Voice" as it were. This is an important point.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, fancy high res scanning equipment isn't needed for text verification (we're not trying to OCR). A digicam snapshot of the page is good enough. 75.57.241.73 (talk) (new address) 01:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert - content is not the main issue. The issue is when Communicat's posts are not supported or even contradicted by the source that they cite. As IP67/75 showed on Talk: World War II, this is not the first time that this has happened. To give specific examples beyond the ones I that previously listed would require examining every addition Communicat has made, which is difficult since he has been using sources with no preview or only snippet view on GBooks. To return to a specific example that Communicat has reposted in a less POV form - "The fundamental precepts of fascism became law." That is, by Communicat's own admission, his "precis" on what the source said, which makes that original research on his part. The specific laws that the source mentioned should be mentioned. So should any specific "fundamental precepts" that the actual source mentioned. I have no doubt that the laws were racist and totalitarian, but neither of these flaws is unique to facism. If Communicat could look at Facism#Definitions, show which "fundamental precepts" he is referring to, and clearly show that is what the source says, not just his interpretation of the source, that would be helpful. Edward321 (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm almost sure I saw a WP rule somewhere that said something about "be flexible". Must have been mistaken. Anyway, I hear what you're saying. There are two quick-fix ways of dealing with the "fundamental precepts" issue: (1) Delete the sentence, or (2) Quote del Boca & Giovani source verbatim: "A (post-1948) Nazi legislation". (p.388) I'll opt for the latter.

As for "examining every addition Communicat has made", there is no need for that. Just about every contribution that I've made (prior to this present article), has either immediately or shortly thereafter been thrown out, usually without discussion. So the question of "additions" does not arise. And the additions that were thrown out, were not thrown out because of source problems. They were thrown out because a reactionary clique did not approve of the content, nor were they in favour of my interpretation of NPOV. That was a continuing situation (see e.g. relevant concrete, reliable text and refs I provided at 18:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC) and 19:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC) at new WW2 aftermath section, which were ignored and dropped without discussion from draft version, still in halting "progress". I can't be bothered to concern myself with it any further at this stage.

To return to the Nazi legislation issue: I felt it necessary to include such a sentence for purpose of narrative flow; (it's meant to flow narratively into next sub-section). As one unsigned editor has rightly pointed out Generally I prefer an approach of threading a narrative through some especially sharp events, rather than rattling off a bunch of stuff as a big blur. 67.122.209.135 (talk) 08:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It's all very well to have an article brimming with source references (notably e.g. WW2 article), but which is so textually dense (because of disjointed and elliptical narrative) that it's just too much trouble to try reading it beyond the first few sentences. Just look at all the pretty pictures instead. Communicat (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Edward321, I would like to think that your remarks are well intended as some form of tutorial. But at the same time you've made some fairly serious false assumptions and assertions that seem aimed at undermining my credibility, and which might be construed as something of a personal vendetta. (Taking into account your threatening tone, and seeing as you've actually taken the trouble to pursue me all the way here from a completely unrelated project).

George, you too have pursued me, and maybe your input is meant to be some kind of tutorial. But for now I'd much appreciate it if you would just address the one main issue in my dispute with WW2 editors, in which you decided to intervene after they failed to agree to mediation, namely: Of the approx. 340 reference citations for WW2 article, there is not a single Western source nor any reliable significant-minority source that deviates from the mainstream Western position. I alleged then, and still do, that it reflects POV bias through omission. That was clearly stated in my request for mediation, and repeated (twice) in my response to your false allegations of "fringe-POV pushing" as stated at WW2 talk page. I sense that you've purposefully avoided and evaded that key issue by studiously deflecting attention on to MY errors, which were certainly not willfully done, but it seems you're quite intent on making it appear that way. Remember, I was the aggrieved party in the first place. Now you and Edward seem to be intent on making it appear as though YOU are the aggrieved parties. C'mon guys, get real. If you find a few errors, why don't you just fix them, instead of endlessly carping on about it? I've got the message. End of story. Let's move on.

But what makes me really wonder is why I've been singled out in particular for this special treatment? You will note that this present article, for instance, is/was virtually unsourced and had been that way for a long time. Why was no fuss made about it? Why now, and why me? And much the same applies to numerous other articles with which I have had absolutely nothing to do. The Western Betrayal article, for example, where all this started, was similarly unsourced for the most part, and I simply followed suit by omitting page numbers in the few references I did contribute. Now, half a year later, I'm the one to be rebuked -- (even though my input then was in any event quickly undone and reverted). Some of the same experienced editors that were active on Western Betrayal then are presently active on WW2 article now, all part of the milhist clique. Why have THEY not been rebuked or singled out for special treatment? Why are they not required to scan pages etc for verification -- even though their work is sometimes replete with errors? If you want to rid yourselves of me, why don't you just say it, so it's all out in the open? I'm beginning seriously to wonder if my time might not be better spent writing an amusing article for one of the popular print-media history journals that I'm associated with, on the subject of how wiki's milhist articles are put together (or not put together). There's certainly enough public domain research material available via the milhist discussion pages. Enough to fill an entire book or two, let alone just a modest article. Communicat (talk) 02:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

PS: Just so we're on the same page: When I refer to "non-Western or (Western) significant-minority position" above, I mean a position that does not necessarily present the West in a favourable light. That is the position that POV-biased WW2 and other articles have been and continue to avoid at all costs, and I can prove it. It's the macro issue I raised weeks ago, and to which I've not received response, for whatever reason or reasons, as to which I can none the less draw my own conclusions. Communicat (talk) 03:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It's great if you can add some material citing non-Western sources. We want that type of material. All we ask is that your edits be up to our standards, which means the citations have to include page numbers, the sources have to be of reasonable prominence, and your contributions have to reflect what the sources say without any added interpretation of your own. Several of your previous efforts have missed the mark by quite a lot (not too unusual as the processes here take some getting used to), and you've been confused about that. So we are looking to check a few of your newer edits ourselves, instead of going by your estimates, which are not yet up to speed. It's not that complicated. 75.57.241.73 (talk) 05:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Communicat (talk) 14:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with non-western sources. Please see our reliable sources policy and our source verification policy. The issue that got you in trouble on the WW II article wasn't a non-western source. I would additionally like to second IP editor 75.57.241.73's comments.

Additionally, your comment "a position that does not necessarily present the West in a favorable light" - Please keep in mind that we write Wikipedia as a neutral reference source. WP:NPOV (that neutrality policy) is one of our core community principles in writing the encyclopedia. That means that non-western viewpoints are welcome. But it also means that editorializing in the encyclopedia is inappropriate. If the Russian consensus opinion on aspects of WW II history, among respected Russian historians, is different from "US / Western" consensus on specific points or opinions, that's fine - that's a opinion which is notable and something we can include as alternate interpretations of the history. Specific examples and references of that are fine. Same with interpretations (as here on this page) of history of South Africa, or other topics. It's important to differentiate between including significant opinions - and the opinion of the historians of the nation descended from the "other side" of the cold war and the third of the main Allies in WW II is significant - and adopting an advocacy position in the article. We need to balance the first and avoid the second. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand reasonably well what NPOV means, which is why the WW2 dispute arose in first place. I don't believe the reactionary WW2 clique understands the meaning of NPOV, or if they do understand it, they simply don't comply. Please understand that I am not just referring to Russian or other non-Western sources. I am referring also and especially to some very reliable Western academic and other Western sources whose work is based on reliable and established lines of research, and which do not necessarily always convey a favourable military history image of the West's endeavours. Whereas the "spin" placed on sources by the reactionary clique is one that apparently strives to portray the West in a favourable light, and the East in an unfavourable light. Have a look, for example at my recent posting at WW2 talk under "new aftermath" topic, regarding Korea. You'll see what I mean. There are many other examples that I can provide.

Thanks also to Edward321 and unsigned editor above for drawing my attention to snippet views provided by googlebooks. I did not know such a thing exists, but now I understand why there are so many source references at WW2 article citing googlebooks. I don't believe a snippet view provides sufficient level of insight or understanding of a topic upon which to base "reliable" references. It's a very questionable and lazy way of doing things. Maybe you, as intervening party, should look into it? Communicat (talk) 18:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

If anyone still cares about this, I got the del Boca book from the library. It does mention Vorster and mostly (but imperfectly) supports the stuff cited to it. It is somewhat polemical but I'd say it's acceptable as a POV source. Pages 383-83 describe Nazi influence on South African legislation in the 1930's and p. 388 has a section start called "A Nazi legislation" which compares SA's apartheid laws to the Nazis but doesn't seem to state a direct connection (maybe I'm wrong about this, I'm just skimming it and will try to read it more carefully later). Page 389 discusses Vorster and says he was interned for 2 years at Koffiefontein but doesn't state a reason for his internment. The Independent obituary of van den Bergh says "Vorster and van den Bergh were interned under wartime security laws."[13] WP's Koffiefontein article says something about Nazi sympathizers being interned and mentions Vorster, citing a book by Erasmus. That was added in 2008.[14] So the idea that Vorster was interned for Nazi sympathies fits the picture but is not 100% nailed down. The other statements also have plausible though imperfect support by the source. I'll check them more carefully in the next few days unless I do something sensible instead, like spend the weekend outside. Overall this looks like a much better sourcing effort on Communicat's part than some of the WW2 stuff, so while more improvement is still desirable, I don't want to be too harsh because this is at least a step in the right direction. 67.119.14.196 (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Re poor sourcing of "some of the WW2 stuff": can you please provide concrete examples? (Or maybe you are perhaps referring to the Western Betrayal article of many months ago, and not the World War II article proper?) Communicat (talk) 08:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Vorster photo

Following is copy of unsigned message to my usertalk page:

• The picture (I'm guessing it's the same one) is now re-uploaded as Image:Disgraced.jpg. There is a plausible fair use rationale for including it in John Vorster. Right now it's in History of South Africa which is a little more shaky. The filename is POV and should be renamed to John_Vorster.jpg or something like that, especially if the picture was taken on some occasion other than his post-scandal resignation in 1979.[15] The copyright is attributed to Stan Winer, whose contact page[16] describes him as a journalist and historical researcher but doesn't say anything about him being a photographer, and this looks like a press photo to me. Did Winer actually take the picture or acquire control of the copyright somehow? If not, the attribution should be corrected, and it also makes Winer's permission to use the picture noncommercially a little dubious. 67.119.14.196 (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It's the same jpeg as previously unploaded and then marked for deletion under filename John Vorster. I changed filename to "disgraced" because I could not get rid of the one marked-for-deletion which seemed to be blocking the re-upload with different license. The filename is not POV. The text says "resigned in disgrace", which is not POV, because everybody knows that's what happened.

I have no reason to doubt that Winer took the photo himself in 1975. I am unable to account for Winer's choice of words in his self-description, which you've quoted. It's not uncommon for journalists to simultaneously be both photographers and reporters. Some call themselves photojournalists, others are more modest and just call themselves journalists. I'm not Winer's spokesman, so if you're all that interested, maybe you should contact him yourself, via his contact detail provided at the site you've quoted. If you want to use the picture for commercial purposes, you're free to contact his agent, which is Camera Press, London. Communicat (talk) 00:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Since you are the one who uploaded it, you are the one who should be trying to make sure the attribution details are correct, instead of guessing. Since you are in contact with Winer I'd appreciate it if you could ask him whether he took the picture, unless he has clearly said somewhere that he did. It appears in the truth-hertz.net/sa.php pdf you cited without naming the photographer. It also appears on the IISG web site here (again the photographer is uncredited). Also, if the photo was taken in 1975, Vorster was still serving as Prime Minister of SA at that time. One might reasonably say that the whole SA regime of that era was disgraceful, but Vorster's personal scandal and resignation wasn't til a few years later. It's best to just ask an admin to straighten out the filename issue so the file can be called "John Vorster.jpg". That all said, it is a good picture. 75.62.108.42 (talk) 04:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, yes, Winer did take the picture, as stated at the non-free fair-use license. I'm not guessing and usually don't. My pre-retirement work as a print-media editor brought me in contact with a lot of photojournalists, photographrs and journalists, Winer was one of them and I am familiar with his portfolio. Communicat (talk) 08:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've requested at WP:RM that the image be renamed to Image:B. J. Vorster.jpg. 69.111.195.229 (talk) 22:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages are useful for allowing editors to see how an article has developed, or as in this case, not been allowed to develop because of inter-personal feuding, counter-productive Wikilawyering WP:WL and/or vandalism.

Stan Winer certainly did photograph the contested image which is archived under his name in the University of Cape Town Library Special Collections Edward321 admits here to having "removed" Stan Winer because the latter's website where the Vorster image first appeared in PDF because, according to Edward321, Winer is allegedly a "fringe theorist". The Vorster image, already concurred by one astute editor as "good" has meanwhile disappeared from the History of South Africa article, without trace.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.162.131.130 (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC) 

Replication

Replication in this article of identical Sections in Military history of South Africa, namely: 8 World War II 8.1 Political choices at outbreak of war 8.2 Declaration of war against the Axis 8.3 Prime Minister and Field Marshal Smuts 8.4 Military contributions and casualties in World War II 9 Aftermath of World War II

Propose summarising and retaining only main points of above, and deleting rest of text, to shorten article as per tag that says article too long. Communicat (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I propose removing or reincorporating other (unsourced etc) repetitions in text, which have been overtaken etc by my sourced recent additions. Communicat (talk) 18:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Clean-up

Extensive cleanup has been done. I assume consensus because nobody else seems interested and there's been no responsive discussion or participation from anyone of late, except for party who keeps hounding me, who has previously done no work whatsoever on this article, and who shows no sign of ever doing so, apart from reverting text he considers to be "fringe" and reverting the cleanup tag, as though he's the boss around here and hence entitled to wield the big stick. Communicat (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It Would Be Interesting to Note

It would be interesting to mention, maybe at the end of this article or somewhere else that, after reading the sentence,

"Before long the Union passed a barrage of oppressive legislation, making it illegal for black workers to strike, reserving skilled jobs for whites, barring blacks from military service, and instituting restrictive pass laws."

I was reminded of the fact that right now South Africa's Army is on strike, their emergency medical service is on strike, an the ANC with affirmative action prevent whites from getting many skilled jobs, and there is now a ban on any new whites or coloureds to enter the armed forces in South Africa. Welcome to the New South Africa!

P.S. - No, I'ven't found reliable verifiable sources for all of these claims but I'm not planning on putting them in an article yet either. Invmog (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Please note yourself this is not a rightwing propaganda forum, and also see WP:SOAPBOX. The so-called "facts" that you refer to above are sheer fantasies. The army is not on strike. The emergency services are not on strike. There is no ban on white or coloured army recruits. Where did you get all this nonsense from? I happen to live in SA and I know what's going on around me -- unlike a mischeivous someone who describes himself as a "Christian", who apparently lives in Texas, and who hasn't got a clue about what's happening in SA. 41.135.78.117 (talk) 15:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Too blue

Too many linked words and phrases creeping into this article. You should link only words/phrases that have direct contextual relevance to the meaning of the text, otherwise linking words like "tent", "wagon", "advocacy group" etc serve only as a distraction. Whoever's doing it, please pause for thought. There's a WP rule somewhere about making a page too blue. 20:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Communikat (talk • contribs)

CIA support of the apartheid government

Regarding this edit, a user has queried its validity, as it was made by a now blocked user. There doesn't seem to be anything controversial about the addition, but if anyone has access to the sources, please verify that they do say what's been stated, or if you can, supply alternatives. Greenman (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The validity of the edit was not queried because it was made by a blocked user. It was reverted on the false premise that the edit was covered by a topic ban on my editing or discussion of articles about WORLD WAR II. Needless to say, the Angolan war had absolutely nothing to do with WORLD WAR II or its aftermath. Communikat (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, "Communicat (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing or commenting on articles about World War II or the Aftermath of World War II".[17] As I have previously stated, I feel that his edit violated the latter part of the ban. I ask again that independent editors confirm the sources Communikat used support his edits, as this has been a problem in the past. [18] [19] Edward321 (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• It seems accurate, according to this review of the reference, which almost says the same thing as the added info does (but not quite, so the reference itself is still better). I'm going to go ahead and re-add the info into the article, since it appears that it is correct and valid. Silverseren^C 07:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Ah, looks like it was already. Never mind then. I guess this is just a support for the validity of the info then. Silverseren^C 07:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter, does it? your edit has been undone arbitrarily, probably by Edward321 as usual, without further discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.162.131.130 (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

This is politics

Irrelevant rant - none of this has anything to do with this article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is what is written in Wikipedia: Regional destabilisation Between 1980 and 1990, the population of southern Africa was profoundly disrupted by the aggression of apartheid South Africa, with 1.5 million dead, 1.5 million expatriated, and 6.1 million displaced within the region.[21] After the fall in 1975 of Portuguese colonial rule in Angola, which was particularly hard-hit, the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had collaborated with apartheid South Africa by providing money, logistical support and arms shipments to counter-revolutionary rebels attempting unsuccessfully to overthrow the new Angolan government headed by the Movement for the Popular Liberation of Angola (MPLA).[22] British government officials allowed the covert recruitment in Britain of mercenaries to support the American and South African-backed rebels.[23] In the eight year period of 1980 to 1988, Angola lost an estimated $1 billion in farm production and suffered over $17 billion in damages to infrastructure, including roads and buildings.[24] The situation for Angola improved, however, after the Cuito Cuanavale of 1988, as an international arms embargo against South Africa had contributed to a loss of their advantage.[25] The author quotes books - they are Communist opinion pieces, the facts are 100% different: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozambique_civil_war "The Mozambican Civil War began in 1977, two years after the end of the war of independence. The ruling party, Front for Liberation of Mozambique (FRELIMO) and the national armed forces FAM (Armed Forces of Mozambique), was violently opposed from 1977 by the Rhodesian- and (later) South African-funded Mozambique Resistance Movement (RENAMO). About 1 000 000 people died in fighting and from starvation, five million civilians were displaced[7][8], many were made amputees by landmines, a legacy from the war that continues to plague Mozambique." Imagine there are colonial governments in Southern Africa. Millions of Soviet Communist rebels invade and overthrow the colonial governments. The destablisation comes from the invasion on the part of the Soviet Union, not on the part of the colonial governments. The Soviet Union planted 50 million IEDs in Angola, Mozambique, Zaire, Zimbabwbe. That is what really happened. 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angolan_Civil_War "At the same time, it served as a surrogate battleground for the Cold War, due to heavy intervention by major opposing powers such as the Soviet Union and the United States." The 27-year war can be divided roughly into three periods of major fighting – between 1975 and 1991, 1992 and 1994, and 1998 and 2002 – broken up by fragile periods of peace. By the time the MPLA finally achieved victory in 2002, an estimated 500,000 people had been killed and over one million internally displaced. The war devastated Angola's infrastructure, and dealt severe damage to the nation's public administration, economic enterprises, and religious institutions.[20] "500,000 people had been killed and over one million internally displaced." The South African army number 20,000 (1976) in that article - how can 20,000 kill 500,000? Also the author states: "profoundly disrupted by the aggression of apartheid South Africa, with 1.5 million dead". 20,000 white soldiers killing 1.5 million? The Soviet Union armed millions with AK47s - they infilitrated towns and cities and started killing and terrorizing the civilian population. Angola and Mozambique has 50 million landmines ( IEDs ) - more than Afghanistan and Iraq combined. The destablizers was the USSR. Not the white South Africans. The incomes of the people dropped from $1000 to less than $200 per person. Their economies destroyed by a USSR invasion. And he now wants to call the South African whites "terrorists". The South African whites invented MRAP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRAP. Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP; /ˈɛmræp/ em-rap) vehicles are a family of armored fighting vehicles used by the United States armed forces. The design was led by the United States Marine Corps. The purpose of the design is surviving Improvised Explosive Device (IED) attacks and ambushes. It was prompted by US deaths in Iraq.[1] The first developments in armored vehicles designed specifically to counter the land mine threat took place during the 1972-1980 Rhodesian Bush War and the technology was subsequently matured in South Africa.[2] Here is unedited page example from wiki itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angola Before independence in 1975, Angola was a breadbasket of southern Africa and a major exporter of bananas, coffee and sisal, but three decades of civil war (1975–2002) destroyed the fertile countryside, leaving it littered with landmines and driving millions into the cities. The country now depends on expensive food imports, mainly from South Africa and Portugal, while more than 90 percent of farming is done at family and subsistence level. Thousands of Angolan small-scale farmers are trapped in poverty.[40] The civil war in Angola was between the USSR and the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angolan_Civil_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozambique_civil_war There is not even a mention of white South African soldiers in the Mozambique civil war on that page. 1,000,000 dead. The author wants to place the blame of 1,000,000 dead on the shoulders of white soldiers. The Communists killed millions. The Mozambique flag has an AK47 on it. The USSR started the Angolan Civil War, the Mozambique Civil War, the wars in the Congo, Zimbabwe, Zambia and millions died because the USSR funded terrorist guerrillas to invade and overthrow the colonial governments of those countries: The Zimbabwe economy was destroyed, the Mozambique economy was destroyed, the Zambia economy was destroyed, the Angolan economy was destroyed, Zaire economy was destroyed: A Communist has edited the History of South Africa page to enhance Communist propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nasdaq7 (talk • contribs) 10:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Accuracy

I do realize that there is a lot on this page - but the Page Title is misleading? It says: History of South Africa - Is it the country? The region? or general advertising of a certain POV? If the country - It only existed as the Union of South Africa from 1910 onwards... - and there is such a page... If it is the region, this is also a duplication of another entry and the other entry contradicts this one... I also have a problem with citations and sources - I started looking at adding some citations, but there is a lot of Afrikaner fiction on this page and it is not NPOV... Any ideas, comments, plans? Maybe this page should be either merged with Southern Africa or added to the South Africa page? - or simply ignored and used as a reference for an example of Apartheid time propaganda?  :) Zarpboer (talk) 11:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Zarpboer, These are reasonable questions, but I believe that general practice in the history of countries is to have a general article that covers the current geographical area from its prehistory, as well as predecessor polities, with spinoff or related articles on more restricted time periods, on predecessor or inclusory polities, as well as other prominent topics. See e.g. History of Russia.

As a historian, I favor maintaining a distinct history page from the general South Africa page.

I agree with you about NPOV issues.

LOL about "example of propaganda" idea ;-)

There is at least nominally a WikiProject South Africa, and I think we might do well to raise this page there, if it is actually active. There used to be some good people involved with the WikiProject.

I have been away from Wikipedia for a while and need to relearn some of the editing basics. Chris Lowe (talk)

Heading

The aboriginal Khoikhoi people have lived in the region for millennia - The Khoikhoi is one of the San nations, should it not be more correct to say: The San nations have lived in the region for millennia? I do realise that the Ethnic nomenclature do have challenges, but San is not considered derogatory? Or am I wrong? If nobody responds I will assume that I can go ahead and edit the heading and add a link to San people as well... Zarpboer (talk) 12:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Zarpboer, I don't think this is quite right. Most recent usage is to spell it Khoekhoe rather than Khoikhoi. In the 17th and 18th centuries there were a number of Khoekhoe polities, relatively weak chiefdoms, not a single nation. They were partly distinguished from "San" peoples by lifeways. The "San" peoples practiced foraging and hunting, while the Khoekhoe practiced herding and some cultivation as well, though not on the scale of the Bantu-language speaking peoples. But most of the "San" languages are quite different from Khoekhoe, to my understanding. Physically they appeared similar to one another to Europeans, and it may be that there is genetic information on that. Richard Elphick has argued that as some Khoekhoe communities were pushed into ecologically marginal areas by whites and lost their herds or faced bad seasons that the would live as "San," and move back and forth between the lifeways.

Regarding ethnonyms, Khoekhoe means "men of men," while San is a Khoekhoe word that as you say is derogatory, and means something like "peopole who live in the bush," or wild or savage people. Thus recent English-language scholarship has taken to returning to the use of Bushmen (Rob Gordon, Ed Wilmsen, Andrew Smith/Candy Malherbe/Mathias Guenther, e.g.) as the catch-all term. In their own languages each Bushman people had a different name for itself and they had no overall categorical term, unlike the Khoekhoe. I believe the historical linguists say that despite the small populations of each people, or in some cases, only historically recorded texts of languages with no current speakers, that the linguistic differences among several of the Bushmen languages are profound, indicating differentiation of great antiquity.

Your solution was an improvement I think, and the link to the San people is `certainly right. I think the right approach would be to work on the San people article and the related one on the Khoekhoe that I assume exists, to make sure they are consistent with one another, and then bring that consistency back here. There might be a need for a separate article on the nomenclature itself (?), that would also explain the history of Hottentot and its variants. Chris Lowe (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Invasion of Angola?

Article has section on Cross-border raids, but more important full-scale invasion of Angola not mentioned. My edit changing section heading to "Invasion of Angola and cross-border raids" + addition of RS refs reverted by unknown editor/admin without edit history/summary or discussion. 41.162.131.130 (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC) 41.162.131.130 (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Provide rationale when reverting edits

User Amortias has reverted edits made by me. Below is copy of what I posted a while back on his/her talkpage, together with his/her response.

Pse provide proper rationale when reverting edits, as you've been reverting some of mine at History of SA page. Otherwise you're liable to be accused of vandalism or bad faith editing. Better yet, provide reliable sources to prove such sources exist per WP:Verify.

Please see the article, I am currently moving through the sections tagged as citation needed and am either inserting appropriate references or removing the sections in question. Amortias (T)(C) 21:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I assume good faith on the part of Amortias, while at the same time noting he/she has to date helpfully provided only two references, (whereas scores of refs or removals are needed in this article per WP:Verify. IMHO, the only way to improve this sorry-state article is either to obtain the necessary sources as Amortias has volunteered to do, or to scrap all the existing original research and start again from scratch -- which I was in the process of starting to do, and I'm still prepared to do so, provided there's sufficient discussion to form consensus and avoid potential edit warring etc. In the meantime, there's not much I'm encouraged to do until Amortias clarifies his/her position relative to editing of this article.41.162.131.130 (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Tribes of South Africa

South Africa has TEN separate tribes, each with its own unique identity. The WP article lists six of them (at length and without citations), as if those six are the only ones existing in the country, which raises notionally a POV issue.

The History of South Africa article, as its title indicates, is meant to be just that -- and not give weight to the history of just six South African tribes, except briefly and in passing. I propose the history of SA tribes section, which is somewhat off-topic and occupies currently a disproportionate amount of space in this already over-long article, should be removed and possibly form part of an entirely separate and unique article titled "History of South African Tribes".

I shall assume concurrence and do the necessary, if there are no objections to this suggestion within a reasonable period of time.41.162.131.130 (talk) 14:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Not even close. Depending on exactly how tribe is defined, there are dozens or even hundreds of distinct "tribes". The Xhosa people alone consist of seven major tribes (Mpondo, Mpondomise, Bomvana, Xesibe, Thembu, Bhaca and Mfengu) and several smaller ones. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I object most strenuously to your plan - mostly because it's based on utter nonsense but also out of concern that by your long period of solo editing of this article you are tending towards ownership of it. I'd really strongly advise you to actually step away from this page for an extended period - at least several months - to give other contributors a chance to help shape the article. The risk is that your own biases would become too strongly represented in this article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree there are more than ten tribes. I should have said "at least ten", based on the existing number of official languages in the country. There are of course many sub-groups, local chieftaincies, clans, etc. Perhaps that should be incorporated into the main SA article, if you care to do so. Alternatively, as I've already suggested, for practical purposes, the Tribes of SA could form a wholly separate, comprehensive article.

As regards your reference to "ownership", I disagree. Nothing could be further from my mind. This "vital" article had been in an obviously parlous, jumbled and frequently biased condition for several years before I arrived on the scene. During that time nobody seems to have made any concerted effort to improve it or to contest the various violations of WP policies. I am not responsible for other editors' apparent absence of enthusiasm or inclination to improve the article. My own extensive edits have been done in good faith. I've also contributed scores of reliable sources, compared with the unsatisfactory number of sources that appeared before. Moreover, I've repeatedly and unsuccessfully invited discussion on this talk page (and to a lesser extent even on your own user page). I've strenuously avoided being or becoming "biased" as you suggest. Indeed, I've even placed a tag at the top of the article requesting neutrality. I look forward to seeing more of your own good-faith contributions aimed at further improving the article. 41.162.131.130 (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

PS Dodger67, I think it is possible you may have misinterpreted the provisions of WP:OWN, to which you referred. 41.162.131.130 (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

With regard to your somewhat impolite claim that my "plan" is "based on utter nonsense", I would refer you to the Oxford English Dictionary definition of "Tribe":

"A social division in a traditional society consisting of families or communities linked by social, economic, religious, or blood ties, with a common culture and dialect ..."

Given that nine traditional African dialects are officially in existence, this means there are nine officially recognised tribes. For practical purposes and to avoid disruptive analysis paralysis, it should therefore be acceptable to say there are nine tribes in South Africa, and never mind all the sub-groups, chiefdoms and clans.

It remains unclear what you mean in referring to my "plan" (to which you "strenuously" object). Which particular "plan" do you have in mind? The only stated "plan", of which I gave adequate notice as per the WP rules, was to remove the off-topic, unreferenced original research and undue weight given to only six tribes as contained in the former section headed "History of Tribes in South Africa". In the absence of any objections for two subsequent weeks, removal of the relevant section has since become a fait accompli. Are you suggesting it should be restored? 41.162.131.130 (talk) 13:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Concern about "truth"

User Dodger67 above has objected at WikiProject South Africa talk page] to my recent editing of the History of SA article. He claims I am allegedly "on a mission to rewrite the article according to what (I) alone deem to be 'the truth'. "

Dodger67 evidently fails to assume good faith as per WP:AGF. So, allow me to clarify: the edits at issue are not "my truth" but are based on reliable and verifiable sources. I understand that is how wikipedia works. I am not responsible for the particular way history has unfolded in SA. If any editor has reliable and verifiable sources that contradict the reliable and verifiable sources I've cited, then they are of course free to contribute such sources. That is also how wikipedia works, in the interests of neutrality and encyclopedic content.

Dodger67 further complains I have not invited anyone else to participate or discuss. So, this is a specific invitation for other interested editors to participate and discuss. There is plenty of room for good-faith improvements to the article, if anyone else has the time and inclination. 41.162.131.130 (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Nominated for improvement

In the hope of possibly regaining GA status, the article has been nominated for collaborative improvement. 41.162.131.130 (talk) 11:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Post-apartheid era section missing major topics

I was surprised that the HIV/AIDS epidemic and the elections of Thabo Mbeki and Jacob Zuma aren't mentioned in the "Post-apartheid era" section. -- Beland (talk) 22:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. 41.162.131.130 (talk) 11:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Post-apartheid era section too long

In my opinion, the section has become disproportionately long in comparison to preceding sections. This may possibly result in a chronological blurr of detail that tends to obscure or detract from pivotal historical events which, in their order of significance and occurrence, should properly shape and define the era as such. I might attempt to shorten and improve the section through revision, removing some OR etc. Discussion welcome. 41.162.131.130 (talk) 11:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC) 41.162.131.130 (talk) 14:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC) 41.162.131.130 (talk) 12:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

in my opinion, on the other hand, the discussion of the 19th century is very incoherent, broken up into too many subsections, and being treated in far too much detail. Some WP:SS work would be needed here. --dab (𒁳) 14:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

What exactly do you find "incoherent" (your word) about the 19th Century section? BTW, the section you're complaining about is not a "discussion" (sic). It is a reliably sourced summary . Discussions are on the talk page; article content is on the article page. I am not responsible for the distasteful manner in which pivotal SA history unfolded in the 19th Century. The section should remain unchanged. 41.162.131.130 (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External link removed, reinstated

User Edward321 has removed an external link to an item titled South Africa and the Politics of Risk . His edit summary] states: “trimmed link to book that does not meet Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources”. Edward321 is mistaken on two counts:

• The item in question is not a “book” but an essay or editorial opinion (op-ed). The reverting editor apparently deleted the link without actually examining the linked item.

• The item is not a “source” but an external link. The relevant guideline is not WP:RS (reliable sources) but the policy rule on external links (WP:EL).

Even if the WP:RS guideline were to be (mis)applied, the section guideline within WP:RSwith specific regard to op-eds specifies “Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author,”

On the basis of the following justifications, I have reinstated the external link that was removed by Edward321:

• The reinstated link is to an op-ed or essay written and researched by South Africa author Stan Winer who has been described as a "Johannesburg journalist with 30 years experience reporting African affairs.", which signifies notability as a specialist.

• The op-ed or essay is neutral in that it is critical of both the leftwing and the rightwing of recent South African political history. Although the item is essentially an opinion piece, the text does provide a sufficient number of relevant citations to support the opinion expressed.

• The item has direct relevance to the History of South Africa article. The length, perspective and amount of detail in the item are not conducive to inclusion as a reference source in the already bloated apartheid or post-apartheid sections of the article.

• The op-ed or essay is published by www.coldtype.net, which is neither a fringe nor a “conspiracy” or a fly-by-night site. According to its “About” page, Coldtype is an established monthly on-line magazine with editorial oversight. Formerly a tabloid newspaper imprint of the Thomson newspaper group, Coldtype has in been in existence for 13 years in its present online format According to web-presence monitoring sites such as Quantcast, Coldtype.net site receives a significant number of “hits”.

I propose the reinstated link be retained pending a compelling explanation from the reverting editor in terms of WP:REVEXP, together with community consensus as to whether or not the link should stay or go. 41.162.131.130 (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back, Stan/Communicat. I've removed the links per WP:ADV Those wishing further insight into this can examine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World_War_II Habap (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Not Stan Winer or Communicat. I don't know what you're talking about or how you arrive at that conclusion. 41.162.131.130 (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Having laboriously read the long and complicated arbitration record you've cited, I now have some understanding of your concern about author Stan Winer. I note from the arbitration record that Winer was banned not for unreliability or lack of intellectual integrity, but for civility or behavioral issues. His banning came after he filed a complaint alleging pro-Western bias at Wikipedia's military history project. I note from the main case talk page that the drafting arbitrator acknowledged there existed "a kernel of truth" in Winer's complaint to the arbitration panel. Interested readers may note from the related Main Case, Workshop and Evidence talk pages linked to the main arbitration page that, for some reason, this "kernel of truth" was avoided by the arbitration panel. Two arbitrators recused themselves, and the complainant himself withdrew from the case after he was denied an extension of time to reply to all the allegations brought against him. The arbitration decision to ban him was made in his absence. 41.162.131.130 (talk) 12:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I fail to see how the banning of Winer from participation in editing Wikipedia prevents his published work from being cited as a reliable reference source or external link. But, to avoid becoming bogged down in tiresome and unproductive bickering, I shall (with reluctance) concede the reversion. I reiterate that I am not Stan Winer or the banned user Communicat. 41.162.131.130 (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

He also misrepresented sources. He's unreliable. Either way, you ought to be able to find a reliable source to support your text unless Winer is the only person who advocates it. (Hohum ^@) 20:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

If you are an authority on reliable sources about the history of South Africa, as your comment seems to suggest, perhaps you might consider contributing to the article some of your own reliably sourced content. 41.162.131.130 (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Removed them again. Habap (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:SS!

Please try to reduce detail of coverage on this page, and try to transfer content to the WP:SS sub-articles. The material on the 19th century is in the worst shape: Look at the amount of material on this page, compared to the state of the History of South Africa (1815–1910) page, where the actual discussion of the 19th century should take place. Surely, our aim should be to reduce the 19th-century material on this page into a well-written, coherent summary, and export the content now burdening this page to the main page. --dab (𒁳) 14:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with your assertion that the 19th century section is "burdening" the page. I suggest length and weight given to any historical period must be measured according to the occurrence and significance of historical events taking place in the particular period or epoch. The sub-sections on the Frontier wars, (including the Xhosa wars which are sometimes referred to in the literature as "the 100-year war"), contain a succinct summary of those wars which were important albeit often overlooked events in the formative history of SA. Moreover, the 19th Century section carries no more weight than the subsequent sections dealing with the 20th Century period, which you do not consider to be any burden to the page. 41.162.131.130 (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Re WP:SS Separate to the above, the long Article contains an apparently off-topic section on Historiography (of South Africa). The article topic is History of South Africa, not the different (and academically hotly-debated) Historiography of SA. I suggest therefor that the latter (off-topic) section be removed and re-developed into a separate and comprehensive article. 41.162.131.130 (talk) 12:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC) 41.162.131.130 (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Historiography vs History

I'm removing from this already over-long article the section titled "Historiography" and its sub-section "Liberation historiography", for the following reasons:

• It is off-topic. Historiography is an academic field of theoretical study, not history as such. The article topic is the History of South Africa, not the historiography of SA, which is a large and separate topic that should form a separate but linked article.
• The sub-section tile "Liberation historiography" is misleading. There is no such generally accepted thing as South African liberation historiography. The term "Liberation historiography" was coined by the American writer John Ernest who demonstrated that African Americans created a body of writing in which the spiritual, the historical, and the political are inextricably connected. It has nothing to do with either the history or the historiography of SA.
• The subject of SA historiography is currently a contentious area of academic endeavour with sharply differing points of view, which are not included in the article section at issue. The section therefore does not conform with WP:NPOV.

Please discuss if necessary. 41.162.131.130 (talk) 14:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Charles Bell Painting

Do we really need to use the Charles Bell painting, which is reproduced in the section 'Dutch at the Cape'?

There are three reasons I propose we use another image instead:

a) It is not a historical image. The Charles Bell painting was made during the 19th century, some two centuries after the events it depicts occurred. This makes its use anachronistic.

b) It is not a neutral image. The painting arguably represents a colonialist view of South Africa, and could possibly be regarded as a kind of colonialist propaganda.

c) There are plenty of alternative images of the VOC Cape which were created during the actual company period. Many of these are free of copyright and available online, for example the Rijksmuseum's website.

14:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francoisdjvr (talk • contribs)

I do not particularly see a problem with including the Charles Bell painting as it is quite commonly used in publication and is hence quite well recognised. A contemporary picture would be nice, and if you have a specific one to recommend, I think we should definitely take it into consideration so long as it is particularly relevant to the Dutch Rule to which that section relates to. --DSBennie (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Griqula people

This passage seems to slant anti-Waterboer, but I'm not sure how to edit it to make it more neutral. It doesn't help that the relevant sentence is citing a source that I don't have access to right at the moment. (I've nerfed the ref tag here so we don't get a Reference section here on the Talk page.) Might also be a good idea to briefly mention Stafford Parker and the Diggers here. Any ideas how to fix this? 75.134.32.147 (talk) 05:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Although no formally surveyed boundaries existed, Griqua leader Nicolaas Waterboer claimed the diamond fields were situated on land belonging to the Griquas.[ref>George McCall Theal, "Discovery of diamonds and its consequences", in History of South Africa from 1795 to 1872, Vol.IV, London: Allen & Unwin 1919, pp.331</ref> The Boer republics of Transvaal and the Orange Free State also vied for ownership of the land, but Britain, being the preeminent force in the region, won control over the disputed territory.

Frontier Wars

This sentence was at the end of the "Frontier Wars" intro section. It is referenced, so I didn't feel comfortable straight-up deleting it. But it seems like it's hiding behind a quoted authority to call the tribal societies "backward." I've commented out this sentence for now, but it probably needs to be taken care of in a more formal way.

In a not unrelated note, ClueBot has rolled back my edits on the article as suspected vandalism. I'm not feeling up to creating a login, so could some kind and civic-minded soul unroll back my edits? If you decide that these edits are appropriate, of course :) 75.134.32.147 (talk) 06:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

It has been suggested by at least one historian that the early tribal societies of what is today South Africa were defeated not only by the superior weapons of the settlers, "but also by their own backwardness and disunity." [ref>A Lerumo, Fifty Fighting Years: The Communist Party of South Africa 1921–1971, London:1971, p.3. Accessed 12 June 2015</ref>

Allegations of copying and pasting

It was alleged that sections of History of South Africa#The First Anglo-Boer War were copied and pasted from this source: [20] (as captured on 29 November 2010). In particular, the following text appears on that site, the contemporaneous version of the article (26 November 2010) and on the first version of the article to include the copy-paste tag (18 September 2016):

Long-standing Boer resentment turned into full-blown rebellion in the Transvaal (under British control from 1877), and the first Anglo-Boer War, known to Afrikaners as the "War of Independence", broke out in 1880. The conflict ended almost as soon as it began with a crushing Boer victory at Battle of Majuba Hill February 27, 1881. The republic regained its independence as the Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek ("South African Republic"), or ZAR. Paul Kruger, one of the leaders of the uprising, became President of the ZAR in 1883. Meanwhile, the British, who viewed their defeat at Majuba as an aberration, forged ahead with their desire to federate the Southern African colonies and republics. They saw this as the best way to come to terms with the fact of a white Afrikaner majority, as well as to promote their larger strategic interests in the area.

I believe that the source was in fact copying Wikipedia. I hesitate to consider a fringe white-nationalist website a "mainstream" source, so I don't think {{Backwards copy}} is appropriate. Here is my reasoning: the language in question first appeared on Wikipedia in 2005. Notice that the language as first written in Wikipedia contains some minor discrepancies with the language that appears on the site: "known to Afrikaners as" vs. "known by Afrikaners as", for instance. But the site closely matches the language as of the Internet Archive capture. I think it is far more likely that the writer at the external website copied from Wikipedia around 2010. The alternative, that an editor in 2005 copied text from a website that wouldn't appear on Internet Archive for five years, but edited the language slightly, only to have the language perfectly match the site later, is hard to believe. Wikiacc (¶) 06:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Too many See alsos

@Zingvin: be more selective in what you include in the See also in sections. That's quite uncharacteristic of Wikipedia articles, and it's also very difficult to read or make sense of. Try to stick to two, three, four, not dozens of suggestions. AWildAppeared (talk) 08:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Zingvin: I see you're also including links that have already been linked elsewhere in the article, for example Dutch East India Company. AWildAppeared (talk) 08:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Zingvin: If we need to include that many See alsos, maybe we should work on expanding the bigger Main article links to from this page, e.g. Dutch Cape Colony, so that they include those topics. AWildAppeared (talk) 08:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on History of South Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110420053808/http://www.africandna.com/ScienPapers%5CHistory_of_Click-Speaking_Populations_of_Africa.pdf to http://www.africandna.com/ScienPapers%5CHistory_of_Click-Speaking_Populations_of_Africa.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140113052634/http://www.wim-sa.org/about-the-san/who-are-the-san to http://www.wim-sa.org/about-the-san/who-are-the-san
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110421002356/http://info.goldavenue.com/Info_site/in_arts/in_civ/in_rush_safrica.html to http://info.goldavenue.com/Info_site/in_arts/in_civ/in_rush_safrica.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304191439/http://sun025.sun.ac.za/portal/page/portal/Arts/Departemente1/geskiedenis/docs/coming_to_terms_with_past_present.pdf to http://sun025.sun.ac.za/portal/page/portal/Arts/Departemente1/geskiedenis/docs/coming_to_terms_with_past_present.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.sajewishreport.co.za/pdf/latest_issue/NJWED00323.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150714001451/http://www.anc.org.za/show.php?id=172 to http://www.anc.org.za/show.php?id=172
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629074215/http://www.anc.org.za/show.php?id=72 to http://www.anc.org.za/show.php?id=72
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070621043856/http://www.villagelife.co.za/NewFiles/15_hromnik.pdf to http://www.villagelife.co.za/NewFiles/15_hromnik.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050414045450/http://www.afrikanerbond.org.za/Dokideal.pdf to http://www.afrikanerbond.org.za/Dokideal.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Slaves from India?

QU0TE: Over the next 50 years, 150,000 more indentured Indian servants and labourers arrived, as well as numerous free "passenger Indians," building the base for what would become the largest Indian community outside India. END OF QUOTE

The above statement needs to have some more information. Like from which location in the subcontinent were these slaves from. For there was no single India as such then, other than a lot of mutually unconnected regions and populations in the subcontinent. It is seen mentioned in Native Life in Travancore that many slaves populations of the region did escape from their slavery under the native landlords by shifting to work in English and European plantations. Some of them after did also move to other British colonies. They had been indentured slaves in Travancore. However their move to South Africa might not be as slaves but as liberated slaves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:d403:19c5:c01:f8a7:f34e:5f7f (talk) 14:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Indentured servitude does not equal slavery. The servants had contracts to work for specific employers for a fixed time. Dimadick (talk) 06:11, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Revert

I've reverted the change an anon made to the article that consisted of them changing Boer -> Borean as the individual articles seemed to be about vastly different things. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 21:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• BushmenSan.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)