Talk:Negotiations to end apartheid in South Africa

	South Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the South African politics task force.

CODESA I and CODESA II

hasn't there been CODESA I and CODESA II? --Severino 17:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see The origins and implementation of the Constitution. This needs to be included in the article. Zaian 08:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the ultimative source is http://sahistory.org.za/pages/specialprojects/10years/codesa.htm. if i understood correctly, codesa I was held in december 1991 and the actual codesa I (the plenary session) lasted only a few days. working groups were appointed to deal with specific issues. these working groups continued their negotiations over the next month. in may 1992 codesa II took place but failed due to discrepancies. the breakthrough in the negotiations came later, in 1993. the article in the current version tells the story of the whole negotiation-process, not only of the actual codesa!!! therefore the article maybe should be cleant up and parts of it removed to other articles (history of south africa?). i began to make changes but then i cancelled it because of the reasons mentioned before. --Severino 22:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i've changed the article now. maybe its not the best solution to mention the bulk of the negotiation process under "other negotiations" and it should be removed to an other article. --Severino 17:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i'll translate it as soon as i've learned finnish ;-) ––Severino (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mahlabatini Declaration of Faith

the introduction now says the article deals with negotiations between 90 and 93. but i am in doubt not only if the mahlabatini negotiations fit temporally but also with regards to contents in this article. it should be articulated which effect it had on the later negotiations and the end of apartheid (if any).--Severino (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since the ruling National Party wasn't involved, this was hardly the beginning of the negotiations. Maybe it was the first contact between a whie parliamentarian and a black leader (albeit not the mainstream of black anti-apartheid activity). But the real question is, where is the reliable source to back the claim? Zaian (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of the private negotiations facilitated by Consolidated Gold Fields?

I think the article should include a section that describes the late-1980s private negotiations facilitated by Consolidated Gold Fields and organized and moderated by Michael Young, which included the participation of Willie Esterhuyse, Thabo Mbeki, and others. I don't feel equipped to write such a section, as I know a limited amount about it and lack quick access to good reliable sources on it. These negotiations have surely been well-documented now-days, as Michael Young was appointed to the Order of the British Empire in recognition, the 2009 film Endgame was made as a dramatization of the negotiations, and they were a precursor to the release of Nelson Mandela and to the more formal negotiations that culminated in the dismantling of apartheid. I believe there are some books on it as well, and some books with chapters devoted to it, such as the one by Robert Harvey. Any thoughts? John Shandy` • talk 03:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes, these talks were more important than the mentioned "Mahlabatini Declaration of Faith". i know that in allister sparks' "tomorrow is another country" these prenegotiations are dealt with. the article currently mentions the talks in dakar but i think those were not the same.--Severino (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious

Treatment for prostate surgery

You could get treated for various prostate disorders, or for side-effects of prostate surgery; in fact, your prostate might be treated with surgery. Research needed on what was actually the case.
--Jerzy•t 00:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change of subject.

I think we need to call this the " Convention of a Democratic South Africa (CODESA)" or Simply "CODESA" than its current topic. This topic should be part of the summary which explains that the CODESA was in fact the Negotiations to end apartheid in South Africa. Any Objections on this before I shift it? Bobbyshabangu _talk 23:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, objections. It WAS called CODESA before being renamed. As you can read, there were other negotiations too, and the breakthrough came in the Multiparty Negotiating Forum.--Severino (talk) 07:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Negotiations to end apartheid in 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:

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) 12:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]