Talk:Nelson Mandela/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Mandela Release Celebrated by U.S. Senate

Following after years of political and diplomatic pressure from democratic nations, South Africa officials released Mandela after a quarter century in prison. The release of Mandela was hailed and celebrated as a signal that South Africa would move in the direction of elected democratic government by all citizens. In the United States, Mandela was the honored by the U.S. Senate with a reception and dinner party. Senators David Boren and Terry Sanford hosted a celebration dinner for Mandela and his wife in the caucus room of the Russell Senate Office Building. Majority Leader George Mitchell gave welcoming remarks. All senators, their spouses and a few other guests were invited. The historic event was broadcast on cable live on CSpan June 25, 1990. Later, Mandela was the topic of an ABC NEWS special Nightline Town Hall with Ted Koppel, which discussed the political leader’s historic release and the beginning stages of U.S. diplomatic relations and economic ties with South Africa. <<Dana Hertneky, KWTV Television News, OU President David Boren Remembers Nelson Mandela, December 11, 2013>> <<ABC News, Nightline, David L. Boren converses with Nelson Mandela on YouTube, December 17, 2013>>

 <<C-SPAN, Senate Dinner for Mandela, June 25, 1990>>

World.news.editor3 (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

This may well be true, but is comparatively minor trivia when placed within the wider context of Mandela's life and career. I am unsure what it is that this particular editor is actually requesting, but if it is that this information be included in the article then I would have to strongly disagree; such information just isn't noteworthy enough. Bear in mind that this is an encylopaedia article about Mandela, and not a full biography. It is not our purpose to include every single bit of information about him, but instead to present a concise, informative summary of the key points of his life, significance, reception, and legacy. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Google Fact Can Be added in Short Sentance

Like Most Google doodle's for a day on the homepage are mentioned on Wikipedia, I think this deserves a brief mention. Of course almost everyone Knew about Mandela's existence without Google, I still think Google has helped with many people learning more about Mandela. It also of course reminded everyone that today is his birthday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.91.76 (talk) 07:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I would question whether this is notable enough for inclusion, given the huge impact that Mandela has had on the world. Perhaps is would warrant inclusion on a page titled Legacy of Nelson Mandela or something of that nature. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Not notable.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect information for Bio Photo of Nelson Mandela

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Mandela#mediaviewer/File:Nelson_Mandela-2008_(edit).jpg

The post under the BIO photograph, when the photo is clicked to enlarge, is:

"Nelson Mandela on the eve of his 90th birthday in Johannesburg in May 2008"

Except Nelson Mandela was born in July, not May.

I did not know how/what to edit and cannot remember my log-in. Thanks.

Danita

seaspritesfacebook@gmail.com

75.175.148.93 (talk) 19:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Support of gay rights

We do not need a "I support gay rights" quote from Mandela to write he supported gay rights if third party reliable sources make that assessment. Indeed, a politician saying, "I champion the rights of xxx!" is less valuable than independent sources making that assessment. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

And now the same editor is deleting other sourced info. [1] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I see you've restored the anti-abortion content. Any opinion on the gay rights sentence? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I got a bit confused there. I thought I was merely reverting the article to its established state so a discussion could occur (and I did not see any reason for the change), but when I checked a diff from how it was after my edit to how it was before the recent edits (diff) I saw that in fact some changes had occurred. I'm caught up looking at something elsewhere (two new users just added exactly the same text to two different articles within five minutes of each other; text which is on a third new user's sandbox). Please do whatever you think should be done here and I'll look later. Johnuniq (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I'm not touching that piece as I'm at two reverts. Changes I made:

• Restored the anti-abortion text, tweaking it to fit the new source I found (the existing source's link seemed to go to a different article).
• Restored the gay rights text and added another source.

Have fun dealing with the new users :-) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I was going to edit the article to show my suggestion, but there is a minor problem which means I think it should be discussed first. One trivial point is that "for for" is now repeated in the article, and we can fix that on the next edit. The issue is that the following was removed:

"This belief drove him to not only pursue racial equality but also to promote gay rights as part of the post-apartheid reforms."

The original ref for the above is from NPR's SA correspondent, John Matisonn which says: "President Mandela supported gay rights and gay marriage from 1994 when he became president. And that's a couple of decades before any other head of government or head of state in the Western world. So he was really ahead of his time and continued to be." That addresses only the fact that Mandela promoted gay rights (a well-known fact), but does not address the "drove him" motivation claims. An additional ref is AP Worldstream via HighBeam, but I don't have access and the summary does not deal with the issue. My guess is that some rewording of the text is needed because I do not see a source for the claim about Mandela's motivation. The other changes look fine. Johnuniq (talk) 01:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: What about adding a comma to the previous sentence and adding on, "pursuing not only racial equality but also promoting gay rights as part of the post-apartheid reforms."? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The proposed text is (this restores a recently removed source and adds a modified form of recently removed text):

He held a conviction that "inclusivity, accountability and freedom of speech" were the fundamentals of democracy, and was driven by a belief in natural and human rights, pursuing not only racial equality but also promoting gay rights as part of the post-apartheid reforms.

References

However, I'm having trouble finding a good source for "promoting gay rights". The fact seems obvious, but the right source eludes me. In addition to the sources mentioned above, I found lots of incidental commentary and:

• Mandela gave gay rights battle a legal framework (short opinion piece)
• LGBT rights were integrated into the vision of a new South Africa (interview with Albie Sachs)

Sorry, but I'll have to leave it for the moment. Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I made the edit using a better source: Mandela: A hero for all of us. Johnuniq (talk) 10:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Good find. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that emphasising gay rights as such is really a balanced view of the man. Mandela was fundamentally opposed to discrimination per se. The form or basis of the discrimination; gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, disability, language, etc is actually only of secondary importance. Thus I'm a bit leery of shining too bright a spotlight on only one of the discriminations that he opposed. Roger (Dodger67) (talk)

There's exactly one mention of his support of gay rights in the article which is widely covered by disparate sources like this one. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

It actually took a Constitutional Court case to force Mandela's government to recognise the legality of same sex marriage - the government's advocates argued against such recognition. If Mandela really unequivocally supported full equality of gays he could actually have ordered the Minister of Home Affairs not to oppose the applicant's case - he self-evidently never gave such an order. We must be careful not to automatically and uncritically assign sainthood to the man. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Saying we are automatically and uncritically assigning sainthood is an unneeded exaggeration which only detracts from your argument (which is speculation, by the way). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Much as I like to think that all Wikipedians are objective editors, that is unfortunately not the case - when you bring up an iconic name like Mandela, it tends to provoke strong emotions. I have noticed more than its share of this occurring on many articles which discuss South African contemporary history and apartheid in particular, so given the setting Dodge has a valid concern. Maybe you're not guilty of it, but there are others who have posted here in the past who most certainly are. There's no sense in downplaying the issue. --Katangais (talk) 02:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Or exaggerating the issue. Saying Mandela supported gay rights is not awarding him sainthood. Also, saying something like, "If he really supported x he would have done y" is not really useful as it's unsourced opinion. If there is coverage in reliable sources on Mandela's ambivalence towards gay rights then adding some sort of nuance might be warranted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Re "sainthood" please see Metaphor. By the way, I did not accuse anyone of actually assigning sainthood, my exact statement was; "We must be careful not to automatically and uncritically assign sainthood to the man." (note my use of the non-specific collective "We") The objective and absolutely indisputable reality is that Mandela's government chose to do nothing about the legalisation of gay marriage. Thus it is perfectly logical to state that Mandela's support for gay rights was not absolute and unconditional with respect to every single detail and minutia of the broad range of issues that are commonly described as "gay rights". That's all I'm saying - his support was not absolute and without exception. The statement currently in the article does not convey that nuanced reality. Neither is it accurate to call it unsourced opinion - the Minister of Home Affairs v Fourie Constitutional Court case did happen - same sex marriage was not legally recognised until the government was forced to do so by the ConCourt several years after Mandela's retirement - in 2005. Thus I must correct my earlier post: the case happened after Mandela's term of office, he was not personally involved - that does not excuse his failure to ensure legalisation when he did have the power to do so - which is what one would reasonably expect any rational absolute supporter in his position to do. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The lead gives the pronunciation /mænˈdɛlə/, which is written in the cited source, but the audio in the source is more like /manˈdɛlə/, which is more in line with the pronunciation used by English speakers in South Africa. --Taejo|대조 09:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

In my experience as a native English speaking South African there are two slightly different pronunciations of the first syllable in common use: one is the same as "man" as in male person and the other is the same as money or Monday. Sorry I'm not skilled in IPA. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

What did he actually bomb?

The article is full of detail of the court cases, but lacks any information about his activities as a 'guerilla fighter', and the 'sabotage' which he undertook. Given the allegation that he was a 'terrorist', it would be helpful to provide the facts about what he did to allow us to an honest appraisal. Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 07:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ender's Shadow Snr - The Rivonia Trial article has some detail of the charges and lists several good sources for further information. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think he bombed anything. The charges relate to the planning (conspiracy) stage.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Mandela's autobiography describes considering "four types of violent activities: sabotage, guerilla warfare, terrorism and open revolution", and deciding on sabotage. "But if sabotage did not produce the results we wanted, we were prepared to move on to the next stage: guerilla warfare and terrorism". The biography "Young Mandela" (David James Smith, 2010) has quite a bit about the sabotage campaign of bombings that launched MK on the night of 16 December 1961. It says "Mandela was in charge but, after his participation in the test run at the brickworks, seems to have been at one remove from the action." It mentions 57 explosions around the country that night, and another round over new year, and sporadically during 1962. The targets were chosen to be deserted to minimise the risk of injury. The only casualties were one MK cadre killed and one injured while placing bombs. Mandela left SA in February 1962 and was arrested soon after his return in August. Zaian (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for a great reply - could you put a precis of that into the article please? Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 00:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2015

Mention should be made of the monument at his capture site in the KZN Midlands under "Orders, Decorations and Monuments". The monument site has also recently received a massive upgrade - http://www.5stardurban.co.za/r100-million-mandela-multi-purpose-centre-set-to-draw-tourists-to-kzn-midlands/

41.146.195.4 (talk) 12:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JustBerry (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Primary School announcement

Hi everybody. On behalf of the teams behind the Wikipedia Primary School research project, I would like to announce that this article was selected a while ago to be reviewed by an external expert. We'd now like to ask interested editors to join our efforts and improve the article before March 15, 2015 (any timezone) as they see fit; a revision will be then sent to the designated expert for review. Any notes and remarks written by the external expert will be made available on this page under a CC-BY-SA license as soon as possible, so that you can read them, discuss them and then decide if and how to use them. Please sign up here to let us know you're collaborating. Thanks a lot for your support! --Elitre (WPS) (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. Myself and the now retired User:Khazar2 were primarily responsible for pulling this article into shape and getting it GA status back in June 2013, although since then of course we have seen Mandela's passing and various further edits made to the page, some of which may have been a little detrimental (there is now far too much emphasis on the trivia surrounding Mandela's illnesses in his final years). Expert advice from an established academic would thus be very much appreciated. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, Midnightblueowl! I'm seeing some activity on the article - although nobody signed up for it so it's probably not related to my request above. If you know anybody who could be interested in helping our project, please don't hesitate to ping them. Best, --Elitre (WPS) (talk) 10:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm a little later than the 15 March deadline, but I am making a number of small improvements to the prose and referencing throughout the article, mostly to rectify problems that have arisen since the article passed GAN. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you anyway! We'll see how that compares to what the reviewer writes, then :) --Elitre (WPS) (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Review within the Wikipedia Primary School project

Hi all. As anticipated, some weeks ago Dr. Steven Friedman (Centre for the Study of Democracy, Rhodes University and University of Johannesburg) agreed to review this article within the scope of the project linked above. You can find his notes in the PDF I just uploaded to Commons. We'd like to thank Dr. Friedman for his work and for his helpful notes. We invite everybody to feel free to reuse the review to improve the article and/or to comment it here. Best, --Elitre (WPS) (talk) 10:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully I, and others, will be able to go through Dr. Friedman's points one by one at some point in the near future and make the necessary changes accordingly. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I've implemented some of the comments in the review. Some that I did not change:

• "AB Xuma was not removed from the ANC Presidency by a vote of no confidence" - Sampson's biography claims he was.
• "I can find no reference anywhere to the person ‘Noengland’" - I found a few references online to Noengland as Dalindyebo's wife.

There are lots more comments in the review that still need to be addressed. Zaian (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Friedman's comments

Here I'm going to list Friedman's comments, one by one, so that they can be discussed and potentially result in alterations. Hopefully that will make it easier to bring about the changes required. As I think Zaian makes clear above, we should however be clear about rushign to implement changes based on these comments, and should instead weigh them against other reliable, published sources. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• "The articles [sic] states as a fact that Mandela served on the central committee of the SA Communist Party – this is a claim rather than a fact."
  • The article no longer claims this as fact. Any mention of the SACP Central Committee has been removed from the lede and in the body of the article it only claims that the SACP now alleges that Mandela sat on its Central Committee. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• "He did not invite other parties to join his government: the constitution required this."
  • The wording has been altered accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• "He did not promulgate a new constitution – the constitution was the work of Parliament."

• "Gaur Redebe, mentioned in section 1.3, is in fact Gaur Radebe."
  • This has been corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• "AB Xuma was not removed from the ANC Presidency by a vote of no confidence – he was defeated in an election for ANC president."

• "The ANC in 1949 did not have a Cabinet – it had an executive."
  • Fixed. Zaian (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• "It is not strictly correct to say that Mandela ‘embraced dialectical materialism’ – he recalled that he found it useful but it is clear from the context that he also used other tools to analyse society."

• "The M Plan was not revealed in a speech in 1953 read out by Andrew Kunene."

• "The Freedom Charter was not solely drafted by Rusty Bernstein."

• "The Charter was not ‘a key part of Mandela’s ideology’ – it was the policy of the ANC."

• "I can find no reference anywhere to the person ‘Noengland’ who Mandela is said to have visited in September 1955."

• "Oswald Pirow was not a judge at the Treason Trial, he was a prosecutor."
  • Corrected. Zaian (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• "It is not an established fact that the apartheid government secretly funded Inkatha to attack the ANC – it is a claim."
  • This is the sentence referred to: "Utilising the army and right-wing paramilitaries to combat the resistance, the government secretly funded Zulu nationalist movement Inkatha to attack ANC members, furthering the violence.[171]". I've changed "right-wing paramilitaries" to "vigilante groups" because it's more likely that this refers to the vigilantes who attacked UDF groups in Crossroads and elsewhere, not white right-wing paramilitary groups like the AWB. Regarding Inkatha, the reference (Sampson's biography) says "the Pretoria government had been systematically arming Zulu forces against the ANC", referring to 200 Inkatha soldiers who were trained in Caprivi in early 1986. The training in Caprivi with government backing is not disputed (Buthelezi referred to it in an article in 2013), but the direct link with the violence is disputed. I've changed the sentence to "The violence escalated as the government used the army and police to combat the resistance, and provided covert support for vigilante groups and for the Zulu nationalist movement Inkatha, which was involved in an increasingly violent struggle with the ANC." Zaian (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• "FW de Klerk did not release all ANC prisoners except Mandela – he released a select few before Mandela’s release."
  • Rephrased this statement to "released a number of ANC leaders" Zaian (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• "Most estimates put the attendance at Mandela’s 1990 Soccer City rally above 100 000 although no precise figure is available."
  • Changed to "an estimated 100,000 people" Zaian (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• "Mandela did not unilaterally resume negotiations in September 1992 – he and de Klerk agreed to do this."

• "The constitutional assembly which sat after 1994 did not give the National Party continuing influence."

• "Thabo Mbeki was not a ‘young ANC leader’ at the time – he was a senior figure in the movement."
  • Fixed by removing the description of him as young (he was in his 50s). Zaian (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• "Mandela and de Klerk did not convince Buthelezi to bring Inkatha into the election in 1994."

• "That 750 000 whites emigrated in the 1990s is an estimate, not a fact."
  • The Sampson reference says that the number is impossible to verify, but it refers to a survey that found that 96% of emigrants cited crime, and 74% of skilled whites said they were ready to leave because of crime. Other references have widely varying figures. I've changed the sentence to avoid providing a number. Zaian (talk) 20:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• "Winnie Mandela was not asked to stand down from the ANC national executive for misappropriating funds."

• "De Klerk did not withdraw from the government of national unity because the constitution was not being observed but because he felt his party was not being treated as an equal."
  • I've found citations to support this and amended the prose accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• "Mandela did not ‘admit’ that Mbeki was de facto president – it was his idea that he should play this role."
  • changed from "he admitted" to "he said". Zaian (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• "The claim that Mandela rejected capitalism is contradicted by articles he wrote at the time."

• "Mandela did not order troops into Lesotho – Buthelezi was acting president at the time and he was responsible."
  • Fixed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• "The claim that his administration was ‘mired in scandal’ is odd given only one scandal attracted attention during his term of office."
  • Removed the phrase "mired in corruption scandals" Zaian (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Mandela Foreign Visit

It's regrettable that the article fails to mention that among Mandela's first state visits following his release, was a joint address to the Canadian House Of Commons and Senate in 1990, the first time in four decades a non-head of state was awarded such an honour. Former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney was a staunch advocate of ending apartheid and sanctioning South Africa for it's oppression of the black majority. The article seems to re-write history by downplaying the importance of Canada's role in pressuring both the release of Mandela and the end to white minority rule in South Africa, and is highly insulting to the nation. Starzguy (talk) 05:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Please assume good faith - it's really not helpful to accuse anyone of insulting Canada. If you want to mention the significance of his address to the Canadian House of Commons, add it to the paragraph under Early negotiations: 1990–91 which includes a long list of supporting countries which he visited and addressed. But keep it brief and proportional, in line with the many other countries mentioned in this paragraph. The page is however semi-protected, so you can't edit until you have been registered for at last 4 days and made at least 10 edits elsewhere on Wikipedia. You can always suggest changes here though, for other editors to make on your behalf. Zaian (talk) 06:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Mandela visited a great many countries both prior to his presidency and during it; we mention very few of them here, because we are trying to keep the article concise and focusing on the most important points of his life story. It is best that we follow the example of the various biographies about Mandela that have been published (Meredith, Sampson, Lodge etc). If they mention his visit to Canada then it is probably worthy of a mention; if they don't then I would suggest that it isn't. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Nelson Mandela. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120331101705/http://www.nmmu.ac.za/documents/theses/AAFabbriciani.pdf to http://www.nmmu.ac.za/documents/theses/AAFabbriciani.pdf

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

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.  Rules of enpagement Paine  02:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130811104310/http://www.commerce.uct.ac.za/Research_Units/dpru/WorkingPapers/PDF_Files/wp34.pdf to http://www.commerce.uct.ac.za/Research_Units/dpru/WorkingPapers/PDF_Files/wp34.pdf

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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.  Rules of enpagement Paine  02:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Ancestry section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In the interest of not starting an edit war, is there really any point in having an ancestry section which only lists Mandela's parents? This information is readily available elsewhere in the article, and is summarised in the infobox. What does this section add? Hpesoj00 (talk) 06:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The section should be retained, as it can be and has in the past been expanded as previously noted here. It is difficult to add anything positive about this man to his article as it seems rigorously monitored by editors who gradually but invariably chip away at it to "cut Mandela down to size" (an implicit, though inadequate, tribute). FactStraight (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Can you expand the tree then? My complaint is just that the section doesn't serve any purpose at the moment. If well cited, I fail to see how building a family tree could be controversial. As someone who knew very little about Mandela before reviewing this article, I feel that the article as it stands has a neutral tone, and if anything paints Mandela in a positive light. Hpesoj00 (talk) 03:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Hpesoj00 that any ancestry section should be fully and properly referenced and that it should include more than his just Mandela's parents. If such a properly produced ancestry chart is produced then I would certainly be happy to discuss its utility for this article here at the Talk Page; however, we really can't have the ultra-brief chart that was briefly added to the article several days ago. Moreover, as to FactStraight's claim that "editors" (presumably a reference to myself?) have been trying to "cut Mandela down to size", I would want to see some evidence of that before commenting further. If they feel that there is a serious issue with this article somehow denigrating Mandela then that might be something that we need to discuss. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Part is now edit warring to add this section back in. They falsely accused me of vandalism because I removed it, adding that I have a systematic bias against Southern Africa because I live in Europe (apparently!). I have asked that they engage with us here at the Talk Page but they have thus far ignored my request. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I accuse Midnightblueowl of systemic bias.

The evidence being...? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Please see below. Part (talk) 10:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

All I'm seeing is accusations made without sufficient supporting evidence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, let's drop the arguments about systemic bias, because that isn't helping the page. I'm annoyed that you made both that accusation and one of vandalism against me, because those are maliciously false, but let's just put that behind us and deal with the issues at hand. I'm certainly open to including information on Mandela's genetic ancestry; what I am asking for is better quality sources, which I believe probably do exist. If scientists have undertaken research into his genetic ancestry then surely they published that research, so where is the published report? Can you help me find it? Moreover, I would ask you to relent and allow the ancestry chart to be removed for now (read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle; you were Bold with you addition, but it got reverted, you should have then taken it to the Talk Page, rather than just edit warring and throwing wild accusations about). An ancestry chart containing only Mandela and his parents is pointlessly short. If you can help come up with a fuller chart, and one that is fully referenced to good quality published sources, then I would be inclined to support it. Can we get some agreement on these issues? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Often those who have systematic bias do not realise it. Credible references have been provided, however you insist on deleting factually correct neutral information that enhances the article and insist on Western standards of credibility i.e. peer-reviewed journal. Please also see. I might contact you privately if you like to get socio-demographic variables like your age-group, ethnicity, etc because I am studying systemic bias on Wikipedia. You will remain totally anonymous of course. Part (talk) 10:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I prefer to remain totally anonymous from other editors, but I wish you well with your study (which I believe will be important). Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, I have said that I am okay with the information on Mandela's genetic material remaining in the article. I would like to see the claims bolstered with the scientific report, if possible, whether peer-reviewed or not (peer-reviewed journals are hardly a Western-only standard of credibility, however). What is really at issue here is the unreferenced, scanty ancestry chart. 11:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Please also see oral citations experiment. Part (talk) 11:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Let's keep on topic, Part. We are not here to discuss the validity of indigenous ways of knowing and oral culture vis a vis Wikipedia. We are here to discuss this particular Ancestry section on the Nelson Mandela article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

That is part of the topic and part of the reason Mandela's grandparents are not on the ancestry chart. And the wider issue of systemic bias. Thanks for your participation. Part (talk) 11:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

If we don't know Mandela's ancestry beyond that of his parents then there is really no point in having an ancestry chart, is there? You were Bold in adding it (which is fine), but because it was contentious it has been removed and you have not won support for its re-inclusion here at the Talk Page (which you have to do if you want it included, see WP:BRT). You can't just edit war to keep it in the article; that is not how Wikipedia works. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your participation. Part (talk) 11:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

So you're trying to shut down the discussion when it becomes clear that you're the one contravening Wikipedia policy? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Happy to discuss. I have obtained the data I need for my systemic bias research. If you like, you can remove the chart but not the genetic information (you can if you like). Part (talk) 12:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Please may you comment on Midnightblueowl. See above correspondence. Part (talk) 08:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I shall remove the chart for now. I am of course happy to discuss its reintegration back into the article if it can be expanded and fleshed out with proper sourcing. I am happy to leave the information on Mandela's genetic ancestry in the article, however I think that it really would be improved if we can find a publication by the scientific team who carried out that research. I worry about whether "SouthAfrica.info" is a WP:Reliable Source or not, because it describes itself as "Brand South Africa's information gateway to South Africa". It is a tourist website. If we have news websites reporting this same information (and we do) then those would be Reliable Sources, but I still think it would be great to add that scientific report in as a citation if possible; that will be the best quality source according to Wikipedia's policies. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• An administrator is not needed to identify the fact that an ancestry chart showing Mandela and his parents and nothing else is unhelpful. Midnightblueowl is doing the right thing by removing it, and the baseless commentary about systemic bias above is irrelevant for Wikipedia where issues must be resolved based on policy, not on one person's opinion of another. A further illustration of the irrelevancy is that even if it could be established that an editor had a systemic bias, the question would still remain regarding whether their proposed edit should be made. Johnuniq (talk) 10:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Johnuniq for participating. Part (talk) 11:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I too was against it. It was discussed with me before and the consensus somehow came Retain!VarunFEB2003 ^{I am Offline} 11:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I declare once again that I'm conducting research on systemic bias on Wikipedia with the goal of improving certain aspects. Anything written will be fodder for the qualitative analysis. Part (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Please note that {{cot}} {{cob}} shouldn't be used in articles (no collapsing) VarunFEB2003 ^{I am Offline} 15:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@Part: Your "I declare once again..." statement above (diff) sounds like some kind of threat. Please retract that immediately—there must be no suggestion that editors following policy should be subjected to some kind of creepy scrutiny by a self-appointed righter of great wrongs. If you do not intend the comment as a threat, please clarify its purpose—why is it on this talk page? Johnuniq (talk) 02:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@Johnuniq it is not a threat, please see my talk page. I am conducting an ongoing study on systemic bias. The research protocol specifies that I must make this clear. Part (talk) 12:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, it certainly quacks like a threat. Being belligerent and using the response as "fodder for your qualitative research on systemic bias" is not a good research methodology, Part. Zaian (talk) 10:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for participating Zaian. Part (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Zaian. Your study is likely to suffer from significant selection bias. Also, telling people they are involuntarily taking part in a study is likely to influence their behaviour and further bias your results. In addition, telling people you disagree with that their words are being recorded has the potential to come across as passive aggressive. You may want to revise your approach if you do not wish your actions to be perceived in this way. Hpesoj00 (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for participating Hpesoj00. Part (talk) 11:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not a pleasure, Part. The bias is yours, the antisocial behaviour is yours, and passive aggressive pretty much sums up your approach. There's certainly enough material on your talk page for a conference, but the subject matter is not the people you are attacking. And, for the record, you do not have my permission to include me in any "study". Zaian (talk) 12:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for participating Zaian. Your text was released under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License; "...you irrevocably agree to release your contribution ..." Part (talk) 18:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh sure, I'm aware of CC licensing, Prat. But I'm sure your precious "research protocol" has higher standards than simply taking text that is released under Creative Commons. Much of the discussion has been related to your dubious approach, and not the content of what you wrote, so this has precious little to do with "systemic bias". Zaian (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

In response to the admin help request: Administrators are not content arbiters, and this seems to be a content dispute. There are methods of dispute resolution available to you, and I suggest you begin to use them. If there are behavioral issues here, please bring them to WP:ANI for wider scrutiny. If there is anything an admin can do within the scope of our responsibilities, feel free to replace the tag. :-) Katie^talk 19:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Zaian for your further participation. Thanks also Katie. Part (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

We are also very interested in the role administrators play. @Katie if you can please may you comment/act on possible abusive corruption of my user name to Prat by Zaian. Part (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Since you seem to be using the royal 'we', I'll do likewise, as I'm going to AGF that this isn't a shared account.

We are of the conclusion that it is a typo and that there is no abuse here. We are skeptical of your research claims, because researchers don't call their data "fodder for the qualitative analysis." We also strongly suggest that you get off your high horse, take the suggestions of other editors here, and drop the stick. Katie^talk 20:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks we appreciate your input Katie. To clarify, the 'we' refers to the research group that developed the protocol. The account is not shared. Part (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

You are not getting it. First, if you substantively participate in this talk page or this article without retracting your threat, I will ask for assistance at WP:ANI to have you removed from this topic ("substantive" = try to influence the content of the article). Second, the patronizing "Thanks for your further participation" crap has to stop. Several editors have objected to your approach, and an article talk page should not be used as part of your "research". I also refuse permission for my name or comments to be used as part of an editor's "research". Do not thank me for pointing out the obvious. Johnuniq (talk) 01:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe this study has crossed some serious ethical guidelines and I've opened a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Editor not here to build an encyclopedia. Mkdw^talk 06:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mandela Effect

Suggestion for a brief mention for inclusion in the section "Biographies and popular media": Mandela's prolonged disappearance from the public eye while in prison seems to have caused confusion among some, with many reporting having believed him to have died in the 1980s. The creation of such collective false memories has been called "the Mandela Effect".

I don't think that's a good idea. The only person who seems to have reported believing Mandela died in the 1980s is paranormal researcher Fiona Broome, who coined the term. Mandela's release from prison and his term as President were big stories worldwide. Anyone who didn't know about them wasn't very aware of current affairs, and doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.--Jack Upland (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

References

democratic socialism

the sources for nelson mandela being a "democratic socialist" do not contain this information or even these words. this is a revision of history. Nelson Mandela was a communist, anyone with any basic history or political science background knows this. Note: democratic socialist, social democracy are two distinct things. Communism in early 20th c. was also used interchangeably with "social democracy", which over time has taken on new meaning. "democratic socialism" is something quite distinct. anyhow. I have found the source for Mandela's "democratic socialism" which only contains the word "democratic" 3 times. Here is the book (type it in for yourself, also type in communism): https://books.google.ca/books?redir_esc=y&id=XYgRAQAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=democratic

I suspect the additional source is similarly misrepresented, as at least one of the editors on here has taken issue with mandela being represented as a communist, and prefers to place him under the recently fashionable umbrella of "democratic socialism".AnieHall (talk) 07:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

"Mandela was a communist, anyone with any basic history or political science background knows this". What? This is just a fringe theory that was popular among right-wing and pro-apartheid circles but with very little support beyond that, and certainly it isn't the view articulated in the Reliable Sources. Mandela was a democratic socialist. He desired to see a socialist society, as described in the Freedom Charter, and on taking power helped to fashion South Africa into a liberal democracy, not a communist state. That isn't to say that he wasn't influenced by Marxist ideas because he clearly was, and he was for a short time a member of the South African Communist Party, but his abiding allegiance was always to the ANC. This of course complicates things, but given that he didn't govern in a manner akin to Marxist-Leninist regimes means that there seems little reason to call him a communist. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

He wasn't a Communist, just a member of the CP.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

He desired to see a socialist society, as described in the Freedom Charter, and-> (but) on taking power helped to fashion South Africa into a liberal democracy, not a communist state. Fixed. I don't see "dem soc" anywhere in the article now and this is for the best. The article correctly states that Mandela was sympathetic to socialist ideas and the CP, but in practice did not do anything to advance socialism in SA (democratic, social-democratic, communist, African or otherwise). Guccisamsclub (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2017

The smarty pants (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)institutionalised

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. meamemg (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

There are false facts on this page and as a historian I feel that this needs to be fixed, because this man was a great man and a big part of the fight for equality.

2601:3C7:200:808F:B4D6:40CA:586C:7C4B (talk) 00:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

2601:3C7:200:808F:B4D6:40CA:586C:7C4B (talk) 00:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Unclear usage of the term "comrade"

Howzit all.

Recently, I came across this part of the article which I felt was needlessly unclear about its usage of a specific word ("comrade").

The other cabinet positions were taken by ANC members, many of whom—like Joe Modise, Alfred Nzo, Joe Slovo, Mac Maharaj and Dullah Omar—had long been comrades, although others, such as Tito Mboweni and Jeff Radebe, were far younger.

Now, in this context the term "comrade" can have multiple meanings. For example it can mean a personal companion, or (in South African usage) it can mean an ANC member/somebody who participated in the struggle against apartheid.

Whereas all the other usages of "comrade" in the article make it clear which one is being referenced, ie "he debated socio-political topics with his comrades" and "Mandela and his comrades" this one does not.

It is not clear whether the text above means that the five individuals mentioned had long been ANC members, or whether they had long been personal companions of Nelson Mandela, since the term can mean both.

I am proposing the text be altered accordingly. We could add "comrades of Mandela" as opposed to merely "comrades", or replace it with a more specific term.

Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it should be more specific.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Good call. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nelson Mandela. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/6EiCWr1mK?url=http://peaceandjustice.org/article.php?story=20050109125126110 to http://peaceandjustice.org/article.php?story=20050109125126110&mode=print

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) 15:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Bombings?

Other web sites accuse Nelson Mandala of being involved, and tried for, deaths that resulted from terrorist activities for his political cause, including a string of bombings. Shouldn't the page address this issue? Is Wikipedia a PR page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.94.146.167 (talk) 23:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The sabotage campaign was launched in December 1961 and Mandela was arrested in 1962. He was convicted of sabotage at Rivonia Trial - this did not involve convictions for deaths. This is covered in the article. Zaian (talk) 06:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Wiki often lists bios both BLP and otherwise, of crimes thought associated. This page is utterly devoid of any of the actual issues at hand, including documented ones. Thus, as noted above, a revisionist history. For example, Amnesty International refused to take Mandela's case in 1965, because he was intertwined and directly responsible for various forms of violence. (You can find that document here: http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/POL10/001/1965/en). It appears, in a bizarre need to saint him - on the web at least - the fact that he was much more involved, in various government and human rights watchdog groups at that time has left this bio utterly devoid of a rather large chunk of his existence. These topics should be addressed, unless - as has happened in the past - editors deem factual documentation as "not reliable", preferring to preserve hero status. Even Mother Teresa's bio has been allowed editing for criticisms despite her Sainthood. In fact, due to such criticisms, an entirely NEW page of Wiki was devoted to her. While I'm not asking for a page, it would behoove the proper Wiki standards to allow some of this documentation to be presented. I will not make such changes yet (and frankly, an edit war would likely ensue for those desperate to preserve him as perfectly divine) but it should absolutely be included and it should be discussed here, at first. So I will leave the page as is for now, and hope for discourse to include various documents and reputable sources for more nefarious dealings of Mandela. Seola (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

If this article looks like an attempt to preserve anyone's sainthood, that's not a good thing, and you can help address it by making changes, providing references, where you feel there are gaps. If your changes are well referenced and within Wikipedia guidelines, they should not result in an edit war. The Amnesty document you provided is a useful start to this. However your comment that "Amnesty refused to take Mandela's case" is not quite what the document says. It says "1964 brought to a head the issue of whether or not support should be given to men like Nelson Mandela who, through pressure of events, found themselves constrained to recommend a degree of force in opposition to the South African Nationalist Government. This case was a particularly poignant one since Mandela, like his chief, Albert Luthuli, had previously been committed to the principles of non-violence. ... While the greatest sympathy was expressed for those who find themselves deprived of every form of public protest, the movement recorded that it could not give the name of 'Prisoner of Conscience' to anyone associated with violence." Nothing about refusing to take his case in that section, but maybe there is more elsewhere in the document? Zaian (talk) 19:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

This gives Amnesty International's side of it. They did not campaign for his "automatic release". (I think "automatic" there is meaningless.) But I don't see the relevance... But I think the trial could be expanded on here. Even the Rivonia Trial article does not give details about the charges or what they actually did. This point has been raised before. The trial was pivotal in Mandela's life. It saw him sentenced to 27 years in prison and elevated into the global face of the anti-apartheid struggle. But it is dealt with briefly here, in contrast with the long section on his retirement.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes the Amnesty angle a bit clearer. Agreed that the Rivonia Trial coverage needs work. As I understand it, "it's complicated". The Rivonia Trial did not focus on specific bombings during Mandela's period as head of MK's sabotage campaign, which had a mainly symbolic impact in the brief period from its launch on 16 December 1961 before Mandela was arrested in 1962 (and much of that time he was in other African countries canvassing support for the ANC). The biography "Young Mandela" suggests that Mandela's specific acts in the campaign launch on 16 December are unknown. So the lack of details on Mandela's involvement in those bombings is partly because it was a fairly brief campaign with limited actual impact, and partly because the details are lost. Not that Mandela ever denied responsibility - in fact at the Rivonia Trial he and other defendants were clear in taking responsibility for the campaign, but pleaded not guilty as a political statement. The charges at Rivonia were focused on Mandela and the ANC's larger aims of destabilising the country and launching a guerrilla campaign to overthrow the state. The ANC leadership had written a hoard of documents discussing these options, and were arrested before the plans had been launched, or possibly even agreed. This left a trove of incriminating evidence for the prosecutors. This is documented at length in his biographies. Zaian (talk) 15:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Seola, you have not responded to the replies above. You said "I will not make such changes [to the page] yet". I respectfully disagree with that - you can help address the issues you raise - but do you at least have a contribution to the discussion on this talk page? Zaian (talk) 09:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Zaian, this was the first notification I've received that had addressed me in my list, so no I had not responded as I was not tagged and I don't generally check in before a few weeks have passed on my own. I choose to not make edits that would almost immediately be reverted in the posthumous need of Sainthood, with a direction of "take it to the talk page". This has not only happened on multiple occasions but has, in some cases, started edit wars that sent pages into protection modes. Hence, I bring the issues up before editing so it can be discussed. That said, it's clear across Wiki, as I noted, that crimes associated with a group are mentioned with a member of that group. For example, in Samuel Bowers, an unsourced allegation of Jewish bombings (in his lede, none the less), despite no conviction or even arrest, based on his association with the KKK/White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. Granted, the guy isn't exactly a paragon of integrity, but I'm merely noting the structure of connections. In fact, the bottom half of the "Violent Campaigns" has nothing to do with Bowers directly, and isn't sourced. Only one of those statements currently has a source tag. Robert Shelton's page also lists crimes associated with the Klan, but devoid of Shelton's involvement or name. I could go with more, but I hope it illustrates my point. Let me know if it doesn't.

As for the Amnesty Report, perhaps the connection needs to be made (here and in the bio body) that in refusing his Prisoner of Conscience designation due to violence, it means they would refuse to act on his behalf and represent him on the international stage. They don't outright state "we are not going to represent him anymore", but the application of that status IS if they would or would not represent him. That language itself (outright denial) wouldn't be found in the report, because it's existing policy (at that time) not to represent terrorists or those associated with terrorists. Amnesty itself notes (well, glosses over the violent part) that they revoked, but they "meant to" all along in their revisionist telling.

Many members were very distressed by his sentence, but also fundamentally felt that we could not been seen to condone violence. This decision meant that our membership could not campaign for his automatic release as a non-violent prisoner of conscience. (https://www.amnesty.org.uk/nelson-mandela-and-amnesty-international)

This memo shows, at that time, clearly, they had revoked his status due to violence. Mandela had not - at that time in the 60's - vowed to take a non-violent approach, in fact, he hasn't ever. That is part of the revisionist history I spoke of. That trait is attributed to the early ANC, but not Mandela. Which, again, notes to my point that association in non-violence is allowed, but the exact same association in violence is not. The ANC, when Mandela even gained leadership, allied with South African Communist Party. The SANC page notes and sources both the SANC and ANC was "previously" associated with non-violence but that had changed. That change was while Mandela was a leader. The violent opposition continued THROUGH it. Again, as noted in both of those Wiki pages, but completely absent from Mandela's. The linked Amnesty report also notes Mandela's non-violence as "previous" and notes, that he is currently active in a violent campaign. The current bio vaguely notes MK's founding, but glosses over incidents directly related, even though it was under Mandela's direction, carefully avoiding references to guns or weapons. The D-Day bombings, also mentioned in passing. There is no reference to the hundreds of bombings carried out by MK in two years (http://www.sahistory.org.za/article/december-16-reflection-changing-south-african-heritage), nor his continued leadership at MK until it's dissolution in 1990. His continued leadership saw things like the Amanzimtoti bombing, Church Street bombing and so forth. Mandela's military arm is designated a terrorist organization, also noted on Umkhonto we Sizwe page. Mandela's page, however, despite being the founder, is devoid of this information on any of it's issues or terrorism and only mentions terrorism in an offhand "persecuted" way. Some may argue, he was imprisoned, therefore cannot have acted in 'direct' capacity, but we already have documented that it's not true and Mandela continued to hold various leadership positions with ANC, MK and SACP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Mandela#Socialism_and_Marxism Furthermore, despite sourced connections in the related pages, there is no mention that Sharpville directly led to the MK, instead, stating a "Cuban inspiration". Another issue is that when Mandela won Presidency, MK - a terrorist organization - was folded into South African National Defence Force. Quite literally, the people who bombed hundreds of people over the last 3 decades, and especially brazen in the 80's, was not just given a pass by Mandela, but directly hired for his government. This factoid is missing both from his main page, but also missing from his separate Presidency of Nelson Mandela page. However, it's included on the MK page. Additionally, there were various levels of corruption under and through Mandela. Those items are missing from both the bio and Presidency. In fact, the Presidency page is barely more than a stub and should be merged or filled in. That page has had various attempts at a merger because it's basically useless. I'm willing to concede, that the corruptions under his thumb might belong more there than the life-bio, but should still be summarized here, since there is a Presidency summary. Items such as South African farm attacks or the South African Arms Deal (the worst of which is expanded here at the Guardian - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/jan/10/somethingisrotten). There is obviously more to all this, but again, as I noted, I'm trying to get consensus these elements should be included or at least a forewarning on including unsavory aspects of Mandela's life. Seola (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Seola. Some of what you say is uncontroversial - e.g. that he abandoned non-violence and founded MK through a sabotage campaign. Others are going to need reliable sources, e.g. that Mandela had a role in the Church Street bombing while in prison. Others are as you suggest uncontroversial in their own right, e.g. corruption, farm attacks, MK incorporation into SANDF, but will have to summarized well, and will need some justification for inclusion if they are not directly linked to Mandela. Maybe you could propose some specific changes or sentences/paragraphs/sections to add to the article, with sources? Zaian (talk) 06:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Zaian It stands to reason that if, after his death, he was noted as still part of the ANC and South African Communist Party, which controlled the MK that he founded, and already links to sources that he not only was a member but maintained a leadership position while imprisoned, then he should be tied to all the dealings of both. It would be bizarre to disconnect him for actions like the bombings merely because he wasn't on-site, but keep the connection that he was a member and leader of those organizations before his imprisonment, after his imprisonment, then brought them into his government. He also never denounced what his own parties were doing. That's where I made the connection with the KKK pages, in that their mere association allows a MENTION of those activities. I don't intend, of course, to state he's convicted of such a crime, but the fact that several who carried out those bombings because his military should be connected. As for justification, that's what we're here for. Attacks in whites increased (according to various third party watch groups), especially rural farmers. The government didn't do anything about domestic terrorism, his government, while carrying out some considerably questionable acts. The MK incorporation, an abbreviated history can be found here (http://www.sahistory.org.za/topic/umkhonto-wesizwe-mk-timeline-1961-1990) of the activities under the direction of the ANC, which can of course then be shown to the sourced section that noted posthumously that Mandela had maintained that leadership. Some of these claims can be also sourced to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission but I am unsure on how much to include, since the TRC was also claimed to be squarely in favor of giving official immunity to Mandela's cohorts, noting "truth was more important than retribution" (paraphrased). I think it will be needed to find direct people that fall in category A (MK) and B (military) for that. I will work under your direction in the categorization you've given though. Highly beneficial. I'll make open edits to the first parts we discussed, and then I'll make talk contributions to verify sourcing and phrasing for consensus for more tenuous sections that you've noted. Thank you for your input! Seola (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm unclear what you're wanting to say about Mandela and the Church Street bombing. That he directed or approved the bombing, through covert communication from prison? If that's what you're saying, are there any reliable sources back that up? Or that he held a leadership role of MK while in prison and therefore the article should assign some level of moral responsibility to Mandela for the Church Street bombing undertaken by MK? I think this article shouldn't construct that argument (see WP:SYNTH), but could include it if a reliable source makes the argument. Zaian (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, sure the page can be improved. But not on the basis that he was "nefarious" or a "terrorist". We are neutral. And I don't see the relevance of harping on about Amnesty International.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Jack Upland Nefarious dealings does not imply a person is nefarious. We have publicly documented notes, both internally and internationally for Mandela's participation in acts deemed terrorism by third parties. Nefarious means "criminal". Mandela was convicted, therefore, he did a nefarious act. By standard definition, he actually would be considered nefarious but I don't intend to add descriptive labels to the PERSON. MK itself was deemed a terrorist organization by multiple world governments and associations. Your comment is exactly what I've been discussing, that in the need to saint him or protect an angelic legacy, that there IS bad things that happened from Mandela's hand. I am not looking to abolish the good in ending apartheid or other issues, but the page incorrectly asserts he was non-violent and/or maintained a non-violence approach. He did no such thing. The Amnesty International report was included then expanded upon precisely because it IS a reliable source and a relatively easy summary, noting he took on a violent campaign. We weren't "harping" on it any more than debating it's proper place as a source or it's usefulness of content. If you have a problem with that, then I sense this discussion may not be unbiased for you. I'm seeking to make the page more truthful from BOTH sides of the fence, improve Wikipedia as a whole and use the community to my advantage in making proper edits. I'm a part-time editor who uses Wiki often and only seeks to contribute back as much as it's given to me, whether that information is popular or not. Seola (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Seola, this discussion has generated no edits to the article. What you "sense" about others not being completely unbiased probably applies equally to what others' "sense" about you, or me for that matter. If you want to improve the article, please do it. Long-winded essays and accusations on the talk page are boring. Zaian (talk) 13:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC) Someone needs to address that as he didn't disencourage violence and encouraged it - he was in fact a terrorist. Looking at Winnie we can understand that. More importantly, that he disassociated himself with Winnie is more enlightening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.220.225.120 (talk) 00:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

As a rough guide so-called 'freedom fighters' are only referred to by impartial third parties as 'terrorists' if they have an otherwise legal alternative to their actions, e.g., the ballot box, and instead choose to use violence instead, often because they have little or no popular support.

Mandela and his black compatriots did not have the vote and therefore had no legal way of changing their country's patently-unjust and undemocratic minority government, despite widespread popular support for Mandela and the ANC. In these circumstances they were not considered 'terrorists' by many, other than the SA government itself and various right-wing governments such as Thatcher's and Reagan's.

In other words, if there had been free and fair elections encompassing the whole of South Africa's population, black and white, Mandela would almost certainly have been in the resulting government. It also follows that in countries that do have free and fair elections people who resort to true terrorism usually do so because they cannot get people to vote for them or their policies.

Mandela wasn't a 'terrorist' because what he was trying to achieve was right and just, and because he had no alternative that was legal. Something, the aspects of rightness and justness, being noticeably absent from many of his critics, many of whom were just making sure their own snouts stayed in the trough. When Mandela was finally freed in 1994 Mrs. Thatcher had the gall to try and claim some credit and be involved in the celebrations. To his own credit, Mandela snubbed her. And rightly so.

BTW, to the best of my knowledge South Africa is not currently a communist nation so it would appear that fears of such a thing happening under Mandela's or the ANC's rule, and so often spouted as reason for supporting the Apartheid regime back in the 1960s-1980's, were not justified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.115.33 (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Mandela was undeniably a terrorist for several years, as Sir Malcolm Rifkind said in the UK parliament. Just because a cause may be justified does not make terrorism OK. South Africa is undeniably a Communist country today in all but name. (JaconAndre (talk) 10:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC))

Mandela was certainly a terrorist. In any other country in Africa he would have been hanged for his bombing campaign. (81.136.23.253 (talk) 11:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC))

Amnesty International

I added the Amnesty International controversy to the bottom of "Arrest and Rivonia trial: 1962–64". Since there is stories on the web that AI never supported Mandela, I also added to the first paragraph that: "... One of the founders of Amnesty International, lawyer Sir Louis Blom-Cooper, attended the trial as an official observer and Mandela was then adopted as a prisoners of conscience. ..." The latter was then deleted since it "does not include a page number" - which would have been page 1. If anybody feels for this to be reinstated, please do...

References

Bamka (talk) 11:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I have added it back. Zaian (talk) 12:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl, I don't agree with your removal of this sentence, or of the removal of the Xhosa pronunciation. Zaian (talk) 14:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I have just seen this Talk Page section. It should have been added to the bottom of the page rather than being sandwiched between two older Talk sections, where it likely to get overlooked (as it was by me). I am thus moving it to the bottom of the page so that other editors might more easily notice it. As I believe that I stated in my edit summaries, this is a WP:Featured Article and thus additions need to be more thoroughly scrutinised than they would on most articles. With regard to the Xhosa pronounciation, I have absolutely no objection to it being included in the article, but a citation to a WP:Reliable source would be needed and I also do not think the opening sentence is the appropriate place. Adding it to that opener creates a cluttered appearance which is off-putting to most readers (hence why it was not considered necessary at FAC). It should be noted that other FA-rated political biographies, like Vladimir Lenin, similarly do not feature such pronounciations in that opening sentence.

With regard to the Amnesty International remark, my concerns are multiple. First, the source in question was indeed lacking a page number; it was out of keeping with the article's established referencing style; and the text was positioned in such away that it broke up the long-established prose, creating confusion as to which parts of the text were cited to which source. Admittedly, all of these things could be corrected. However, at the same time I must question how relevant this fact really is to the article. As everyone can appreciate, Mandela is a hugely important figure who lived for a very long time and thus there is a vast number of potential facts about his life which could potentially be included. We could, quite literally, fill a bookcase with 'facts about Mandela'. As editors of Wikipedia, it is incumbent on us to decide what is really relevant for inclusion and what is not. Guidance can be provided by the main biographies of Mandela; do these sources describe Amnesty's involvement in the court case? No, they don't. Neither Martin Meredith nor Anthony Sampson—Mandela's foremost biographers—make even the slightest mention of it. If the Mandela biographies actually ignore this fact, then why should Wikipedia deem it sufficiently relevant for inclusion? Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, and for moving the Talk section (the conversation started in the "Bombings" discussion; I created a new section, but moving it to the end makes more sense). I think the page number issue is unimportant and not a good reason to delete the reference. I also think that the "FA version" is not the be all and end all of this page, and although I'm sure you are rightly proud of getting it to FA, please beware of WP:OWN in your edits and edit summaries. I'm not aware of a policy that makes editing an FA article more onerous in the ways your reverts and edit summaries have suggested, but if there is one, let me know. Having said that, I agree with you that the Amnesty representative attending his trial is not important enough to include in the central paragraph about his trial. It could perhaps be merged into the paragraph elsewhere in the article that deals with Amnesty his "prisoner of conscience" status [edit: which I see you have also removed, and again, I disagree.]

Regarding the pronunciation, it seems sensible to include the difficult pronunciation of "Rolihlahla" in the lede, even if it is not cited. Again, I suggest avoiding reverting others' efforts to improve the article based on your preference for the FA version of the article. A middle ground might have been to move it to the paragraph that introduced his given name, although I still think it should be in the lede. Zaian (talk) 06:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, Zaian. I am familiar with WP:OWN and apologise if I have given the impression of being too protective of the article. I'm always open to suggestions as to how the article can be improved, and if I feel that an addition is totally un-controversial and beneficial, then I am happy to leave it be. However, if an addition is problematic—for whatever reason—then I will revert it and take the issue to Talk, as per WP:Bold, Revert, Discuss. One of the main reasons that FAs deteriorate in quality and end up being delisted is because lots of (well meaning) editors come in and add little bits here and there - things that they feel are relevant but which (in the grand scheme of things) may not be. Some of these additions are non-referenced, others poorly referenced, and their introduction often interrupts the pre-existing flow and referencing of the prose, which has already been heavily scrutinised and worked on at GAN, PR, and FAC. The cumulative effect is almost always damaging to the article's integrity. Death from a thousand cuts, as it were. That's why I am a little hawkish when it comes to additions made to FAs; I see it as WP:Stewardship rather than ownership. As for the recommendation that I not revert additions, I must note that in Wikipedia in general, and especially at FAs, it is incumbent on those who are making introductions—rather than those who then revert them—to prove their case (as per WP:BRD).

Regarding Amnesty International's listing of Mandela as a "prisoner of conscience", do we have a good RS devoted to Mandela that discusses the issue? If so, then I am more than happy to discuss the wording of a brief sentence on the issue that we could incorporate in an article. However, we certainly must not rely on primary sources nor give this issue too much attention, particularly given that the main Mandela biographers ignore it entirely (hence why I removed that entire recently-added paragraph that was based only on a primary source). As with the pronounciation of Mandela's name, again I'm happy to see a brief mention of this in the article but we do need that Reliable Source first. Perhaps somewhere in an infobox, or in the "Childhood: 1918–34" section would be the best place to locate said information? That way the reader is not bombarded with too much cluttered information in that very first sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The controversy involving AI is based on the fact that AI didn't wholeheartedly support Mandela. The fundamental point is that Mandela was a controversial figure up to his release at which point he was virtually canonised. From the point of view of this article I think AI's position is rather trivial.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the Amnesty debate sheds relevant light on your controversial / canonisation point. Zaian (talk) 06:33, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

But are there high quality Reliable Sources devoted to Mandela that echo your point, Zaian? If there are, then fair enough. If not, however, then I fear that we will be placing undue emphasis on a particular fact. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I think you may be setting an unreasonably high bar with your "devoted to Mandela" requirement, but nonetheless, in a quick search on my shelf and online I found that Mandela mentions in his autobiography that Amnesty International would not campaign for him based on the armed struggle, and I found several reference to Louis Blom-Cooper of Amnesty International attending the trial - he is quoted in several of them, so his presence is notable. I think it's also fair to say that Mandela's status (was he a terrorist? a saint? a pacifist?) is widely covered and debated in most sources, and the judgement of Amnesty International carries weight in that area. Zaian (talk) 10:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I think this says more about AI and its rules. AI was not passing judgement on Mandela. It was not deciding whether he was a terrorist or a saint. It was just saying that he didn't fit the criteria of a prisoner of conscience. No doubt there are many organisations and government around the world that had nuanced positions on Mandela, but we can't list them all...--Jack Upland (talk) 10:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Death of Mandela

This is not well explained in the page although a very long and slow process.

" ... he was rushed to hospital on June 8 it was a crisis not just for his family but also for the ruling party... Much had already been made of Mandela’s approaching 95th birthday (on July 18) and the ANC was trying hard to have that date internationally recognised as Mandela Day... on July 4 court documents were released saying that Mandela was in a permanent vegetative state and is assisted in breathing by a life-support machine. The Mandela family has been advised by medical practitioners that his life-support machine should be switched off...On September 1 he was moved to his Johannesburg home, which had been fitted out as a medical facility with specially chosen doctors. Here security was even tighter and there were no hospital staff or nurses for journalists to talk to. With Mandela Day over, Mandela was, so to speak, now free to die...Holding the funeral on the eve of December 16 would emphasise Mandela the guerilla leader and revolutionary. That would be sufficiently before Christmas and allow time to organise the large international event that the funeral was bound to be. This in turn dictated that Mandela had to die about 10 days before that. And he duly did, on December 5..."

References

Rangutan (Munich) (talk) 11:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The long road to international acclaim

Currently the lead say "Although critics on the right denounced him as a communist terrorist" when he was convicted and during much of the following 2 decades it was not just the right, but many in the middle ground of politics who considered him to be a communist and a terrorist (after all it was the height of the cold war and the divide was not right on one side and middle and left on the other).

The sentence has other problems because it tries to sum up in one sentence views which spanned 30 years as if they happened over a five year period. For example is there any evidence that "those on the radical left deemed him too eager to negotiate and reconcile with apartheid's supporters" in the 1960s?

The sentence would read better if it was to be constructed like this:

Initially critics denounced him as a communist terrorist, later those who wished to see the over through of of apartheid deemed him too eager to negotiate and reconcile with apartheid's supporters, but he eventually gained international acclaim for his activism.

-- PBS (talk) 11:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, difficult one. The trouble with the proposed wording is that there are still people who denounce him as a communist terrorist (mostly on the far right). While it is probably true that many people not strictly on the political right did consider him such back in the day, it was clearly an accusation coming primarily from the political right. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

What does political right mean? What is your source that during the 60s and into the 70s the accusations came primarily from the political right? -- PBS (talk) 11:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Nelson Mandela. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://century.guardian.co.uk/1990-1999/Story/0,,112389,00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2024558_2024522_2024462,00.html
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6EiD8JvCc?url=http://www.info.gov.za/gazette/acts/1996/a3-96.htm to http://www.info.gov.za/gazette/acts/1996/a3-96.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-mandela-20130625,0,6170889,full.story
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,385561,00.html

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) 07:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2017

Dear Sir,

I want to make an edit in the Wiki-page Nelson Mandela. Please be kind enough to allow me to do that.

Yours,

Slugsheir Slugsheir (talk) 05:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. You have already made an edit. Gulumeemee (talk) 06:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2017

Here there source http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/11/nelson-mandela-in-hospital_n_2276365.html is broken. Instead of this, we can add http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-20677168 as a source. Anna Bush (talk) 07:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Death

According to the BBC, his lungs were damaged from his years in prison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jp789 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Main image change?

A new image was added by GTVM92 but reverted by Midnightblueowl who asked for this to be discussed on the talk page.

This is the new image (taken in 1998 at the World Trade Organization Geneva Ministerial Conference, original here)

Nelson Mandela in 1998

This is the current image (taken in 2008, original here):

Nelson Mandela on the eve of his 90th birthday in 2008

To me, the 1998 image seems like a better choice as the main image for the page. Firstly it shows Mandela as president, at the peak of his political career. Secondly, I think it is a better portrait, and shows him in active consideration. The 2009 image, although less grainy, shows him 9 years after his retirement, an old man posing for a favourable crowd, plus I'm not 100% comfortable with the mirror-imaging and blurring which has been applied to the 2008 original. Zaian (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the tilt of the head is suitable for a main image.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Generally, I quite like the 1998 image, but it is really quite grainy and a bit blurred, and I think that that in itself rules it out as an appropriate image. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I quite like it too. The tilt can be fixed with image editing, and I'm more comfortable overall with this image, even at the lower resolution. Is there a WP guideline for this, or is this just something to discuss and look for consensus? Zaian (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

We can use MOS:LEADIMAGE for advice, but generally speaking this is just something that we can discuss and come to a consensus on. It may be something that we need to take to RfC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)