Talk:Nelson Mandela/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Nelson Mandela. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

CIA turned him in

What is the evidence that the CIA turned Mandela in to the South African police in 1962? He doesn't say this in his autobiography.

I have seen a source somewhere - will try and find it again. Seem to remember it was a fairly recent discovery, so Mandela wouldn't have known who turned him in when he worked on his autobiography. Greenman - May 4, 2005

The source I'm thinking of was in print, but here's an online source:: [1]. Greenman - May 4, 2005

-Thanks Greenman - I did actually see that on-line reference but note that the report is dated June 10, 1990 - ie two years BEFORE Mandela wrote The Long Walk To Freedom. Surely if he thought it was correct he'd have mentioned it in his book? Also note that the website you cite is a "political conspiracy research bin" by an author who writes about the "secret world of American Fascisti" and about "CIA mind control operations" - hardly a credible source! That's why I amended the reference to this with the "possibly" but perhaps it should be removed entirely?

I think the 'possibly' qualifies it well enough so that readers will realise it is disputed. I don't think it should be removed entirely. Dewet 09:42, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

You cannot label person a terrorist only because the CIA and an American vice-president regarded him as one. Who says America sets the standard? As a South African citizen who was oppressed in apartheid South Africa, Nelson Mandela as my hero, a freedom fighter and a revolutionist.FediM 14:24, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, he is all that, I wholeheartedly agree. But he was also part of the terror tactics the ANC did perform. Today, the word terrorist is a loaded term, but essentially it is an applicable label. Dewet 16:17, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes I agree with both FediM and Dewet. It all depends on which side you're on. A freedom fighter to one person is a terrorist to another. I think there should be mention to the fact that Mandela was considered as a terrorist (and still is to the Bush administration) as well as a freedom fighter who trained in terror activities in the Umkhonto we Sizwe training camps --Jcw69 17:11, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the question of NM being a terrorist depends which side you're on. He committed terrorism by objective terms(planting bombs etc). The real (moral) question is if those acts were good or bad. Most of us would say it's good because ostensibly it won freedom for the people of south africa but of course the families of the people killed by Mandelas bombs probably don't agree. As a society and in particularly in the wake of 9/11 we see terrorism in a pejoritive context while simultaneously viewing certain people who have perpetuated it as heros (ex. Mandela, members of the boston tea party). I added NM to the terrorist category and someone has already rm'd it. Whether intentional or not, I think this is an attempt to clean the conscience of history. TitaniumDreads 18:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

"...it's a very serious analytic error to say, as is commonly done, that terrorism is the weapon of the weak. Like other means of violence, it's primarily a weapon of the strong, overwhelmingly, in fact. It is held to be a weapon of the weak because the strong also control the doctrinal systems and their terror doesn't count as terror". — Noam Chomsky. It is always "them" and not "us" performing the acts of terror. Why? Because "we" feel "our" acts are justified.--Silversmith 17:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

When people say terrorist who comes to mind? For a lot of people it's folks like Osama bin Laden, the Red Army Faction, Yousef Ramzi, Timothy McVeigh and perhaps Black September, but I have never in my entire life been casually talking about terrorism and heard Mandela's name come up. This seems to be a very selective and very arguably inaccurate description of Mandela. I'm not certain of the agenda behind the use of this word, but in teh current atmosphere it seems to me that it does absolutely nothing to clarify his legacy or to illustrate what he stands for.

I think it is appropriate to mention that some such as the Bush administration have chosen to make his twilight years as difficult as they can by bringing this label up, but I have trouble imagining that this is not connected with his outspoken opposition to thier policy. Pervez Musharaff in an ally of democracy and Mandela is a terrorist? Mention the controversy but don't use terrorist as an adjective to describe him.

Gabe 01:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NPOV again

"I am a freedom fighter; you are a guerrilla; he is a terrorist." Depends upon the viewpoint. Which is the neutral point of view? How do we describe a man such as Nelson Mandela? He fits the definition of each such term, as they have usually been defined. Is a NPOV always possible? Too Old 05:22, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)

anyone who would refer to NM as a terrorist in today's loaded use of the term, with its connotations and everything it implies today is clearly an idiot. the bombing of Fallujah was a terrorist act, and the ones that ordered its destruction are terrorists, the ones that rammed two planes into the twin towers are terrorists. the term changes from generation to generation with one spectacular attack that changes the entire meaning of the word. in the 1830s up to the 1860s in the brit empire, the term 'democracy' was hardly used by the establishment, it was a term they abhorred because it implied worker and urban class enfranchizement. two decades later the term becomes widely used by the politikos in the UK and elsewhere. in the 80s, the term 'terrorist' had a different meaning than it does today, the same with the 60s and 70s. it was actually a chic term in most of europe in the 60s and 70s with che's adventures in latin america and africa, as well as the red army fraction and similar groups in europe. NM would love to be included as a fighter alongside che, but hardly with the real terrorists of today osama, cheney and bush. [f. fanon]

The annonymous [f. fanon] seems to have made my point even more forcefully than I did myself. I have done a brief scan of his contributions, (which I assume to be those from IP 65.49.129.68) which are often are involved with the attribution of one person or another as a terrorist.

I especially note the skirmishing regarding Baruch Goldstein. fanon characterises Goldstein as a terrorist, changing a reference to Jewish Fundamentalism to Jewish terrorism. The Israelis often speak of Palesitian terrorism; the Palestinians often talk of Israeli terrorism. To my mind, both often use tactics designed to create terror, in pursuit of political aims. It is obvious to me that both are terrorized and, in retaliation, use more terrorism. We may see the last Palestinian and the last Israeli die with their hands on each others' throats.

I encourage f.fanon to come out of the closet. His/her contributions seem valuable to me. Too Old 17:13, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)

Too Old: I doubt there will be a single definition satisfying everyone. What may be the solution is to not use loaded terms such as terrorist or freedom fighter, but instead contextualise it by explaining clearly: "...involved in acts to spread terror..." as an example. Dewet 21:38, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"f.anon"'s argument is the "Your terrorist/my freedom fighter" one in action. Osama Bin Laden, who f.anon describes as "a real terrorist" is also seen as a hero by many in the arab world; his supporters would probably describe him as a freedom fighter. "Terrorism" describes the tactics used, not the rights or wrongs of those involved. It's completely wrong to say that the word "terrorist" had a different meaning in the past, and to say it was "a chic term in much of Europe in the 1970s" is an absurd statement. Because terrorism often works, some terrorists have gone on to become world leaders. So there's nothing unusual in Mandela being considered a terrorist in the 60s and a world leader in the 90s. 195.92.67.68 13:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. If you use terror against a population as a weapon or a strategy, you are a terrorist. Terrorizing ANY population in order to reach your goals makes you a terrorist. These goals might seem good to some and bad to others, but this doesn't change your methods and tactics. The problem I think, is that the word terrorist is loaded, and the general idea of a terrorist is a negative one. If you take any so called 'freedom fighter', and this person used terror as a weapon, this 'freedom fighter' is a terrorist. You can be a freedom fighter without being a terrorist, but you cannot use terror of any sorts as a weapon against any general population and not be a terrorist. Bertus 07:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe Mandela and the ANC were justified using violence against the apartheid regime, so would not call him a terrorist, but have noted that the apartheid regime and some Western governments considered him a terrorist in my recent revision to the article. I would call him a guerrilla, saboteur or freedom fighter. However, I think his violent past is washed over now, for example the Time 100 profile doesn't actually say Mandela founded a guerrilla army and committed sabotage, even though that is vitally important since that is why he was given a life sentence and narrowly missed the gallows. The establishment seems to present him as a Gandhi figure, when he is more of George Washington or Castro-style revolutionary figure. It also seems inaccurate to say he was unjustly imprisoned, as is sometimes said. He fought in a war and was captured by the enemy, or committed a crime and was imprisoned so either way his imprisonment wasn't technically unjust. I suspect that this is because Western governments don't us reminded that non-state political violence may sometimes be justified. It is also interesting they are willing to airbrush MK's war against their own (albiet fascist) government, but repeatedly condemn Palestinian attacks on foreign Israeli occupation soldiers. Kingal86 13:51, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Difference between a terrorist and a soldier? A terrorist harms the general public and a soldier fight the enemy soldier in a state of war. Question: Did the freedom fighters attack the national army, government or police or did they harm the civilians of the country? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.209.98.35 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 13 January 2006.

You are very wrong, attacks on military are still acts of terrorism if there is not an official war declared, The target has no bearing hence in recent history any Provisional IRA attacks on miltitary targets such as barracks were always considered rightly to be terrorist attacks.

There is no difference whatsoever between a Terrorist and a Freedom Fighter, it all depends which side of the fence you are on. Take a look at Nelson Mandella and Gerry Adams, one was widely considered to be a terrorist and one almost a saint, yet both had there moments with regard to armed struggle, fighting for freedom and what they believed to be the right path, both ended up in jail for there believes, and both began succesful political careers after leaving jail. You have to realise that many people in the world support what the extremist muslim groups are doing in the US and Europe, many people believe them to be brave freedom fighters, fighting for justice and peace. Succesful Terrorists have to have this public support in order to achieve their goals, Ireland is considered now to be a peaceful, succesfull and rich nation but without Michael Collins and the original IRA and their what many considered to be terrorist attacks then Ireland would not be the nation she is today and yet Michael Collins is a hero in Ireland.

"If you use terror against a population as a weapon or a strategy, you are a terrorist"

What about the bombing of Bagdad? 'Shock and Awe' does this make George Bush a Terrorist also then? Was the bombings of Horoshima and Nagasaki both terrorist attacks?

The problem with George Bushes 'War on Terror' is that it is changing the meaning of the word Terrorist within the USA and to some extent Europe too, if i asked an average American what a terrorist looked like he would probably describe a young muslim male, and yet the US is still much more likely to suffer an terrorist attack from an American organisation than from an Arab one. The 'War on Terror' is not what it says, it is nothing more than a cover story for a war on enemys of the USA, this is something else. If xxx attacked and occupied the USA in the future and a small group of peacefull and law abiding citizens decided enough was enough and began a campaign to bomb xxx forces and areas where the xxx congrgated with the sole intention of forcing them to rethink the occupation, what would these guys be, would you call them Terrorists?? No, you would call them heroes, defenders of your way of life would you not? And yet the government of xxx would very much call them terrorists. --Murphyweb 23:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The Rivonia Trial - terrorist or not "Four forms of violence were possible. There is sabotage, there is guerrilla warfare, there is terrorism, and there is open revolution. We chose to adopt the first method and to exhaust it before taking any other decision."

"This then was the plan. Umkhonto was to perform sabotage, and strict instructions were given to its members right from the start, that on no account were they to injure or kill people in planning or carrying out operations."

I suggest people read the rest of the trail statement: http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/rivonia.html

Lead Picture

Can we find a picture of him in a 'Mandela Shirt' instead of a suit ? Wizzy…☎ 18:15, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Gandhi's influence?

Considering that Gandhi was a proponent of non-violence and that he worked in South Africa till a year before Mandela's birth, I guess there shd be his influence on Mandela. Any pointers? Can it go into the article? ---Gurubrahma 06:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Seems like a very tenuous connection. Wizzy…☎ 08:44, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

A guerilla leader influenced by Gandhi? Seems very tenuous indeed.... TheMadBaron 10:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, Mandela refers to Ghandi often in his autobiography and was clearly influenced by him to some degree. He does however state that he believed that Ghandi's tactics were not working in South Africa, and thus chose other means.

Nick.annejohn 01:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

This is for Nick.annejohn

At least spell the last name right!

M.G.'s name is correctly spelt only in Hindi and several approximate translations have been used over time. Dooley 02:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thembu/Tembu

Assuming that 'Thembu' is the same as Tembu (village), can we get a consensus on the correct spelling? TheMadBaron 11:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Mandela was never a guerrilla leader

Mandela never waged guerrilla warfare against the South African government. He launched sabotage attacks, but that's all.

True. He identified four levels of response to apartheid, in escalating order: peaceful protest, sabotage, guerilla warfare, and terrorism. He was willing to go through all four stages if necessary, but it never got past sabotage.

I don't think he fits the sense of the word terrorist. He didn't have the blatant disregard for life that terrorists have. Whites had dominated South Africa for 300 years, and the ANC had been peacefully protesting for 50 (which achieved nothing other than protesters getting massacred). He wasn't Ghandi because it wouldn't have worked: as he put it, the enemy defines the nature of the battle. Sabotage was chosen precisely because it heightened the pressure with the least possible human cost (as opposed to guerilla warfare or terrorism). It was chosen as a last resort.

Terrorists, in my opinion, unnecessarily cause suffering, often as an emotional response that does little to advance a political cause (has Palestinian violence really advanced their cause faster - after 38 years - or has it delayed justice for their people?). Bin Laden's terrorism obviously had far more to do with hatred than furthering Muslim causes. Terrorists also purposely aim at people rather than property. It's not just about whose side you're on; it's about reasons behind the tactics used.

You can't ignore the connotations of "terrorist" in light of these obvious differences. To call Mandela a terrorist would be about as inaccurate as referring to him as a "vandal" because he supported sabotage against property.24.64.223.203 08:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

It's very important to point out here that it the Apartheid government was the first to use violence, not the ANC. Mandela and his comrades were more or less forced to answer. Also, if Mandela can be considered a terrorist for blowing up power plants without harming any people, then what is the governement that more than once opened fire on citizens peacefully demonstrating?

Nick.annejohn 01:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

It should at least be pointed out that the apartheid regime and many Western governments condemned Mandela as a terrorist, but changed their mind when the ANC won. It is true that Mandela commanded only sabotage opperations, although there was a guerrilla war between the ANC and regime while Mandela was in prison.

According to the present definition of "terrorist" used by the British government Mandela would be considered as such because he engaged in politically-motivated violence against property in violation of domestic law as a private individual or group (not as a member of a state's armed forces).

It doesn't matter if people are killed or injured or in not in this definition. Although I personally disagree with this and consider him a freedom fighter and I also believe political violence was necessary to fight apartheid, while I would condemn all attacks on civilians. I do think history must not be erased though, as there seems to be an effort in some parts of the Western media to whitewash the violence of Mandela and the ANC--maybe because they don't want people to think non-state political violence is ever justified. For example, many articles about Mandela omit the crime (sabotage) Mandela spent over 20 years in prison for, and some even imply he was imprisoned for his beliefs and not for violent acts. There is obviously a difference between a prisoner of conscience and a detained insurgent leader--this is why Amnesty International weren't allowed to call for Mandela's release. Kingal86 13:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

POV: Order of Merit, Order of Canada

Someone keeps re-adding OM, CC to the first paragraph besides Mandela’s name. There is a whole page with orders, merits, hons, medals and stars of international friendships. Should we add them there as well? Why not? What makes one award more important than the other? The fact that it is a Canadian award? I think not. --Ezeu 00:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I am with you completely. He was the second foreigner and the only one unconnected to India to be awarded Bharat Ratna, India's highest civilian award. That doesn't mean that I would refer to him as Bharat Ratna in the very first line. --Gurubrahma 05:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Why not have post-nominals where appropriate? If the other awards have post-nominals, by all means add them. OM and CC are there because the usage of those letters is the privilege afforded those who have those honours. Other winners of these awards also have OM/CC after their name. It's not our problem if some awards do not use post-nominals: OM and CC do, therefore it is our responsibility to use them in an encyclopaedia article. That's my view, anyway...Ben davison 12:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The reason not to have post-nominals is that the first sentence in a Wikipedia article is an important one, and the lead para is also important. For instance, a print edition of Wikipedia would likely only include first paragraphs. And OM/OC is not notable enough to make it to the first paragraph, let alone first sentence. Wizzy…☎ 12:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Well you'd better alert the editors of all other articles using post-nominals, then. Ben davison 12:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't mean to generalise, sorry. For other articles, it could very well be notable. I just don't feel it is notable enough for this article. Does Mandela ever add postnominals to his own name ? Does the ANC page on him have OM/OC post-nominals ? Wizzy…☎ 13:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't suppose anyone adds them to their own name:

"Hello, I'm The Most Noble Field Marshal Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, KG, GCB, PC, FRS"!

Sir Ben Kingsley would but I see your point! Dooley 02:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

As for it being notable, I suppose that's a matter of opinion, though there are plenty of other very well-known people who have post-nominals in their articles. Fair enough if other pages don't mention the post-nominals, though; that is a factor, I suppose, although I would guess that there are many pages for other people where post-nominals aren't mentioned, but they are in their articles here. Ben davison 13:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Ezeu, you cannot possibly justify removing the letters without removing the post-nominal letters from every other article. Every other companion of the Order of Canada who has a wikipedia article is designated in this way. I am suspicious as to why you feel the need to remove this--perhaps you think that anything Canadian is not worth having in the first paragraph? I am reinstating the letters. Carolynparrishfan 20:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Is Mandela's importance in any way related to his title? Does this add anything to his status as it stands? If China awarded him letters after his name should they be added? Where does it end?Dooley 02:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing against Canada but as stated on Neutral point of view, Wikipedia seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to the neutral point of view? Yes, it is, especially when dealing with articles that require an international perspective. The usage of post-nominals outside the UK, Australia and Canada is extremely rare. --Ezeu 00:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Ezeu and others following his line. As a South African (yes I am, despite my nick, which indicates where I live), I find the post nominals OC OM confusing and unfamiliar. What about the myriad of other rewards bestowed on Mandela, for example the honorary doctorates awarded him by Southern African univerisities (Gaborone and Stellenbosch)? If these doctorates - which arguably meant a great deal to Mandela - are not mentioned, why should we mention any Canadian ones? Those who doubt the importance of the Stellenbosch doctorate to Mandela should visit http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/mandela/stellenbosch.html In any case, the worth of the man cannot be expressed in post nominals, and insisting on them for any reason reveals the contributor's national or ideological bias.(Swissjames, 21.51 25 October 2005)

Not neutral

From the first paragraph this is a celebration, not a neutral appraisal. It may seem uncontroversial, but that isn't enough. Does everyone think armed struggle was justified? Is everyone convinced that semi-permanent ANC rule is democracy in it ideal form, while the apartheid era elections had no trace of democracy in them? Honbicot 20:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. When I first read this article I felt that it was praising him. You have my support to rewrite it a bit. JJstroker 13:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Although I stand by my statement below that matters political can never be shown in a totally neutral light, I have edited the opening paragraph (which I had a hand in writing) with a view to making it free from bias - as we are encouraged to do in the Wikipedia guidelines. The result is, I hope, a paragraph that reads more objectively. Swissjames 21:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent revision of opening paragraph. Too many "widely"s however. I've replaced one of them with a "generally".Phase1 22:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Phase1!Swissjames 11:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Politics, or political figures, are never neutral!

There is no need, and indeed no way, for 'everyone' to believe that the armed struggle against apartheid was justified. One might just as well require everyone to become a member of the Salvation Army. What one hopes - at the very least - is that the majority of Wikipedians share this view - if they do not, then why has the first paragraph survived in this form? Secondly, elections under the apartheid regime were a farce aimed at reinforcing the rights of an ethnic minority. The majority of SA citizens arguably did not believe in any 'trace' of democracy in apartheid's you-can-only-vote-if-you-are-white elections. Lastly, the opening paragraph does not state that SA under the ANC is the ideal democracy (where, indeed, would one find an ideal democracy?) but that Mandela's leadership was crucial in the early stages of SA's fledgling democracy.Swissjames 16:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Would expect a consensus rather than a 51% majority around a basic issue such as that.Dooley 02:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Nelson at communist demonstration

I posted a picture of Nelson attending a communist demonstration. I really want to make the article accurate and explain any controversy regarding Nelsons past. Please do not delete it. Thanks!

JJstroker 08:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You posted a picture of "Nelson"? Mr Mandela is a former President and, on a site like this, it is appropriate to refer to him as such - or as Mandela, but not as "Nelson".

Wanyonyi 12:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Living people

Like Wikiwizzy, I thought the living people category was superfluous ie if a person is listed in a birth/year category and not in a death/year category ergo the person must be living. However, having read some of the discussion here, I now think the category has some utility.Phase1 17:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The issue with "Living people" cannot be resolved here. Unfortunately this crappy category has been endorsed by Jim at Category talk:Living people--Ezeu 18:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Democratic First

South Africa was a democracy and had democratically elected presidents before Mandela. He is the first black president, but not the first democratically elected president. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.210.161.140 (talk • contribs) .

As a note, the user User:Ezeu removed this comment originally contrary to Wikipedia policy.

As a further clairification, we do not say the first democratically elected US President was the first elected after universal sufferage,but rather George Washington, prior to blacks, or women being able to vote. 12.210.161.140 00:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous user, if you are saying that P.W.Botha, Vorster, Verwoerd or other apartheid-era presidents were elected democratically, then your comments are an insult to the memory of those South Africans, both white and black, who suffered and died in the struggle against apartheid. Secondly, how dare you excuse apartheid-era presidents by referring to George Washington's election - in 1789! You seem to think that ideas about democracy have not changed since then, and that one can judge contemporary politicians by these standards - do you not see how naive this is? In 1793, during Washington's presidency, a French king had his head cut off in public - by the agents of a supposedly democratic government. Would you also condone that style of democracy nowadays? While Ezeu was perhaps a little direct in deleting your comments immediately, not deleting them lowers the intellectual standard of this discussion!Swissjames 11:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

No, my comments are not an insult, your comments are POV. Democracy does not mean full enfrancisement, these are very different ideas. I'm not debating Mandela's impact, nor his accomplishment. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for us to push POV because we personally feel terms have changed. Democracy and enfrancisement are different ideas, and we need to fully seperate them and be fair in our assessment. Yes, the Apartheid was horrible, and resulted in the disenfranchisement of the majority of South Africans, but South Africa was a democracy well before that point, just not a particularly fair one, but it did have elections. Do I condone the style of South Africa's elections prior to 1994? Of course not. But the fact is that in the United States, as my example indicated, women only gained the right to vote in 1920. Blacks only gained the right to vote in 1965. South Africa while behind the times, wasn't so far behind the times. It would be ridiculous to call Lyndon B. Johnson the first democractically elected president of the USA, even though he was the first elected by a fully enfranchised USA. It is equally ridiculous to call Mandela the first democratically elected president of South Africa, even though he was the first elected by a fully enfranchised South Africa. We're not talking hundreds of years, we're talking only 29 years.

Democracy is an ideal which Western 'Liberal Democracies' (including modern South Africa) are a lot closer to than South Africa ever was. If we see it as an ideal, governments which came closer to democracy (such as post-Lincoln America) were the democracies of their time. Likewise Ancient Athens, notwithstanding slavery, was a democracy of its time. Even modern South Africa is not there yet but it is closer than most. For the Apartheid system of government controlled by ballot with rigged effects, polyarchy or 'white democracy' would be accurate terminology, but by the standards of the 20th century that was no democracy. So, the 1994 elections can accurately be described as the first democratic elections. Dooley 02:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, deleting any users comments is censorship, and censorship is both against Wikipedia guidelines and lowers any intellectual discussion much more than any comment could. Censorship is for the weak and the oppressive.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.210.161.140 (talk • contribs) .

There is some sincerity in your statements, and it appears you intended no insult, so I take back my harsh comments. You point about censorship is taken. Having said that, I believe this dispute boils down to one central question: can one, in the context of modern politics, make the assertion that universal suffrage and democracy can be exclusive - as you do? I think your mistake is to consider Mandela's presidency solely on a historical basis, comparing it with the state of affairs 29 or 200 years ago. Our focus has to be on the present, because our Mandela article necessarily reflects current perceptions more than historical ones. I challenge you to find a contemporary government which a) does not allow universal suffrage and b) is accepted by the majority of the international community as a democracy. Are Zimbabwe's claims to be a democracy accepted? No - Zimbabwe is a international pariah because it does not allow free and fair elections, among other things. Substantiate your statements - let's see who has the POV, and who is guided by current perceptions.Swissjames 21:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I can tell you are young, I mean no insult by this, but to act as if 29 years is ancient history is foolish. It's a blink of an eye and little has changed. Zimbabwe is a horrible comparison because they do not allow actual votes by the enfranchised. South Africa allowed the enfranchised to vote as they pleased. There are currently many countries which deny women the right to vote, and enfranchisment of Koreans is a problem in Japan, and has been ever since they became a democracy. The world is not as free as we might hope, even as we make great strides. See below for more comments. OrangeMan 03:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I am (an apparently 'young'and 'foolish') 37, and I note that you were not able to respond to my challenge. Be that as it may, if 29 years is the blink of an eye and little changes in this time, then my perceptions of South Africa are very youthful indeed, since a few important changes seemed to have occurred in the last 29 years. If this whole debate is about the wording of one sentence (as DeWet implies), then take responsibility for your views and change the opening paragraph. If your views are accepted as NPOV, you should have no problem doing this. This is my last comment on this particular subject. Swissjames 07:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous user: I do agree with you in terms "democracy" not necessarily meaning full enfranchisement, but this will be a tough one to argue. I agree that elections previous to Mandela can be considered democratic, given the circumstances of the time, but it does not measure up to the "modern" definition of democracy. Also, you might want to consider registering and contributing to Wikipedia using a username; that way, your arguments will necessarily hold more substance, just by virtue of you not appearing to hide behind an "anonymous" facade. dewet|™ 16:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

How to define democracy can be argued ad infinitum, and by the anonymous users' way of reasoning we may as well scrap the word democracy. That apartheid was not a democracy is in accordance with general and scholarly consensus. His assertions above amount to original research.--Ezeu 17:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

No, not *quite* original research. Being a white male South African, I can guarantee you that there is no simple answer to this; taking a look at what gets termed "democracy" through the rest of Africa certainly underlines the fact that there is no "right" or "wrong". However, in solving this dispute: I would rephrase the opening sentence as "... was the first president to be elected in fully-representative (democratic) elections ..." — that should carry the meaning over fairly enough. dewet|™ 20:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Dewet, thanks for your contribution, but as another pale African I feel we mustn't give in so easily here. Please see my challenge to the anonymous critic above.Swissjames 20:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've taken your advice and grabbed an account. You are correct, how to define democracy can be argued quite a bit, but as an encyclopedia it's our job to report the facts without POV. The Apartheid was a democracy, both according to scholarly and general consensus, if you look in books published in the 80's and such, it lists South Africa as a democracy. Elections were held, sufferage was just not universal. What South Africa was not was a very free country, it ranked low on the freedom index due to the disenfranchisement of the blacks. I think User:Dewet's suggestion to rephrase as ".. was the first president to be elected in fully-representative (democratic) elections ..." is a far better way to say this, and the best way from an NPOV stance. From NPOV, we cannot say he was the first democratically elected, that is very POV, but to fully explain the facts as they are, as Dewet has suggested, is NPOV. Let others decide whether this mean South Africa was a "true democracy" in their opinion. Our job is to report the truth and the facts as best we can. The article was not doing so. I move we let Dewet rewrite the intro as he has suggested. In response to Swissjames, this isn't "giving in", it's telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. My personal POV on the issue is that Mandela is quite possibly one of the greatest figures of the 20th century and ranks as one of the most genuine and honest leaders of all time. Lets not tarnish his accomplishments by covering facts. OrangeMan 03:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You keep repeating that Apartheid South Africa had elections. Elections is not a synonym for democracy. Some countries have their leaders elected by a handful of mullahs or a People's Assembly. Do you consider those countries democraceis as well? --Ezeu 03:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

They were full and free elections for all enfranchised people. People were disenfranchised solely on the basis of race, not on wealth, political agenda, backing, or any other reasons. The entire world recognized South Africa as a democracy, albeit an unfair one. Your comparison makes no sense. It was neither mullahs, or a People's Assembly, it was a popular vote amoung those who were not black. Dewet's change sums up the truth nicely. OrangeMan 04:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

"Solely on the basis of race...", well, that is quite telling. That "the entire world recognized South Africa as a democracy" is a lie. --Ezeu 04:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Quite possibly "the entire world" is an overstatement. The United Nations, and most of the free world, however, did. They also recognized the apartheid as evil. I'm not trying to be an apartheid apologist, it was a horrible thing, I'm trying to point out the truth. Dewet's rephrasing is far more truthful than the previous statement which was false. OrangeMan 04:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

As for it being "Solely on the basis of race..." yes, you are right it is quite telling as it blows your previous comparison out of the water. We're not talking about mullah's or some privelaged assembly but people of all economic backgrounds, of varied political beliefs, etc. Believe it or not disenfranchisement in Democracy most often occurs on the basis of race and sex. It's a horrible awful truth, but as an encyclopedia we have to represent it for what it is. OrangeMan 05:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I am with Orangeman on this one. I think his comparison with George Washington is useful. Mandela was a lot of things - I don't think he needs another first. Wizzy…☎ 09:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, if a weasel-worded whitewash of the Apartheid regime is what it takes to reach a compromise, so be it.--Ezeu 10:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Well at least you're up front about your POV, I'll be watching your contributions in the future since you seem unable to separate your opinions from what is encyclopedic. 23:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This issue is closed. Now find someone else to if quarrell with.--Ezeu 00:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Ezeu is regretfully letting his personal feelings and desires to push POV interfere with his judgement, he refers by "quarrell" to his erasure of comments on his talk page. I will note he improperly moved my comment to this page above (now struck through) and out of context once he removed it from his talk page. His actions are regretable, hostile, and against policy. OrangeMan 00:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I did not move your comment to this page. Check the edit history[2]. I really dont know what you want from me. You proceeded this discussion at my talk page despite that I told you I am through with this this. I sugggest you end it here. This is not the place for personal squabbles. I will just ignore you henceforth. --Ezeu 00:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

My apologies you are correct. I assumed you moved my comment from your talk here, forgot I double posted it. OrangeMan 01:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It looks like Mediation is needed here to help define what democracy is and what it means to different governments. I personally believe that there was some sort of illiberal democracy in SA prior to 1994. The whites (like me) ruled the roost. The Blacks and Indians had their own elections and had limited rule over themselves but never the country. Only after the South African general election, 1994 did SA become a full democracy. --Jcw69 12:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

(Mediation ? We have hardly discussed it). The article on Universal suffrage lists the USA as 1920 (though unenforced with regards to African Americans in the South until 1965). Neither Woodrow Wilson (1920) nor Lyndon B. Johnson (1965) are listed as First Democratic President. However substantial the black vote was in the USA, it was probably not as significant electorally as the black vote in South Africa. Wizzy…☎ 12:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Blacks were unenfranchised in America until 1965, in Portugal women weren't granted the vote until 1976, in Liechtenstein they weren't given the vote until 1984, in Switzerland it wasn't until 1990 that the government enforced laws allowing women to vote. Universal suffrage is still a very new thing in much of the world, and I haven't even enumerated all the cases. OrangeMan 17:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have a problem with the wording as it stands ? I am perfectly happy with it. The (contentious ?) edit is this [3] - does anyone want to make the current text stronger ? The black vote certainly guaranteed the ANC victory. It is the first para on an important figure - we cannot make it too wordy. Wizzy…☎ 18:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Support - I am happy as it is --Jcw69 05:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Support - Best to tell the whole truth and hide nothing. OrangeMan 06:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Support - Democracy does not equal 100% universal suffrage - ask the Athenians. Elf-friend 07:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

See Polling encourages groupthink and Polling discourages consensus --Ezeu 09:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a poll, not a vote. We are looking for consensus (the African way). Do we have it ? A poll will find out. Do you have another suggestion we can all agree on? Wizzy…☎ 11:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

What are we supporting or disagreeing with? That the article is fine after Dewets edit (a compromise that I accepted, and to which I don't see any dispute), or that the Apartheid government was a democracy (which most of this discussion is about)? I don't support the latter, and I do not believe it's an issue we can settle here with an impromptu poll. I agree with you that mediation is not necessary – if there are still any disagreements, they do not concern the current version of this article, but involve a larger issue ... hence my skepticism towards this poll. --Ezeu 13:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC):

Support - I am also happy as it is. Polling without discussion is evil; here, we had adequate discussion, imo and hence this straw poll is necessary as a sort of summing up. --Gurubrahma 11:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Trivia is not encyclopedic

Please don't add loosely associated tidbits that are only mildly relevant to the article, and more importantly, don't create sections called trivia. They don't serve much purpose other than being a dumping ground for "misc. facts" and the likes. The section from the article can be found below. Do insert them, but only if you can find a way to include them in the article without making them look like disembodied factoids.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

Queen and Paul Rodgers performed a song titled 'Say It's Not True' in their concert Return Of The Champions, which was written for Nelson Mandela's 46664 campaign.

The Ska band Special A.K.A. wrote a song called Free Nelson Mandela.

Mandela is known for his fondness of Batik textiles. He is often seen wearing Batik, even on formal occasions. Shirts in this style are fondly known as "Madiba shirts" in South Africa.

In 2003, Mandela's death was incorrectly announced by CNN when his pre-written obituary (along with those of several other famous figures) was inadvertently published on CNN's web site due to a lapse in password protection.

The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, wants a statue of Nelson Mandela installed on the north terrace of Trafalgar Square, although thus far he has run into opposition

Mandela made a cameo appearance in the 1992 film Malcolm X, playing a teacher. He also had a Johnny Clegg song dedicated to him, Asimbonanga (Mandela), in which fellow anti-apartheid activists Steve Biko, Victoria Mxenge, and Neil Aggett are also recognized. He has become a cultural icon of freedom and equality comparable with Mohandas Gandhi to many around the world.

Vandalism

There appears to be some evidence of vandalism at bottom of article, where garbage about Israeli and palestinian leaders appears in a table below Mandela and de Klerk? Regards, Gregorydavid 21:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not see any vandalism. All I can see is a succession box of Nobel Peace Prize laureates, which includes Arafat, Peres and Rabin. --Ezeu 01:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

I have qualms about the start of this article (And other parts of it).

"Mandela's 27-year imprisonment, much of which he spent in a tiny prison cell on Robben Island, became one of the most widely publicized examples of apartheid's injustices. Although the apartheid regime and nations sympathetic to it considered him and the ANC to be terrorist, Mandela's support of the armed struggle against apartheid is now generally regarded as justified."

That isn't necessarily true. There are people who think he acted in a terrorist manner, while also been against apartheid. For example, pacifists would say that Mandela's violence is not in the slightest bit justified, but also recognising Apartheid was also bad. It also says that it is an "injustice" that he was in prison for 27 years, when the reason for it, was for not renouncing violence. I commend this article to be not in a Neutral Point of View and now slap the sticker on it. Roger Danger Field 12:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Codswallop, my friend. I'm unslapping your sticker!Phase4 13:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The article clearly says that anyone who says Nelson Mandela used terrorist tactics or who says the violence wasn't necessary (Desmond Tutu being an example of this), then they're racist supporters of Apartheid. This is clearly inaccurate and is not a neutral point of view. I would welcome it "my friend" if you would justify this statement as non-subjective, instead of trying to justify his policies and means to get rid of apartheid. It isn't Wikipedia's place to make judgements on whether events or actions are justified. It should contain the facts and the reader can make there own mind up.

Unless there is a better response than "codswallop" then the npov template should remain, because the situation isn't resolved, and shouldn't be removed under the guidelines without a decent response and resolution. Roger Danger Field 19:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I fear this is history repeating itself. We've had this discussion (or at least one freakily similar) before already. Please check this very page (or the archive at the top) for what I'm talking about. I'd say that you are free to refactor the text to something more palatable, but the general consensus has been that the current revision *is* pretty NPOV. Maybe I just fail to understand your argument. But I'm afraid the onus rests upon yourself to either come up with a better wording, or have the NPOV tag removed. dewet|™ 20:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll reword it. Roger Danger Field 21:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that rogue editor Roger Danger Field is employing the old trick of setting up all these Aunt Sallies, so that he can conveniently knock them down again! He was ranting away in a similar vein on his own talk page earlier today, before moving to deface the Mandela article.[4]

I agree with dewet: this is all tiresomely familiar and tedious. But why bother to wait for the truculent editor to come up with what in all probability will be an unacceptable rewording? I'll simply unslap his sticker without further ado.Phase4 21:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It is now reworded and is now acceptable under the Neutral Point of View guidelines (Which you should read, the template should not be removed until there is a unanimous resolution, not whether you're happy or not.). Yes that is my view on the talk page, but that isn't relevant I haven't edited the argument to reflect my views, but I've edited it in the reflection of many high profile views. You haven't argued anything on merit, but have simply said "this has been argued about before".

The current rewording is fine in an English language sense and now has a balance of views instead of a blatant bias. This argument doesn't come back to haunt this article again and again for no reason. Here's a quote from NPOV:

"If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents" User:Jimbo Wales.

Tutu and Canadian MPs are only a small number of examples, and they are prominent in relation to this article, and so there views should be taken into account....that wasn't the case with the previous wording, it was too subjective. The paragraph now has a fair balance.

You can expect people to be uncivil if you be pompous and not argue the points in relation to the guidelines and the argument itself. Roger Danger Field 10:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I find Roger Danger Field's changes in the right direction; however, considering the heat this has generated and to adhere to WP guidelines and policies, it would be better if a reliable source for the same (Tutu as a critic of Mandela's methods) is provided. Thanks, --Gurubrahma 10:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

One of the changes Roger Danger Field made was to delete part of his edit on this page at 21:19 on 13 March 2006 (UTC):

"Ok fuck off, I'll reword it"

In his edit at 10:29 today, he has simply removed the "Ok fuck off".

For the reasons given in my edits and dewet's above, I cannot take him or his so-called "objective" views seriously. As a result, I am reverting Roger Danger Field's changes to the intro of the main article.Phase4 10:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with his changes -- they are indeed more NPOV -- but more with the manner in / attitude with which it was done (as Phase4 has noted). The additions do make the intro paragraph even more unwieldy than it already is, but I guess we can easily split it up. Thumbs up from this side, as soon as the Tutu/pacifists addition have been cited. dewet|™ 11:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree on the citation part (Although it could be difficult referencing to an online source, it would probably have to be a book form reference), but I don't agree with the revert on the basis of braking Incivility. The response seems to have stemmed from Mr Phase not bothering to justify any of his reverts other than saying "codswallop" so there is no surprise that Mr Danger Field became angry and frustrated. The fact he also removed the "fuck off" part seems to suggest it was a spur of the moment and he wasn't proud of the outburst. It is possible I might be wrong in that assumption, but even when seeing angry exchanges or barbs, Assume Good Faith

Personally as a historian who has studied the Apartheid, its aftermath, and views on it, the sentence on Des Tutu is entirely accurate, is very prominent and is even alluded to on the African National Congress page. In a simplistic way, it could be reflected in a comparison with Malcolm X and Martin Luther King. King wanted to pursue the end of segregation by peaceful means, in a similar way Tutu wanted to end apartheid. While Malcolm X and Mandela, thought violence was the best way to grab the initiative.

Looking at the edits to the Introduction paragraphs, I'd agree with Mr Dewet that the edits were valid. But, it isn't a particularly well sourced article (On the basis of the person's prominence) by any means. As a result I'm reverting back to his edits. A contributor cursing is not a valid reason for writing off their contributions and reverting. It shouldn't be too difficult to get a source on this, but it does go without saying that a Christian Archbishop, who is a famous pacifist with views on apartheid, is going to be against any violence used in any circumstance. Agent Blightsoot 21:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

POV

This needs a bit of work:

The 1955 Freedom Charter Kliptown Conference was justifiably ridiculed by the Africanists for allowing the 100,000 strong ANC to be relegated to a single vote in a Congress alliance, in which four secretary-generals of the five participating parties were members of the secretly reconstituted South African Communist Party (SACP), the most slavish of all communist parties to the Moscow line.

"Justifiably ridiculed" expresses a POV. And "most slavish of all communist parties to the Moscow line?" Really? More slavish than, say, the Russian Communist Party? I don't doubt it was indeed pro-Russian; I'm just saying the statement is a little silly: clearly there was a communist party somewhere at that time which was more pro-Russian than the SACP. --Saforrest 03:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC) The thing is,what is POV?