Jump to content

Talk:Nelson Mandela

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 64.189.66.95 (talk) at 19:10, 6 December 2013. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleNelson Mandela has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 18, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
May 7, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
June 25, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
July 2, 2008Good article nomineeListed
January 16, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
June 18, 2010Good article reassessmentDelisted
June 8, 2013Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Template:Vital article

Edit request on 3 July 2013

The paper by Professor Stephen Ellis (Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, and former editor of African Affairs, London), "The Genesis of the ANC's armed struggle, 1948-1961" in the Journal of Southern African Studies, 2011 - available online from the Taylor & Francis website - establishes from archival sources that Nelson Mandela was a member of the South African Communist Party in the period 1960-62, which was itself the founder in that period of Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK). Ellis established that all members of the ANC who founded MK were members of the SACP at that time. He developed his studies in his book External Mission: The ANC in Exile, 1960-1990 (Jonathan Ball, Johannesburg, 2012, and Hurst & Co, London, 2012, due for publication by Oxford University Press USA in the United States later this year. Further confirmation will appear in the study by Professor Irina Filatova and Professor Apollon Davidson, The Hidden Thread, due for publication by Jonathan Ball in South Africa later this month. Both authors are senior Russian scholars. Their book is based on research in the archives of the former CPSU in Moscow.

Wikipedia's citations on this matter, in particular the authorised biography by the late Anthony Sampson, are out of date and unreliable.

I assisted Professor Ellis in his researches on this subject in the Stasi archives in former East Berlin in March last year.

I had a letter on this subject in the New York Review of Books, 6 June 2013.

- Paul Trewhela, Aylesbury, Britain

90.218.19.103 (talk) 08:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note about this. We'll have to look into it. Bear in mind that how to balance new claims with prior consensus is always tricky on Wikipedia, so including information about this may be a gradual process. In the meantime, can you link to any news stories/reviews/etc. about these books? It would help to show what impact Ellis' work is having. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Khazar; thank you for posting on this issue! It is certainly something that should be looked into. However, I also concur with them on the fact that we must determine what impact this new research has had in the field of South African history studies; for instance, are there any academics that challenge these ideas ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is the addition to the article that you're requesting? That Mandela was the founding commander of MK or that he was a SACP member isn't a revelation, in fact it's fairly generally known. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think what Mr Trewhela is saying here is that recent research proves that Mandela was indeed a member of the SACP; this is something that Mandela himself has long denied, and which is also denied in the authorised biography by Anthony Sampson. Both Mandela in Long Walk to Freedom and Sampson in Mandela: The Authorised Biography accept that Mandela was indeed associating with SACP members, particularly around the time of MK's foundation, but they have remained adamant that he wasn't a card carrying party member. This new data changes things, as it indicates that actually he really was a party member, and proceeded to hide this throughout the 1990s lest it harm the anti-apartheid struggle and his own electoral prospects. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have incorporated an extra sentence with a reference to Ellis; it can be found in the biographical section detailing the foundation of MK. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Already done Mdann52 (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Film to be added to subcategory under Legacy

Per the Internet Movie Database [1] a new biopic has been completed entitled "Mandela: Long Walk To Freedom." Idris Elba is cast as a young Mandela. The film is due out on January 3, 2014 in the UK Erinsm (talk) 06:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

rivonia trial

The link in the article has the wrong title, and links to a different speech. Can someone fix this please? thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.129.145.172 (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To FA-Class

Why don't we set a peer review to see if we can take this into FA-Class? Toughts? Miss Bono [zootalk] 12:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested, I say go for it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but I will need help from an expert user. Miss Bono [zootalk] 12:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can potentially get that by going to peer review, or by asking someone you've worked with before who has experience with FA. Thanks for your interest in taking this on-- Khazar2 (talk) 12:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I am a huge fan of Mandela, ans so of MLK. Thanks for replying to my question. See you later, I'll see what I can get :) Have a good and peaceful day. Miss Bono [zootalk] 13:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, good luck! It'd be great to get this to FA. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. I hope the man gets well. Miss Bono [zootalk] 13:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My personal view on this issue – as one of the major contributors to this page – is that an attempt to take this to FAC too soon would be rash. As much as I want to see it reach FA status in the future, I think that we have to accept that Mandela will probably die in the coming few years. And when that happens, a swarm of new information about Mandela will become available, with particular reference to his legacy. That would cause problems for a new FAC. In the meantime, there are many other problems facing the page. The quality of referencing in the final section is not particularly good, while the overall page length is 161,655 bytes; a stark contrast to Wikipedia's recommendation that pages not exceed 100,000 bytes. To clarify, I would not stand in the way of others who might wish to take this on to FA in the immediate future, and I would like to be a part of that FAC process when it finally occurs (preferably as a co-nominator), but I do not think that this page is FA quality at the moment Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Midnightblueowl. Oh, I just wanted a peer review, that way we can see grammar, spell, and other errors that the article may have. References prblems, etc... I haven't contribute to the article because is a big one (not because of its lenght but because of its importance) I consider Mandela as one of the most important persons in the entire world, so I don't want to mess up his article. I won't like to see the day when he dies :'(... Miss Bono [zootalk] 19:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment Miss Bono, and may I say it is always nice to see new editors here to help at this page! Regarding the issue of excess length (which will be the main barrier to FAC here), I think that we are going to have to look at splitting this article up into new ones (much as I am currently having to do over at Mao Zedong and Fidel Castro). Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind words Midnight... I am always happy to help and much more if it is about great people like Mandela or MLK :), they are my heroes. If you need my help in anything regarding Mandela's article, please, don't hesitate in asking. Miss Bono [zootalk] 19:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 15 September 2013

In Australia, Mandela is commonly referred to as "Nelsos Mandelos" Jamjamjamm (talk) 15:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done WP:UNSOURCED HelenOnline 15:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Death

It's official. He's dead. I can't edit it but Zuma announced it now. ТНОМАЅ МАСКЕТ (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a reliable source. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly true, but already edited. Go Phightins
Kudos to ye who got this updated before it has even hit google news. Hats off to you sir.

! 21:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was sitting in front of the TV. Not something to be proud of but I updated within 10 seconds. RIP Mandela. Teammm talk
email 22:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


 Done

The death part in the sidebar is broken 120.150.157.73 (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting us know. Fixed many hours ago. 220 of Borg 07:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Death TBC

Hi, I noticed that somebody has added Nelson Mandela death place and death date. Correct if I am wrong but I believe he is only on his deathbed, not actually dead yet. Just be aware as this could be seen as insensitive. Again I do apologies if this news is true, just a heads up Thanks Skurope (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, his death been officially announced. - Bilby (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm proposing to add a new sub-heading Declining health and death, for the last few paragraphs of the life part, starting with February 2011. Everything from that on is nothing but medical information, after all. --2.240.217.135 (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a second reference - from one of the largest South African media companies. A "spare" reference is a good thing. I wonder is the page should perhaps be fully protected for a few days. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. terrorism watch list

Shouldn't the important historical fact that Mandela was removed from the U.S. terrorism watch list in 2008 be included in the article? http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/07/01/mandela.watch/ --85.197.7.136 (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Not relevant to his life, simply a procedural item that was overlooked and subsequently rectified. Inclusion in the article would be unnecessarily confrontational and controversial, and it adds no real value to the article, as Mandela certainly was not a terrorist, at least not in the sense that it would be perceived. Go Phightins! 22:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
simply a procedural item -- That couldn't be further from the truth. You evidently haven't even looked it up as a news item: it was a major row during the last years of his life, with the ANC demanding an apology by the U.S., and all or almost all major news outlets reporting on it. Inclusion in the article would be unnecessarily confrontational and controversial -- If you look at it from the viewpoint of how utterly embarassing it is for the United States, yes. But that is not a valid criterion for excluding a highly notable and relevant piece of information from this article. it adds no real value to the article, as Mandela certainly was not a terrorist -- Your reasoning makes no sense. Of course he wasn't a terrorist, which makes it even more embarassing for the US to have labeled him thusly up until 2008. Which in turn is why so many major news outlets reported on this. --85.197.7.136 (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Trivial? The fact that he was listed as a terrorist is a notable event, not just proeceduaral. Then the fact that he was removed and of such high profile (obviously he cant be on) in by extension notable. At any rate, itll only take 1 sentence(Lihaas (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)).[reply]
The delay in the removal itself was simply an insignificant trivial administrative error. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 01:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the fact that Nelson Mandela was on that list is significant - it clearly connects to America's relationship with the Apartheid-era South African government the Reagan-era Cold War. Rselby1 (talk) 02:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dodger. It seems to lend undue weight to a trivial item to include it in the article. Go Phightins! 02:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That Mandela was regarded at one time as a terrorist both domestically and internationally is worth noting in the article (and already is). That he was ever at any time placed on the US terrorist watch list is, like the fact that Margaret Thatcher "considered Mandela a communist terrorist and supported the suppression of the ANC", something that could be mentioned in the article, but is not really essential. That he was not removed from the list until 2008 is only of (possible) significance to people who want to debate how the US government does things, which means it has no relevance in this article. 99.192.94.8 (talk) 03:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are two mentions on the page about it, one vague critics, and one about Thatcher. I would say that the USA listed him and considered a terrorist is pretty significant and worth mentioning. 89.75.144.176 (talk) 08:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)TMK[reply]

I think it would be helpful if someone could provide more references attesting to the notability.--Nowa (talk) 10:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Though there was little at this time yesterday, googling "Nelson Mandela terrorist" yields a ton of results that, albeit most of them trivially, mention he was on the terrorism watchlist. I don't know enough about the terrorism watchlist such as to know who else is/was on it, and whether it is simply a broad list of everyone who at one time was considered a terrorist, which obviously Mandela was, or whether it is supposed only to be used for those threatening America imminently. I would guess the former, which would be less consequential for the article than the latter, but I do not at the moment have time to research. If someone could find out, that would be preferable. Go Phightins! 11:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Death page?

Due to his status as a legendary and revolutionary figure, will there be a page just for his death? Or is it not entirely notable? --Matt723star (talk) 23:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When there is too much infomation for this article, sure. Until then, it's pointless in such a high quality article to split out a section that is currently two sentences. Soon, perhaps. Today? No. We don't need to crystal ball how many people will send condolences or on how many news stories covered the event. - Floydian τ ¢ 23:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's normal only for controversial or mysterious deaths. Rothorpe (talk) 6:34 pm, Today (UTC−5)
(ecx2) It's premature, the death section currently contains only two sentences and three references. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the section is not long enough yet. I think there could be consideration at merging the illness and death information together since the death section is so small. I have added more prominent and in-depth sources, formatted and cited all information to bring them in line with what you'd expect for a GA's references. Mkdwtalk 00:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The section's still not long enough, but the article already links to the separate Death and Funeral of Nelson Mandela article. Did someone jump the gun? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.177.8.26 (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did, I was the one who jump the gun. I had done it when Margaret Thatcher died and it turned out ok. I though it would have been ok to create the page as soon as he died. Apparently I should have waited a day until more info about the funeral had came out and what he died of, so I apologize that I jumped the gun on this. I do plan to reopen the page as later as tomorrow at the earliest if and when there is more info, but again very sorry. Nhajivandi (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT PLAN on opening the page tomorrow at the earliest. We can split WHEN we have long contentLihaas (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an Admin reaing this, please delete that page NOW please. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lihaas, I have apologize and if you choose not to accept it, that if fine. its up to accept a apology or not, but I will say this and I will repeat what I wrote in the talk page for the death and funeral page."I stand by what i did and this page may be needed as early as tomorrow" there are already some info in the funeral already out there and more will be release in the next few hours. and another thing I said as well "if I have to be ridiculed and shamed for what I did than so be it because I thought I was doing something right by creating this page as a good Wikipedian". All I try to do as a editor is right and that was what I was doing when I created the page. it will be very hard to reopen the page if it is closed so i ask that it remain open as it will be needed either tomorrow or in the next few days. Thank you Nhajivandi (talk) 01:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Nhajivandi: at the moment, there appears to be WP:CONSENSUS that a separate page on Mandela's death and funeral is not needed. Just add the content to the appropriate section here, and we can discuss a split at some point in the future if it becomes warranted. VQuakr (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also fail to see the desire to rush the creation of a rather redundant article as a dreadful stub, compared with this comprehensive and well-sourced article, which happens to cover the life, and now death, of this great man. Surely his many accomplishments would be more notable and take priority for splitting. For example, Negotiations to end apartheid in South Africa is itself a broad article that covers far too many details for this article to contain. Such is not true of the section covering his death. Hope this makes sense to everyone. - Floydian τ ¢ 09:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Death and state funeral of Nelson Mandela

Seriously premature. This can be contained at Mandela's article. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done it as there is no point in an empty article (and already 2 editors have merged to be undone). Clear obvious consensus. When there is content then it can open up(Lihaas (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

Indeed. There is nothing to merge. I agree with Roger Dodger67. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.166.6.173 (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 5 December 2013

Robben Island: 1962–1982 section ...should be changed to: 1964-1982 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.158.101.11 (talk) 02:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Fixed thanks. He was there for a fortnight in 1962 but that does not seem to be covered in the current text. If someone adds that information, the heading can be changed back. HelenOnline 07:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International Reactions/Comments on the Death of Nelson Mandela

Right now, international organizations and government officials are releasing statements regarding his death. What are the procedures regarding citing the numerous comments made during news events like this? Rselby1 (talk) 02:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Reactions to the death of Nelson Mandela. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(See Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden or International reactions to the death of Muammar Gaddafi for examples.) --Another Believer (Talk) 02:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. My nest question is this: Nelson Mandela is an influential figure, but which quotes are truly influential enough to cite on Wikipedia? I've seen reactions to his death from people including Boris Johnson and Charles Lollar. I am certain that there should be a line as to who is not notable enough to be quoted here, but where should that line be drawn? Rselby1 (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Depends which camp you ask. My stance is that we shouldn't compile a directory of quotes (Wikiquotes does nicely on that front) from every political fof'n around the globe. However, the other viewpoint is that we should include as much verifiable information as we can find, and that perhaps down the line somebody will arrange it from a list into paragraphs. As a tertiary source, we should be looking at including condolences that are impactful. The government newsticker comes out with statements constantly; this is a primary source. Important condolences are filtered out and echoed in editorials and articles; a secondary source. Our job is then to summarize these secondary sources, taking care to avoid undue weight to any particular viewpoint (e.g. what importance is a statement by the Canadian government in comparison to one by the South African government or his next of kin? The current list of reactions implies an equal importance to every condolence). - Floydian τ ¢ 16:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest removing or rewriting Kosovo reference

Mandela's stance on Kosovo appears to have been far more subtle than the brief mention would lead one to believe. See, for example, his speech in the UN Kosovo report and its concluding reference to him. The complete speech from which many of the Mandela quotes in the cited source were taken can be found here, and it also fails to adequately support the claim. "He strongly opposed the 1999 NATO intervention in Kosovo and called it an attempt by the world's powerful nations to police the entire world" suggests a national sovereignty agenda; it appears more accurate to say that Mandela was advocating deference to democratic institutions and not actually criticizing the Kosovo intervention, merely criticizing how it was unilaterally decided upon. The article's current statement thus constitutes misleading selective quotation. --MZB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:8B2D:7E0:B060:EFA4:830F:EE6 (talk) 05:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request moved here from my talk page

The message below was moved from my talk page as I prefer to discuss articles on article talk pages as stated on the top of my talk page:

"Dear Helen,

Thank you for the work you've done on the Nelson Mandela page (the late, great, and honorable Nelson Mandela). I see that editing restrictions are currently in place so I'm writing you as the last contributor. As a modest suggestion, I wonder if you might agree that a link to the "List of South African newspapers" page could be appropriate. Even better, links to their respective Letters to the Editor. In that way, I believe the outpouring of support that can be expected might in some small way be enhanced. If you agree with me. I am very willing to track down those links for your review.

Sincerely,

Jim VanOpdorp — Preceding unsigned comment added by JZVan (talk • contribs) 07:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)" HelenOnline 08:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Sorry, I don't believe such links are appropriate for this article. There might be scope for adding something to Reactions to the death of Nelson Mandela if that article is not deleted but it would need to be in encyclopedic format. I understand people are drawn to Wikipedia whenever there is a major event given its high profile online, but please keep in mind it is an encyclopedia not a general platform for various other online content. HelenOnline 10:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good call, Helen. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not HelenOnline, but I wished to add my thoughts to the suggestion by Jim VanOpdorp above:
Jim, if I understood you correctly, you may wish to determine if the article Reactions to the death of Nelson Mandela falls within your purpose, and if so, you might re-post your suggestion to its Talk page.
I did have concerns about your suggestion, though. It is my opinion that it is better to place text directly into a Wikipedia article sufficient to convey the full meaning of the reference in stand-alone fashion, without the need to visit its source (except of course for verification purposes). I understand your wish to point to various Letters to the Editor pages and don't yet know what will appear, but I think it might give the impression that future external content had been verified by Wikipedia, or approved, or deemed encyclopaedic. Even such a misplaced perception of an endorsement is dangerous, judging from some of the letters to editors that I have read over the decades. <y other concern is that although South African newspapers are most likely to be relevant, Mr. Mandela in some sense "belonged to the world". There could be a claim of bias. But these are just my thoughts. Please take a look at the Reactions article. With thanks from ChrisJBenson (talk) 12:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request 06/12/2013

The last sentence of the "Umkhonto we Sizwe and African tour: 1961–1962" section needs a bunch of capitalization corrections... Algeria, Ahmed Benbella, Tambo, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.174.22.26 (talk) 12:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article Neutrality 2013/12/06

There are 382 total footnotes. 331 of these footnotes reference one of only three sources: Mandela 1994, Smith 2010, and Sampson 2011. That means that 89% of this article is referenced by only three resources. That creates a question of neutrality.

In addition, all three sources are used to support each reference. This gives significant undue weight to a minority view.

Moreover, according to a separate article, Anthony Sampson was a personal friend of Mandela. This creates a question of source bias.

Article marked until this is resolved. --Mikeyfaces (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't necessarily follow that the article is not neutral though? Better to say which parts you don't think are neutral here, so we have something to discuss otherwise it just looks like disruptive editing. Theroadislong (talk) 14:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing has been edited yet. A NPOV tag has been added, and a talk discussion has been created. (1) All relevant points cannot be presented when 89% of the article is sourced from three separate sources. (2) Bias is introudced because, of these three sources, one is the subject, another was a personal friend, and the third is used to substantiate the previous two. (3) Significant weight is given to a minority of sources. Culling these or adding more sources is the easiest route to remedying the situation.--Mikeyfaces (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Users are repeatedly removing the NPOV tag without addressing this discussion of source weight. "An editor should not remove the tag merely because he or she feels the article does comply with NPOV: The tag should be removed only when there is a consensus that the disputes have indeed been resolved."--Mikeyfaces (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.Theroadislong (talk) 15:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC).Theroadislong (talk) 15:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Theroadislong here. The use of the NPOV tag is premature and should be removed immediately. I'm not an expert in penalties here at Wikipedia, but I am under the impression that constant re-addition will be seen as edit warring and might result in sanctions. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an experienced Wikipedia editor and a major contributor to this article, who played a key role in getting it up to GA status earlier this year, I must express my respectful disagreement with Mikeyfaces. In order to be upgraded to GA status, this article had to be thoroughly scrutinised for POV, and I'm glad to say that it passed. At the time, some concerns were raised about the POV of the article, and they were addressed and dealt with in a polite and reasoned manner; it is for this reason that the introduction notes that some right-wing critics viewed Mandela as a communist sympathiser and a terrorist. If, however, you think that there are still instances of text within the article that reflect a particular POV, then please let us know so that we can discuss them, but if you cannot do that then I would hope that you retract your initial accusation. Furthermore, I think that you have misinterpreted Wikipedia's NPOV policy in asserting that the repeated use of the same biographies is POV; look at FA articles such as that of Nikita Khruschev and you shall see that they, too, rely on the use of a select group of specialist biographies by experts in the subject. The alternative – which you seem to be advocating – would be to build up this article with a wide range of newspaper reports and web links from disparate sources, which would not only be a complete mess but also suffer from the fact that these sources have no specialism in the study of Mandela. That is not the way to build up good Wikipedia articles that can reach GA and FA. All the best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thats the purpose of tags. Just because its current doesnt haev to be removed without discussion. And yes the self-referencing here to mandela#'s own primary source is not encyclopaedic. (unless with due caveat).
Do not war on the tag to keep it ready for "200k page views why "ruin" the page".Lihaas (talk) 15:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The editor who adds the tag should first discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, and should add this tag only as a last resort. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor." It is unclear to me what the NPOV violation is supposed to be. Please clarify exactly where you think the NPOV violation is instead of making vague unsupported accusations. If you think the article can be sourced better, then by all means add better sources. If you think facts in the article are incorrect, please state specifics so they can be addressed. HelenOnline 15:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I second HelenOnline's excellent points. However, I would advise that you not add "better sources" without discussing them with us here first, else we end up with an edit war on our hands. As the article stands, it makes us of Mandela's official biography, his autobiography, another significant biography, a biographical study of his early life, and a number of academic papers. How exactly could one find "better sources" ? Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we possibly get increased protection for the page at the moment ?

Due to the sudden news of Mandela's death, this page has seen a dramatic increase in the amount of people viewing it, and, as a result, to the number of people editing it. Unfortunately, most of these edits – though often well meaning – are clearly detrimental, for instance dragging trivia into the introductory paragraphs and messing up the clarity of prose. It's been left to a handful of more experienced editors to clean up and police the page, so as a result, I was wondering if we could impose stricter limits on who can edit this page for the time being. Any thoughts ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the subject of this article is recently deceased, the "spirit" of BLP still applies here. People need to be very mindful of that. --Somchai Sun (talk) 15:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mandela visits NIgeria

Please change "Mandela proceeded on an African tour, meeting supporters and politicians in Zambia, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Libya and Algeria" to "Mandela proceeded on an African tour, meeting supporters and politicians in Nigeria, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Libya and Algeria" because Nigeria was one of the countries he first visited in 1991. [2] [3] Mosurotolu (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth looking into; do the references that are currently being used to support that assertion in the text specify that he went to Nigeria ? I'll check. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have examined the relevant pages in both the Meredith and Sampson biographies, and can confirm that neither mention Mandela's 1991 visit to Nigeria. That being the case, I wonder if it is considered relevant enough for inclusion here ? After all, we don't want this page to become a repository of all trivia regarding Mandela in his long, long life; the page is already longer than it should be as it is. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article is too long per WP:SIZERULE

Checkingfax (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SIZERULE is a bit of a misnomer, since it says it's a "rule of thumb", and not a hard rule. At 76kb, it's in the "Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)" category. But, I think the length for an article on a major figure like Mandela is more likely appropriate than for other figures/entities. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article is 163,151 bytes, and growing, which puts it in the ... almost certainly should be divided ... category. Checkingfax (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Can we please remove the tag for the time being? I can't see any reason to keep it during the mourning period and it detracts from the article which most likely will see quite a bit of traffic. Furthermore this is the article of a significant figure and frankly, though perhaps a bit lengthy at 12,000 words (much of the size is in the templates used for the 400 references), an article about him will be long. Victoria (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me if I've made a mistake Muboshgu, but according to the page information here, this page is currently 163,116 bytes long, so where did you get the 76kb figure from ? Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SIZERULE applies to readable prose only (not markup or refs). To add a tool you can use, see User:Dr_pda/prosesize. --NeilN talk to me 17:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated ! Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sebokeng massacre

The article contains a wikilink with the text "Sebokeng massacre" that actually just links to the township Sebokeng, which does not mention any massacre. Any more info on this? Reference is a book I don't have access to. Nicolas1981 (talk) 17:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here: Richard_Goldstone#Sebokeng_Inquiry_and_Goldstone_Commission --NeilN talk to me 17:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sabotage?

From the article "the militant Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK) in 1961 in association with the South African Communist Party, leading a sabotage campaign against the apartheid government." Sabotage? They were a terror group, are we seriously going to say sabotage as though they messed with a few mailboxes or something? Please change "sabotage campaign" to "terror campaign" like it should be, otherwise you will be guilty of whitewashing history.64.189.66.95 (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2304771/
  2. ^ http://ancarchives.org.za/mandela-african-tour-27/
  3. ^ http://overcomingapartheid.msu.edu/people.php?id=65-251-85
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nelson_Mandela&oldid=584886925"