Talk:Apartheid/Archive 5

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

Proposal for moving forward

Section 1

I propose that we conduct a vote which shall last 5 days (beginning at 08:00:00 UTC, Sunday July 3, 2005. Votes closing 08:00:00 UTC, Friday, July 8, 2005):

  1. Concur Tomer TALK July 3, 2005 07:50 (UTC)
  2. Concur, but clarification re: starting time needed. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 3 July 2005 16:10 (UTC)
  3. Concur Impi 3 July 2005 19:15 (UTC)
  4. Concur Jayjg (talk) 3 July 2005 20:41 (UTC)
  5. Concur Molloy 6 July 2005 05:43 (UTC)
  6. Concur Páll 6 July 2005 10:35 (UTC)
  7. Concur dewet|™ 6 July 2005 15:43 (UTC)

Section 2

The purpose of which is to determine the inclusion or exclusion of specific "significant groups" in the makeup of ZA's White population as outlined in the article:

  1. Concur Tomer TALK July 3, 2005 07:50 (UTC)
  2. Concur --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 3 July 2005 16:10 (UTC)
  3. Concur Impi 3 July 2005 19:15 (UTC)
  4. Concur Jayjg (talk) 3 July 2005 20:42 (UTC)
  5. Concur see Googletest results. 69.209.239.161 5 July 2005 14:29 (UTC)
  6. Concur Molloy 6 July 2005 05:43 (UTC)
  7. Concur JohanL 6 July 2005 07:19 (UTC)
  8. Concur Páll 6 July 2005 10:35 (UTC)
  9. Concur dewet|™ 6 July 2005 15:43 (UTC)

Section 3

This vote shall not consider anonymous IP addresses, nor registered wikipedians with fewer than 500 edits not directly related to this issue prior to June 30, 2005:

  1. Concur Tomer TALK July 3, 2005 07:50 (UTC)
  2. Agree. Sock puppets have already been used in this debate.--Bcrowell 3 July 2005 15:53 (UTC)
  3. Concur; I'm not quite comfortable with the 500 edit limit, but given the fondness for puppetry here, I'm not sure where I'd set the limit. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 3 July 2005 16:10 (UTC)
  4. Concur I don't think any of the proper editors involved in this discussion have fewer than 500 edits on the 'pedia. Impi 3 July 2005 19:15 (UTC)
  5. Concur Jayjg (talk) 3 July 2005 20:42 (UTC)
  6. ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE, that is censorship at work. Are you Jimbo Wales? Thankfully not.69.219.53.138 4 July 2005 17:48 (UTC)
  7. Concur Molloy 6 July 2005 05:43 (UTC)
  8. Concur Páll 6 July 2005 10:35 (UTC)
  9. Disagree Please do not discriminate against anonymous editors JohanL 6 July 2005 07:19 (UTC)
  10. Concur dewet|™ 6 July 2005 15:44 (UTC)

Please reread:

  • "Wikipedia is the the free-content encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit. Wikipedia is a WikiWiki, which means that anyone can easily edit any unprotected article and have those changes posted immediately to that page. EVERYONE can edit pages in Wikipedia — even this page! Just click the edit this page link at the top of any page (except for protected pages) if you think it needs any improvement or new information."
  • "You don't need anything special; you don't even need to be logged in. We (on Wikipedia) don't individually try to "own" the additions we make to Wikipedia. We are working together on statements of what is known (what constitutes free human knowledge) about various subjects. Each of us individually benefits from this arrangement. It is difficult to single-handedly write the perfect article, but it becomes easier when working together. That in fact has been our repeated experience on Wikipedia."
  • Editability "Wikipedia articles are extremely easy to edit. ANYONE can click the "edit" link and edit an article. Peer review per se is not necessary and is actually a bit of a pain to deal with. We prefer (in most cases) that people just go in and make changes they deem necessary. This is very efficient; our efforts seem more constructive than those on similar projects (not to mention any names). Wikipedia is open content, released under the GNU Free Documentation License. Knowing this encourages people to contribute; they know it's a public project that everyone can use."
Actually, the precedent is fairly well-established, especially in Votes for Deletion. Here's the following text from the Votes for Deletion info page:
  • Your opinion will be given the most weight if you are logged in with an account that already existed when the nomination was made. Anonymous and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their votes may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith.
  • Please vote only once. If there is evidence that someone is using sock puppets (multiple accounts belonging to the same person) to vote more than once, those votes will not be counted.
    • That's false. This is a kangaroo court with no standing. Even Bishop Desmond Tutu himself could not vote according to the rules this little group has set up: This vote shall not consider anonymous IP addresses, nor registered wikipedians with fewer than 500 edits not directly related to this issue prior to June 30, 2005. Unacceptable. Unless Jimbo Wales says this proposal is acceptable, then forget it. Work to provide an improved text, please do not allow censorship or ad hominem illogic. Strive for the facts, consistency, no denial, etc. Work to provide an improved text.69.209.239.161 5 July 2005 14:21 (UTC)
    • This does not discriminate against anonymous editors, it discriminates against anonymous editors whose grasp of the fundamental policies that make the Wikipedia run smoothly is in legitimate doubt. It is, perhaps, poorly worded, however, in expressing that, since this wording eliminates consideration of JohanL's vote (<sarcasm>haHA! censorship at work! how convenient</sarcasm>) as well, eventhough thus far he has not done anything that demonstrates that he's not a useful editor (except possibly for voting in favor of this troll). Nevertheless, at this point, I think anyone who has read the voluminous discussion perpetrated by this single individual, who flagrantly violates wikipedia polices without even the merest semblance of disgression, meanwhile crying foul whenever he thinks he can get away with accusing anyone and everyone else of having violated said policies, will agree that such stringencies on eligible votership are not surprising, nor entirely unreasonable, all due apologies to valuable editors who do not fit said criteria. Tomer TALK July 6, 2005 07:49 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the compliment! Maybe I haven't done much to demonstrate my usefulness, but I don't think we need an expert to see that discrimination and sensoring is at work on this page. Furthermore, I wonder who is "increasingly verbally abusive" now? (See Section 4 below, and count the votes against that statement!). I can clearly see why "anon" prefer to stay anonymous. Anyway, you got my vote now and I don't want to argue with you any more. JohanL 6 July 2005 09:27 (UTC)
  • Tomer would you kindly stop using the term troll already? That's a stupid term, and "it takes one to know one". A reason to stay "anonymous" is the administrator abuse and deceitful tracking that is dishonest. Some POV adminstrators will rollback anything without discussion based on a user name and ad hominem illogic, if they have targeted that user. It's disgraceful, and it will be reported henceforth. I think plenty of editors and administrators have revealed just who they are. 69.218.25.180 8 July 2005 15:00 (UTC)

Section 4

The subject of this vote is the wording proposed by Jayjg as opposed to that by the vandalistic and increasingly verbally abusive anon:

  1. Concur Tomer TALK July 3, 2005 07:50 (UTC)
  2. Disagree. Characterization of anon is unnecessary. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 3 July 2005 16:10 (UTC)
  3. Disagree Agree in principle, but uncessary characterisation. Páll 6 July 2005 10:35 (UTC)
  4. Disagree, for the same reason as jpgordon.--Bcrowell 3 July 2005 17:03 (UTC)
  5. Disagree I do however agree with jpgordon's alternative Impi 3 July 2005 19:15 (UTC)
  6. Disagree Molloy 6 July 2005 05:43 (UTC)
  7. Disagree JohanL 6 July 2005 07:19 (UTC)

Section 4 alternative

The subject of this vote is the wording proposed by Jayjg as opposed to that by the anonymous editor most recently editing as User:69.209.210.198, as 69.*.*.* generally, and also as User:Novato and User:AmYisrael.

  • Comment: I put this forward as an alternative -- but I'm not sure we need this section at all, since the rest of the survey makes clear what it's about. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 3 July 2005 18:41 (UTC)
  1. Agree. Tomer TALK July 3, 2005 19:31 (UTC)
  2. Agree. I think we need this explanatory section for the benefit of people who haven't been following the voluminous debate. Might want to expand the list of sockpuppets.--Bcrowell 3 July 2005 21:08 (UTC)
  3. Disagree A vote by a small group of individuals, those determining the so-called rules, is undemocratic. There needs to be an explanatory section regarding a small-group of that operates as a Revert Team to censor.69.219.53.138 4 July 2005 18:03 (UTC)
  4. Disagree JohanL 6 July 2005 07:19 (UTC)
If what you say were true, none of the votes on the Wikipedia, especially Votes for Deletion, would be valid. Fact is, most decisions on articles on Wikipedia are taken through finding consensus, whether this be between 3 editors or three hundred. What these votes are is a measure of what the editors involved with the article in question believe is the best option. Clearly, all the editors who have been involved in this article over the past month or so are against your inclusion, which means consensus has been reached against you. This is the way Wikipedia works. Impi 4 July 2005 18:52 (UTC)
  1. Abstain Molloy 6 July 2005 05:43 (UTC)

Section 5

This vote shall authoritatively determine the wording of the "white origins" sections of the Apartheid article for a period to last NOT LESS THAN TWO MONTHS:

  1. Concur Tomer TALK July 3, 2005 07:50 (UTC)
  2. Concur, though it's too short. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 3 July 2005 16:10 (UTC)
  3. Concur. I think two months is fine. The period should be relatively short. The whole problem here is that the article has become locked in stone. If I wanted an article I couldn't edit, I'd use a print encyclopedia. The article needs to be improved extensively, and we don't want a straightjacket that prevents major changes a long way into the future.--Bcrowell 3 July 2005 17:06 (UTC)
  4. Concur Impi 3 July 2005 19:15 (UTC)
  5. Concur Jayjg (talk) 3 July 2005 20:42 (UTC)
  6. Disagree Wikpipedia is not a paper encyclopedia limited in size. The "white origins" included diaspora Jews. Anything that says otherwise is untrue, and cannot ever be considered authoritative.69.219.53.138 4 July 2005 17:52 (UTC)
  7. Concur Molloy 6 July 2005 05:43 (UTC)
  8. Disagree JohanL 6 July 2005 07:19 (UTC)
  9. Concur Páll 6 July 2005 10:35 (UTC)
  10. Concur dewet|™ 6 July 2005 15:47 (UTC)

Section 6

The two forwarded proposals are as follows:

  • PROPOSAL #1: The version proffered by Anon:
  • PROPOSAL #2: The version proffered by User:Jayjg:

Section 7 (VOTES)

  • In favor of PROPOSAL #1 (by Anon) (votes MUST be signed by valid WP editors):
  1. Concur Molloy 6 July 2005 05:43 (UTC)
  2. Concur JohanL 6 July 2005 07:19 (UTC)
  • In favor of PROPOSAL #2 (by Jayjg) (votes MUST be signed by valid WP editors):
  1. Aye. Tomer TALK July 3, 2005 07:50 (UTC)
  2. Aye. – Seancdaug July 3, 2005 15:32 (UTC)
  3. Support. --Bcrowell 3 July 2005 15:40 (UTC)
  4. Ayup. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 3 July 2005 16:10 (UTC)
  5. YES --Jcw69 3 July 2005 17:47 (UTC)
  6. Aye – Impi 3 July 2005 19:15 (UTC)
  7. Aye - immigration of Jews is irrelevant in this case. Europeans went there is all that is necessary. --komencanto 6 July 2005 07:37 (UTC)
  8. Aye. Jayjg (talk) 3 July 2005 20:42 (UTC)
  9. Yes --John Z 6 July 2005 10:09 (UTC)
  10. Yes dear god Páll 6 July 2005 10:35 (UTC)
  11. Yes,please. dewet|™ 6 July 2005 15:48 (UTC)

Section 8

Comments in favor of neither:

  • I say neither proposal works. Singling out Jews is anti-semitic drivel. But singling out Europeans when South Africa has minority communities from all over the world including Indians, Malays, Chinese, Koreans, Nigerians, Moroccons etc etc etc besides European minorities is unecessary bias againts Europeans. Trying to justify singling out European minorities on the grounds that they are part of the so-called "white" group is to perputuate the rubbish racial classification scheme that was cornerstone of Apartheid. Kuratowski's Ghost 6 July 2005 15:59 (UTC)
  • I agree. The best proposal that I've seen here is the one that says "start from 1948". Forget the early colonists, apartheid was not their creation. The "scientific racism" fallacy is a creature of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The whole argument about who was or wasn't a settler is essentially irrelevant to this article. --Red King 6 July 2005 16:42 (UTC)

Section 9

Comments in favor of either:

  • As the originator of this vote, and a rather vocal participant in the latter stages of the discussion on this issue, my vote is obviously (to anyone who has read the relevant foregoing discussion), in favor of Jayjg's proposal, which I have no doubt, is based in some small part on my many cogent previous posts on this subject. For more, please see "miscellaneous commentary" below. Tomer TALK July 3, 2005 08:12 (UTC)
  • The Anon's posts are cogent, well-researched, footnoted, justified, and proven correct (see Rebuttal Summary) to a far greater degree.
    • Only to the satisfaction of the Anon in question. Tomer TALK July 4, 2005 18:33 (UTC)
    • Just a clarification: the comment above beginning with "The Anon's posts are cogent..." came from ip 69.219.53.138, the same as the rest of the string of anonymous edits. In other words, it's the anon praising himself.--Bcrowell 4 July 2005 18:40 (UTC)

Section 10

Miscellaneous commentary:

  • This immobile discussion has gone on long enough. My sense is that there is a single anonymous (and rather cantankerous) editor who is attempting to insert a specific (albeit unspecified) POV into the article, and that EVERY OTHER EDITOR WHO'S PAYING ATTENTION TO THE DISPUTE IN QUESTION disagrees with the editor in question as to the relevance of the specific information said editor repeatedly insists needs to be inserted into the article for "accuracy" and "inclusivity". Since discussion has not resolved the issue in the form of either side convincing the other, I propose this vote so that we can, all of us, vote to demonstrate consensus (or lack thereof) and move forward for at least two months to more productive activity than bashing each other over the heads with the same, by now, tired discussion points. I say, for now at least, let's vote and have done with it for 2 months and move on. WHICHEVER "SIDE" WINS, I say that UNLIMITED daily reverts, WP policy notwithstanding, in favor of the winning position be permitted for the specified period, and that any questions by admins whose "help" is sought to block those reverting to uphold this decision, be referred to this vote and discussion, and that such admins take both seriously. This argument has consumed FAR more time and effort than should be necessary to resolve such disputes. Should this vote be characterized as an attempt to squelch a POV, let me be perfectly clear: THIS VOTE IS DESIGNED TO SQUELCH, FOR THE SPECIFIED PERIOD, THE "LOSING" POV. Tomer TALK July 3, 2005 08:01 (UTC)

YES, THIS VOTE IS DESIGNED TO SQUELCH, and censor the facts of the settlement of South Africa, especially in the 19th and 20th centuries. Wikipedia is not limited in size. The improved text (two words) improves the accuracy of the article, and takes into account the concerns of all editors, except those that want to totally delete/withhold accurate information "just because they don't like it". It's not about being on a losing side. It's about honesty, accuracy, and historical fact.

  • Any text that omits the diaspora Jews as settlers is false and intellectually dishonest, as the Googletest proves. Please work to come up with an improved text that addesses your concerns about relative populations or whatever, but don't delete facts. Improve Wikipedia, please don't censor it based on POV. 69.219.53.138 4 July 2005 18:26 (UTC) 4 July 2005 18:12 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry for throwing a spanner into the works! - I totally agree with the last statement of the anonymous editor. JohanL 4 July 2005 20:41 (UTC)
I had a quick look at Demographics of South Africa and I cannot agree with some of the figures mentioned, i.e. the population of Bloemfontein compared to Vereeniging! Never ever can the population of Vereeniging be almost the same, even more than Bloemfontein! Maybe with all the surrounding towns of Vanderbijlpark, Sasolburg & Meyerton (called the Vaal Triangle), included but not Vereeniging alone! Just compare the changes that user:152.163.100.203 on 17 June 2005 has been made on his/her own previous edit to the population levels of the two cities – cut it almost by halve! Ridiculous, where did these statistics came from? Is that the whole population of the two cities, or only a certain group? Who checked it?
Take it up at Talk:Demographics of South Africa. Tomer TALK July 5, 2005 18:09 (UTC)
OK, that’s a different case and must be treated seperately, but you claimed that the Jews should be mentioned on said article. Where? I cannot find any mentioning of Jews in Demographics of South Africa! Anyway the Jews, however a small percentage of the South African white population, have made major contributions to the development of South-Africa, politically but especially economically, and virtually in all facets of life. To mention a few, Barney Barnato, the Harry Oppenheimer, Sol Kerzner and many more. In fact, there are several Jews in leading positions in the politics of SA at this present moment; therefore I agree with user 69.219.53.138 that they are worth mentioning in this article. Without that, the article will be incomplete and inaccurate!
How is such a miniscule group, even if they are presently in leading positions of power, or have made significant contributions to the development of ZA, sufficiently relevant to warrant prominent mention in a discussion of APARTHEID? That the Jewish immigrants are not mentioned in Demographics of South Africa is a shortcoming of that article, not this one. That there are Jews in leading positions in the current government of ZA is probably irrelevant all around, unless such things are considered sufficiently noteworthy in ZA that their prominence should be noted, not here, but in Politics of South Africa. Tomer TALK July 5, 2005 18:09 (UTC)
I would advise all editors to have a good look at [[1]], and evaluate themselves in terms of their attitude in connection with i.e. anonymity, subjectivity, etc. JohanL 5 July 2005 15:14 (UTC)
OK, so vote for the anon's formulation. Help us form consensus. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 5 July 2005 15:38 (UTC)

The two should be consistent, not inconsistent, that's POV.69.209.239.161 5 July 2005 14:04 (UTC)

Not mentioning something in Apartheid that's not particularly important to the discussion of Apartheid, is not POV, it's "sticking to the subject". To say that because an ethnic group is included in Demographics of South Africa means it should be included in Apartheid is not "consistent", it's "repetitive". I don't care if you say "European immigrants arrived in great numbers between the 17th and mid-20th century. (See Demographics of South Africa.)"...that's concise, NPOV, and informative. If people care from which country these immigrants came, they can go look. Since the majority came from Nederland and England, it would probably be imprecise to exclude mention of them specifically, but it still wouldn't be inaccurate. Tomer TALK July 5, 2005 18:09 (UTC)

NEW PROPOSAL (collaboration for improved text)

  • Any text that omits the diaspora Jews as settlers is false and intellectually dishonest, as the Googletest proves. Please work to come up with an improved text that addesses your concerns about relative populations or whatever, but don't delete facts. Improve Wikipedia, please don't censor it based on POV.
Clarification: this comment was not signed, and appears to be by the same anon. (When I first read this, I thought that this paragraph and the one after it, by Red King, were both by the anon.)--Bcrowell 5 July 2005 17:16 (UTC)
  • This will be taken by some people as ducking the issue I know but, looked at from the PoV of the people whose land was taken by force of arms, it is rather irrelevant from which European tribe they came. So how about: "South Africa was colonised by European settlers from the 17th century onwards. The early settlers spoke Dutch and German, later settlers followed in the 19th and 20th centuries, speaking English, French, Yiddish, Russian and other European languages" --Red King 5 July 2005 14:49 (UTC).
That's just a re-hash of the same trivia in an attempt to make is more palatable, and it's original research to boot. Do you know what the prevalence of language spoken by immigrants to South Africa was? Even if you did, why on earth would it be relevant to and article about Apartheid? It might have a place in a Languages of South Africa article. Jayjg (talk) 5 July 2005 15:09 (UTC)
It's an attempt to try again from a different perspective. Yes, your counter-argument is valid but the logical conclusion of your position is that all the colonists' original nationalities are irrelevant and so the only NPOV opening para is "South Africa was colonised by European settlers from the 17th century onwards.". Drop the dutch, the german, the english and then you have a reasonable basis to drop the diaspora jews. Otherwise you don't. --Red King 5 July 2005 16:45 (UTC)
The Dutch, the Germans, and the English were the very heart of the history of apartheid in South Africa. So-called "diaspora Jews" were not. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 5 July 2005 17:13 (UTC)

Oh, what happened to the "French"? The diaspora Jews settled in South Africa. Reread the text. It does not say blame the Jews, which is the ONLY issue you care about, not facts, not truth, not historical accuracy, nothing else but your biased POV.

Thank you. Jayjg is still here pushing his POV, that has already been disproven. The Jewish community was considered white, and it was a relevant and notable community in the 20th Century. The 17th Century Germans and French, that Jayjg dishonestly demands be on the list, were much less significant as political or economic entities during the 20th Century in South Africa. This the Googletest proves with flying colors. After all this time, nobody has addressed the inequities of the text as it relates to "the list" until now, even after many requests. So thank you for contributing and not joining a kangaroo court. Not one person has addressed the history of Jan Smuts and Chaim Weizmann and the political implications and issues that resulted during the apartheid era. Irrelevant? Maybe to some with a history of POV. The improved text is accurate, fair and inclusive. The amount of denial and POV by a few problematic editors, lasting over 2 months, in the face of mountains of information and thoroughly researched and footnoted data, is staggering.69.209.239.161 5 July 2005 17:12 (UTC)

This is not a new proposal, it's a reiteration of the same intellectually vacuous arguments that the anon has been repeating for months, and that have already been rejected by a clear consensus of the editors who are interested in this article.--Bcrowell 5 July 2005 17:16 (UTC)

That's the same empty rhetoric you've been using for months. Empty. It adds nothing, it contributes nothing. Address the issues raised, just one time. 69.209.239.161 5 July 2005 17:19 (UTC)

I have addressed the issues raised, just one time. It's just that, unlike you, I don't crapflood the talk page by repeating the same arguments over and over.--Bcrowell 5 July 2005 17:24 (UTC)

--Why don't you try taking a stab at some text that all editors can agree with? that is fair and accurate and doesn't omit information to a reader? 69.209.239.161 5 July 2005 17:28 (UTC)

  • We're talking a one-sentence introduction to the history of the colonization of South Africa as it pertains to apartheid, not a detailed discussion of the history of the demographics of South Africa. (I notice nobody has mentioned the Indian population, by the way, which was, I believe, far more numerous than the Jewish population -- something like 2.5% of the population currently, versus 0.14%.) If it can be shown that the Jewish immigration was fundamental to the foundation of apartheid (as was, for example, the Dutch), then the Jewish population bears mention in this context. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 5 July 2005 19:47 (UTC)
    • What is not clear to me is (as golfers would say) "who makes the cut?" (what's the number and who decides). How big a proportion of the colonists do you have to have to be listed or not listed? You say that language is not relevant, but it is a lot more evident than original nationality (Dutch/Afrikaans speakers being more hardline; only the Afrikaaner "Dutch" Reformed Church searched for a Biblical basis for racism). The only factor that was really "fundamental to the foundation of apartheid" was (a) skin colour and (b) a belief in racial supremacy. All the rest is mere drapery. So, to be intellectually rigorous, you must either omit all mention of origin or include every category that anybody wants included. Though why anybody would want to to accept guilt by association with such an abominable perspective is beyond me. --Red King 5 July 2005 23:04 (UTC)
      • But none of this is necessary. SA was colonized primarily by German, Dutch, French, and later English settlers; that probably describes 95%-99% of the voluntary immigrants (I'm excepting the Indian indentured servants, mostly because I don't know the numbers). I think that's a pretty clean cut for a short introduction to the history. "Intellectual rigor" is fine where appropriate; intellectual rigor does not mean mentioning every possible fact every place it can be mentioned. We could, of course, just say "See History of South Africa" -- and maybe we should. Did apartheid per se (as opposed to the much more common minority European domination of aboriginal peoples) exist prior to its post-WWII codification? Maybe this would work better, under "History of apartheid in South Africa"

In the years following the victory of the South African National Party in the general election of 1948, a large number of laws were enacted, codifying the dominance of white people over other races. That election was won despite the National Party having lost the popular vote because of gerrymandered voting districts overrepresenting the rural, farming areas that depended on cheap unskilled black labour.

Seems to me this would have been perhaps the best edit, independent of this entire brouhaha. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 6 July 2005 00:01 (UTC)
      • I second that proposal. It cuts to the chase. The article doesn't need another copy of the history of SA before we can get to what really matters. --Red King 6 July 2005 10:21 (UTC)
I agree, avoidance of the sentence causing the problems is a good idea. The "As was typically the case in " sentence between these two might be kept, as it doesn't seem contentious.--John Z 6 July 2005 11:00 (UTC)

--Is jpgordon∇∆∇∆ coming around to to the defense of the defamation of the "French" and the "Germans", after all this time? Or was he overly concerned with his POV and obsession, being only concerned about his "Jews"? Thanks for taking the time to produce some proposed text that attempts equality and fairness, that all editors might agree with besides just what Jewish editors focus upon. The hysteria about listing the Jews, must apply also to the French and Germans, under your line of reasoning. I personally think that more inclusive and more factual information is better, but if you try to delete, at least be consistent and fair for a change. 69.217.200.164 6 July 2005 04:37 (UTC)

The most simple and accurate text, that places no blame, that addresses ideas of all concerned, including noting "smaller" populations, and does not omit notable and relevant information, remains:


      • Your so-called "diaspora Jews" ARE EUROPEANS. It's obvious that that is your major confusion here; you somehow think that people that lived in Europe for well over a thousand years before they then emigrated to South Africa are not Europeans. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 6 July 2005 21:36 (UTC)
Please stop feeding the trolls. It is a complete waste of time for you two to keep repeating yourseves like kids going Is Isnt Is Isnt Is Isnt IS ISNT etc ad nauseam. Just ignore it, everybody else has. If you can't add something new and constructive, be quiet. --Red King 6 July 2005 22:49 (UTC)

No, that's wrong. The Jews are Semites, as in the all the reports about "Anti-Semitism", not "anti-Europeanism". jpgordon has never addressed the issues of 1) the "French" and "Germans" being listed, 2) Jan Smuts and Chaim Weizmann, 3) the googletest results, 4) Sol Kerzner and Harry Oppenheimer, 5) the National Party and South African Zionsts, 6) the mining companies' labor practises, et al. Not once. I don't think he has contributed to the discussion other than just complaining. 69.218.25.180 8 July 2005 15:12 (UTC)

How is the Discussion History archived and accessed?

See links at top of page. Jayjg (talk) 5 July 2005 17:53 (UTC)

Thanks. [[2]] 69.209.239.161 5 July 2005 18:55 (UTC)

Diaspora Jews????

I've only just discovered this Diaspora Jews colonizing SA nonsense, this is one is a no brainer there are only about 70 000 - 80 000 Jews in SA, maybe as much as 120 000 in the mid 20th century before many left because they didn't want to be part of Apartheid. Why single out Jews when there were significant Greek, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, Lebanese, Polish, German and Swiss minorities who came around the same time and these days even bigger Russian, Croatian, Serb and Czech communities. Kuratowski's Ghost 6 July 2005 02:25 (UTC)

Perhaps you should vote as well. Jayjg (talk) 6 July 2005 02:46 (UTC)

--Nonsense? It is your opinion that is nonsense, that's just a rehash of eariler arguments long dead, and it has been rebutted by other South Africans involved in the Discussion. I do appreciate that you actually know something about South Africa as compared to many others heavily involved in the reverts, in particlular jayjg who has contributed absolutely nothing of substance to the subject. However I am concerned about you having too much POV and bias:

"Ancient history, in particular Jewish history." He says: "I am a non-theistic Jew..." You know the facts, the Jewish community was considered White, and Jan Smuts and Chaim Weizmann set the stage for a unique, relevant and notable 20th Century Jewish community. Please reread the text actually being discussed, it does not place blame. The Jewish community in South Africa during the 20th Century was notable and it was considered white, and it deserves mention. Please provide the Googletest numbers for any other group you want to highlight. If they are notable, they too should be mentioned. There are only a few editors that want to delete, and we all know why they have that bias. Kuratowski's Ghost Can you provide us an alternative text that all can agree on? Thanks.69.217.200.164 6 July 2005 04:26 (UTC)

  • Good grief. Weren't you the editor complaining vehemently about "ad hominem" attacks? You've just provided an absolutely classic example thereof. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 6 July 2005 04:55 (UTC)

Where's the attack? Kuratowski's Ghost is Jewish, as are you, as is Jayjg, Tomer, SlimVirigin, Humus Sapiens, and maybe I've missed a few more. So what? How is that an attack? You guys are great at caring about and focusing on Jewish issues on Wikipedia. However, I'm glad you finally see that the "French" and "Germans" and the "Europeans" merit some discussion too. People were starting to wonder whether you were trying to blame them for apartheid, without any facts, knowledge or footnotes to back it up. 69.217.200.164 6 July 2005 05:05 (UTC)

Wow. All you guys are Jews too? Cool! b"H for the antisemites out there who never fail to let me know who I should be rooting for! Yippie!  :-p Tomer TALK July 6, 2005 07:51 (UTC)

Calling someone who is a Jew, Jewish, is not an attack. However, using Slurs that cannot be backed-up is. Tomer, Wikipedia has a policy of no personal attacks. 69.217.200.164 6 July 2005 14:38 (UTC)

I think Kuratowski's Ghost's and 69.217.200.164's latest posts contain the germ of a solution. Surely there can be no other motivation for this anonymous editor's addition than a feeling that if his version is not used, that a certain group will feel left out and discriminated against. Thus, his version should be expanded to include, as KG catalogues "Greek, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, Lebanese, Polish, German and Swiss,... Russian, Croatian, Serb and Czech" not to speak of fat Europeans and non Europeans, thin ones, gays, lesbians, people who weren't sure one way or the other, ones who came wearing funny hats, bald men, bearded women etc. ad infinitum. Not to do so would be anti-Czech, homophobic, and fat-people-hating. In the absence of the anonymous editor providing us with a superior version including all such groups of equal prominence with the diaspora Jews (why should Jews emigrating from Palestine/Israel be left out?) I feel that there is no choice but to sadly use version 2 for the moment. He should probably make up his own very long article on the subject, as he clearly has the time and interest to do so.--John Z 6 July 2005 10:09 (UTC)

Wrong, see Googletest results [[3]]. If there is a reason to address Czech or homophobic people than you have to justify it as relevant and notable, something that's already been done for the 20th Century Jewish Community. I see you likewise have not done any reading about Jan Smuts and Chaim Weizmann.69.217.200.164 6 July 2005 14:34 (UTC)

A distinction needs to be made between the early German settlers who were a small but significant contribution to the ancestry of the Afrikaners and the present German minority (consisting partly of Germans from Nambia) who like the Jews are a statistically insignificant minority. Similarly between the French Hugenots who came as refugees and were a significant part of the ancestors of the Afrikaners and the current insignificant French minority. Kuratowski's Ghost 6 July 2005 10:57 (UTC)

Yes, that makes part sense. But the Jews are not insignificant in 19th and 20th Century South African history, they are notable and relevant. 69.217.200.164 6 July 2005 14:34 (UTC)

How about just:

"South Africa was settled initially by the Dutch, Germans and French from the 17th century onwards. The English followed in the 19th and 20th centuries."

That omits information from the reader about the existence of the Jewish community which is relevant and notable. Why are you trying to censor facts?69.217.200.164 6 July 2005 14:34 (UTC)

There are numerous minority immigrants from all over the world who cannot sensibly be referred to as "settling", they immigrated to existing establish places. The Jewish community is significant only in the context of the subject the Jewish Diaspora as a whole, as far as South Africa goes they are one of numerous insignificant minorities. If any group needs to be mentioned it is the Indians and Malays who have a significant presence in SA. Kuratowski's Ghost 6 July 2005 12:25 (UTC)

  • That is demonstrably not true. There was a special relationship between the National Party and the Zionists, that far outweighs the ridiculous comparison to Malays.69.217.200.164 6 July 2005 14:34 (UTC)
Let me further point out that not all the small minorities in SA are European, there are Lebanese, Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Thai, Moroccans, Nigerians, Cubans ... Moreover within the Jewish minority not all are "Diaspora Jews" but also Israeli Jews who came to escape daily terrorism. Kuratowski's Ghost 6 July 2005 12:53 (UTC)

You have further proved the point, that the text needs work, and should be more inclusive, not less. The googletest provides the best litmus test, unless someone can suggest otherwise? We should stick to tests that are commonly used on Wikipedia. Does anyone have a problem with that? 69.217.200.164 6 July 2005 14:34 (UTC)

Repetition does not strengthen your sievish case. You are one voice, you have spoken, and you are in the distinct minority. The above vote is to determine consensus, or the lack thereof, a forum in which you have but one voice. So far, it looks like your shrill voice will not be heeded. Besides, you're supposed to be sitting on timeout. Time to reset the timer until 9:34AM CDT Thursday, it looks like. Tomer TALK July 6, 2005 15:19 (UTC)
  • I see you too condone censorship and abuse by administrators. Censorship and systemic bias could undue the open process of this enclyclopedia.69.218.25.180 8 July 2005 14:44 (UTC)

Relationship between South African Jews/Zionists and the National Party during the Apartheid Era

Relevant and notable information to follow.


I googled for "Muslim racist South Africa" and found this: Anti-Semitism Worldwide 1999/2000 SOUTH AFRICA
More recent report Antisemitism Worldwide 2004
They forgot to mention anonymous anti-semitic edits of SA related articles on wikipedia though :D Kuratowski's Ghost 6 July 2005 15:17 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the discussion, or this section's topic? Please do use Slurs and Wikipedia has a policy of no personal attacks.69.218.25.180 8 July 2005 14:46 (UTC)

A policy which you would do well to learn. Tomer TALK July 8, 2005 17:32 (UTC)

Policy

Can someone kindly reference the section that would approve of limiting participation in such a "closed" fashion? This is not anything close to resembling an open collaboration:

This vote shall not consider anonymous IP addresses, nor registered wikipedians with fewer than 500 edits not directly related to this issue prior to June 30, 2005

If someone could link a Wikipedia reference that this type of limited and arbitrary set-up is acceptable, it would be appreciated. Is this Wikipedia Iran? Thanks. 69.218.25.180 8 July 2005 15:17 (UTC)

OK, I've reviewed those pages, but where is the mention that a vote can be "restricted" in such a fashion? Please show me. Your concerns about sockpuppetry cannot trump an open, free vote and restrict it to a small like-minded group. The vote is clearly undemocratic and against policy unless someone can show us the policy that states otherwise. The vote as set up is illegitimate.

  • Regrading sockpuppetry, I have learned what the term is. What is unusual is the constant idiosyncratic views on Wikipedia that are apparent when the same few POV editors revert and censor others over and over, they have the exact same editing style and POV, they protect articles from NPOV and improvement, and they communicate to avoid the 3 revert rule. That's dishonesty. That's also what I have learned about some editors and administrators on Wikipedia. No names or personal attacks, I think all can see it clearly. 69.218.25.180 8 July 2005 16:29 (UTC)
    • Sockpuppet votes are discounted everywhere, but what Jpgordon was referring to in addition to RfA was not VfD, but rather Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion, where the rules regarding sockpuppetry are spelled out quite clearly. Tomer TALK July 8, 2005 17:36 (UTC)
      • Right. I was looking at VfD and then looked at VfU and saw the language in VfU and therefore put VfD here instead. Cranial flatulation. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 9 July 2005 01:13 (UTC)

interpretation of vote; starting from 1948

The anon's complaints about the voting qualifications are irrelevant. According to the criteria proposed by Tomer, the vote is 11 to 1 (since JohanL doesn't meet the criteria). But even if the criteria were relaxed, the vote would still be 11 to 3 (assuming the anon would have cast one vote). So the only issue is whether the vote was 78% in favor or 92%. Either way, there's a clear consensus.

I agree with Red King and others, who suggest that the best thing to do would be to start from 1948 anyway. This article is redundant with History of South Africa, which is a very high-quality article, but too long. Pall, Maveric149, and I have already discussed spinning off the apartheid-era history, and Maveric149's work so far is at Talk:History_of_apartheid. I would actually favor a title more like History of South Africa in the Apartheid Era, for two reasons: (1) apartheid didn't start suddenly, like turning on a light switch, and (2) if the idea is to split up History of South Africa into smaller parts, then the article needs to cover more than just apartheid itself (although apartheid was, of course, the central issue in that period).

Of course, the effect of all this might just be to divert the anon into revert-warring over the History of South Africa article, which would be the only article that would actually be covering the colonial period. However, if an article has to be afflicted with a revert war, I think it's better for that article to be History of South Africa for a while. History of South Africa was nominated twice for FA, and narrowly missed the second time around. Because it went through that process, it's in extremely good shape, and doesn't need a lot of work right now. If an article has to be paralyzed by the anon, it might as well be the one that doesn't need a lot of work.

In any case, I think the vote has had the desired effect of proving that there is an overwhelming consensus against inserting the anon's agenda into *any* of these articles.--Bcrowell 8 July 2005 22:10 (UTC)

I concur. There is precedent for undoing the full effect of the vote, by opening a new vote on when to start the discussion of Apartheid. If the discussion begins with the first apartheid-like laws, the discussion of where the Europeans came from will be completely mootified, as it will no longer be included in the article. Tomer TALK July 8, 2005 22:22 (UTC)
I wasn't even aware of the History of South Africa article, it looks very good (only thing I found questionable was the date of 500 CE instead of the more usual 1000 CE for the Bantu reaching SA but I suppose its different opinions about dating iron implements.) We don't really need the history and images duplicated in this article which should indeed focus on the history of introduction of discrimanatoy laws and Apartheid.
BTW this piece of trash who keeps trying to add anti-semitic fantasies about Jews colonizing SA is not worth arguing with, I say ban his IP. Kuratowski's Ghost 9 July 2005 01:48 (UTC)

Not easy to do, as he's used a dozen userid and 3 dozen IPs: see User:Jayjg/Jews did Apartheid editor. Jayjg (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

eliminating this article (redirection to History of South Africa in the Apartheid Era)

As discussed above under "interpretation of vote; starting from 1948," I've created the History of South Africa in the Apartheid Era article by combining the text from Apartheid with the relevant parts of History of South Africa. That portion of History of South Africa now just refers to the main article at History of South Africa in the Apartheid Era. I think Apartheid should now become a redirect to History of South Africa in the Apartheid Era. Any objections? Do we need a formal vote?--Bcrowell 9 July 2005 17:57 (UTC)

If there are any objections to eliminating this article and making it into a redirect to History of South Africa in the Apartheid Era, please make them within the next 24 hours, and if necessary, we'll have a follow-up vote. If no objections turn up within that time frame, I'll go ahead and eliminate this article.--Bcrowell 20:51, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

I have no objections, as long as what you do is just blank this page and turn it into a redirect. I shouldn't want to lose the Talk, since much of it has finally culminated with this proposal. Tomer TALK 14:45, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
A talk page can exist even when there's no article to go with it at all, so there's no reason it has to go away. I put a note at Talk:History of South Africa in the Apartheid era with a brief note about the controversy, so people will still be able to find this article. If you like, we can even archive the recent vote there.--Bcrowell 15:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I have some misgivings about this. Rightly or wrongly, the word "apartheid" has a more general usage. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
I almost agree, but I would propose adding a disambig to the top of the new article directing to Political epithets to handle that. Tomer TALK 17:52, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
I've preserved all the apartheid analogies in a section at the end of History of South Africa in the apartheid Era, although frankly I think the analogies are mostly nonsense. IMO the best case to be made is in the Southern U.S. before the civil rights movement, and even there it's pretty weak --- it wasn't a tiny white majority in power, and blacks were U.S. citizens. I don't see the status quo as a valid option; the duplication between Apartheid and History of South Africa has been under discussion for a long time, and needs to be fixed. I would be happy to put the analogies section somewhere else, but I don't think it belongs at Political epithets; 95% of that article is short definitions of a long list of terms applied to individuals (e.g., "feminazi") rather than forms of givernment. I think I'll make a separate Apartheid Outside South Africa article, but I see that as a separate issue from the need to eliminate the duplication, which I think should be obvious. The reason I asked if we needed a formal vote, and waited 24 hours, was simply that this would go against the letter, although not the spirit, of the vote, which says to preserve a certain sentence for 60 days. The need to eliminate the duplication is something that has been discussed extensively already (in the FA discussion, and on talk pages), and my impression is that a strong consensus has already been reached on it. I think it might have just fallen off of the radar because of the revert war here (and the revert war was also the reason why Pall, Maveric149, and I have been delaying carrying it out).--Bcrowell 18:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps the non-SA usage might be best mentioned in the Racism article? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
The SA section in Racism is currently just a link to Apartheid. Once Apartheid becomes a redirect, clicking on that will just take them to History of South Africa in the Apartheid Era, where the first thing they'll see is the disambiguation notice at the top, which links to Apartheid Outside South Africa. I don't think it's a good idea to dump the kind of argumentative, partisan stuff that's in Apartheid Outside South Africa into another article that's on a more objective historical topic, like Racism or History of South Africa in the Apartheid Era; it dilutes the quality and seriousness of the article, and plays into exactly the kind of gamesmanship and Stalinesque rewriting of history that have crippled Apartheid for months at a time.--Bcrowell 20:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I'd missed the Apartheid outside South Africa reference. Never mind! --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Apartheid/Archive_5&oldid=1048110822"