Talk:Arnold S de Beer

@Mamushir: YEEEEEK, Mamushir, for crying out to heaven and all abodes in the observable universe!

I am still busy writing the article on the professor, but someone just could not wait to jump upon one with their tags of multiple issues or whatever. Could you not give one some breathing space? Eeeesh, to whom could I report such annoying eagerness? This article is not a self publicaton to begin with. My surname is not De Beer and am busy with an article about an important journalism academic on the South African scene. I have never met the person personally, only talked on Facebook and e-mail. More links to sources are forthcoming. Mieliestronk (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC) (Ollie Olwagen from South Africa, where we have enough troubles with everything from state corruption up to covid, and really do not need more teeny irritations such as these even if they seem small to some. Have a nice day, Mamushir.)

Mieliestronk if you are still writing an article you should use the draft and articles for creation process. As soon as article is published in the main space of the encyclopedia, it can, will and probably should be edited by anyone else. Melcous (talk) 23:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mieliestronk:, second to what Melcous said, I would request you to have a look at WP:PSTS and WP:RS while you draft any article. Also, to understand what a Conflict of Interest may mean you can refer to WP:COI. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 17:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mamushir: Hello again, Mamushir. Have to admit I was a teeny bit annoyed at first (aren't we all these days? ) only to realize that your "strictness" is actually commendable! I'm so sorry I lost my cool, but I am and old man of 81 years, and we old-timers often believe all the world should listen to us like our own children once did! ☺ )_ But, as I've said, with so much fake news flying around in our world, it is truly comforting to know that the English Wikipedia editors have their checks and balances firmly in place in order to avoid it becoming just another mouthpiece of misinformation. And with so many (probably thousands of) people trying to pass a quick contribution about virtually everything, I guess Wikipedia would've quickly grown into a compilation of trash if you people did not sift everything vigorously. Thanks very much then for what you are doing, and keep up te good work. >>>>>>>>> Mamushir, I have this link to the good professor De Beer's info at the world-renowned University of Stellenbosch itself which virtually contains all the relevant information about him that is mentioned in our Wikipedia article. The reference is: http://www.sun.ac.za/english/faculty/arts/research/arnold-de-beer . Coupled with this is De Beer's CV on a sister website of the same university. The websites of the university bear the name "sun". The CV at https://sun.academia.edu/arnolddebeer/CurriculumVitae contains a miriads of info about all De Beer's books and publications and such. Where one man could've found so much time in one lifetime, beats me. I'm sure the info supplied by the university is so trustworthy as one could hope to find anywhere else on Earth or the nearby planets! One could add the reference and send the article for you to approve then??? Regards, Mieliestronk, meaning "corncob". My real name is Ollie and my home language is Afrikaans.Mieliestronk (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Mieliestronk, Nice to know about you and that too in such a candid manner. My respect for your passion for contributing Wikipedia. I can appreciate the two source that you have provided, but if you have missed my last messages you have missed the whole point. Please go through the mentioned rules in order to understand why they are not sufficient enough for backing this professor. I have never said the subject of the article is suitable or not. What I said is the sources you mentioned are not proper and the article needs more works to make it comply with the reference policy. Unfortunately irrespective of the fame of an university resume or CV do not pass as reliable source and are primary source, we need many secondary sources to back claims made in primary sources for using the information in Wikipedia. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉)

Mamushir, the recommended references have been added and I trust you'll find them worthy of Wikipedia's standards. Fortunately the professor is such a well-known personality that references are not hard to find. In addition User:KylieTastic has done appreciated clean-up of the references, so I have submitted the article for review. How does the path go from here to publishing, when or if approved, please? In short, is there anything more I should do except wait for approval? I appreciate that there is a long waiting list of other hopefuls, but I believe we may just be on brink of releasing to Wikipedia, no? Thanks for all your help ---- Mieliestronk (talk) 01:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Not in favour of this article, as I think it is rather de Beer's abbreviated CV, the long version being thoroughly covered on Afrikaans wikipedia ― meaning that we have no sources at all. When it comes to the impact of the subject, I see rather little. The subject has been exposed as an ordinary member of the underground Broederbond movement, which had many non-notable members. The notorious kingpins of this group are well-covered on wikipedia. JMK (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Heaven forbid that the English Wikipedia should ever become the political forum for Afrikaners fighting over the perceived "atrocities" of other Afrikaners in the time of apartheid. Prof. De Beer has never been tried in a court of law for any wrongdoing, never, and the previous contributor must be harbouring a personal grudge or I don't know what. To be "exposed" as a member of the Broederbond means absolutely nothing. If it did, there would have been a series of "Neurenberg Trials" or whatever, and there was not a single one. In fact, I myself know or knew quite a few ex-members - decent people, every one of them, and their membership of the BB was always an "open secret'. To conclude: The article's many sources prove to have enough credibility as they stand, and the Afrikaans version itself was based on the very same sources. I would therefore like to propose that the previous contributor's private vendetta be ignored. The good professor really and truly does not deserve this. Mieliestronk (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mamushir:, @KylieTastic:, or whomsoever one should address in this regard, but Mamushir and KylieTastic were helpful advisers from the start way back in December last year. One fully realizes that one has no claim to any preferential treatment in the publishing of articles to Wikipedia, but this one from South Africa would hardly be noticed at all by your editors on a world-wide scale of topics. In the world of South African journalism it is however of rather prime importance. Of all the South African journalists I have written about in the Afrikaans Wikipedia, this is one of only two I was also asked to try to repeat in the English Wikipedia. There has never been a great number of academics teaching Afrikaans journalists the tricks of the trade, and prof. De Beer has truly done innovative and groundbreaking work. The article as it now stands in English is very concise, and I believe the references are quite sufficient too. Do you know of any way the article could be cleared for publication before I myself (nearly 82 years old) would perhaps not even be here to witness it? Please, please. Mieliestronk (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Mieliestronk, we possibly can appreciate your wish and concern. But here in Wikipedia, we have rules to be followed. The article has not been reviewed by anyone yet, if I am not wrong. I would request you to please wait for some more and if the article really has the merit of inclusion, it will be accepted, be sure of that. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 11:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mieliestronk unfortunately the AfC/review process is extremely backlogged due to lack of volunteers - some don't seem to care often quoting WP:NODEADLINE - personally I think it's a huge problem that needs radical solutions. But although I sympathise I'm both on a semi-break and generally avoid biographies. So all I can advise is using the links on the submit notice on the article in the section "Where to get help". Cheers ~~~~ KylieTastic (talk) 12:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Approved, as appears to meet WP:ACADEMIC. Greenman (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

COI and other

User:Mieliestronk admits twice that he was in contact with the subject. He further cites himself as the creator of the subject's photo, and possibly got the birth date and place from the subject himself. On the Afrikaans geselshoekie he writes: "I myself decided to write about him and informed him, as our emails will show," as above, "only talked on Facebook and e-mail". JMK (talk) 13:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The four sun.ac.za references all concern his CV, essentially placed on that site by the subject ― which means that his research interests as outlined in the article, were defined by the subject. The three Ecquid Novi references are a problem. It was founded by the subject and he admits still being involved in it: "presently serves as founding editor". Most problematic is the reference labeled "resensies", where one cannot see the author of the review and may suspect the subject himself. JMK (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The 2000 Stals Prize could be seen, I would think, in the context that the "Akademie" was thickly populated with members of the Broederbond, of which the subject is also a member. No deserving black journalists by 2000? Likewise his one time board membership of the SABC I would see as a consequence of his Broederbond membership also, as it was then controlled by them — merely another spot where they could populate one table. And it seems to coincide with his academic position at RAU, only a few kms away ― which suggests it was something he could fit in between classes. These two don't convince me as important accomplishments. He was head of university departments per his CV, but would that make him notable? As I understand heads of departments are rotated, and in a broederbond environment you are more likely to be elected. JMK (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

He was co-editor, later editor for Global Journalism, long out of print, and his co-editor John Calhoun Merrill does not have a wikipedia page. Neither do his more recent co-editors Thomas Hanitzsch, Folker Hanusch or Jyotika Ramaprasad. JMK (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Notability

• the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work ― don't think so
• the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem ― don't think so
• publication of an anniversary or memorial journal volume or a Festschrift dedicated to a particular person ― no
• significant academic awards and honors ― you be the judge, but I think so
• highly selective fellowships ― none
• having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient ― I don't see them anyway

JMK (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

This source states (translated) as "As one of the founders in South Africa of the academic study of what was formerly known as mass communication, with a particular focus on the study of journalism, De Beer has published numerous authoritative publications that have contributed to the discipline to establish in South Africa." which seems sufficient to me. Greenman (talk) 12:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

How now brown cow?

Just to explain some of one's intentions: I've had previous experiences regarding the deep entanglement one could get onself into just trying to post a mere snapshot to Wikipedia. So I wrote to the subject: Please bequeath, bestow, award and hand over (!) your copyright to me and make me the owner of your picture, then there skould be no problem, as far as I understand South African law. And he said: Ok, proceed. I can show our emails in this regard to whom it may concern. All above board and having no strings whatsoever attached.

But, yes: If one should "know" a person, does that mean one could not write about him on her on Wikipedia? How many miriads of contributors of articles must have "known" their subject at least in some way? I virtually came to "know" the person when telling him on Facebook/Messenger I needed to write about him. I did not know of any other way I could approach the article save for making contact with the person himself in the first place. What else could I have done? I was just trying to get articles written on Afrikaans journalists in various fields in South Africa in the past years. And he was the only Afrikaans journalist I could think of whose academic contributions outshine even his contributions to newspapers or periodicals themselves. Nothing more. I have never met the subject in person, and that is a fact I could swear by. Why should I have any other intention of furthering his cause than the journalistic angle? I am sure that is what is meant by the Wikipedia spirit of good faith. is it not?

Furthermore about the Broederbond: JMK has his own opinion about the matter which seems to be politically driven, I really don't know. And implying that our respected Academy of the Afrikaans Language have been racist in all their decades of existence, hurts an Afrikaner like me more than I think he could ever imagine. All the many prizes won by most respected writers of all colours and creeds in Afrikaans, Adam Small et al, all of them were awarded by a dirty racist organization? Repeat this accusation on a wider platform and see what the reaction would be. But so be it if somebody believes so. I have no interest other than stating the facts.

@Greenman:, one would very much like to hear your opinion, please. Asseblief tog. Ek is 'n ou man wat reeds voor die Tweede Wêreldoorlog gebore is. Waarom ek in elk geval soveel moeite doen om die verhaal van die Afrikaanse joernalistiek op 'n wêreldforum vasgelê te probeer kry, kan ek maar net toeskryf aan my liefde vir my moedertaal wat miskien ook maar net gedoem is om spoedig uit te sterf in die huidige wêreldbestel. Kortom, is daar 'n manier om die nuwe besware verwyder te kry wat nou weer bo-aan die artikel verskyn wat jy self goedgekeur het? Daar kan tog nie 'n ewige gestry oor artikels wees nie, want op die ou end is niemand tevrede met enige ander persoon se bydraes nie. Mieliestronk (talk) 12:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mieliestronk: I don't have an opinion to offer on the contents of the article itself, but in general I find the advice in Wikipedia:Etiquette helpful in dealing with disagreements/conflict. In general, focusing on improving the article, and not taking any outcome personally, is the most constructive way to approach things. The only content User:JMK has added to the article is a template listing various concerns. Rather than see these as an attack, attempting to address them will hopefully lead to an improved article. Greenman (talk) 20:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Canvassing

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion.
Editors may like to take note of the canvassing employed to publish this article in main space and to dissuade subsequent scrutiny. On 7 February 2021 user:Mieliestronk posts the following non-neutral request on Afrikaans wikipedia's discussion forum (google translations and own emphases below).

• I wonder if you old-timers in the Afrikaans factory might have any advice on how to get past English Wikipedia's legions of legions of policemen. Excuse me for asking, because the English monster is not your baby, but after a while a guy does not know how to go back or forth with them. Some time ago I wrote an article about the journalistic prof. Arnold (Arrie) de Beer placed in Afrikaans and then stubbornly tackled the English one as well, because the professor is also internationally known, with lists of publications that simply astonish one. Had to put up with the English Wikipedia "editors"'s insistence on references other than those provided by Stellenbosch University itself (as if the honored old institution would now have reason to lie). But now, yes, finally the article is so full of footnotes and stuff that I really do not think anyone could still object to too few references. But now he's just quietly hanging around there in the Draft file waiting for better days and someone's approval. Their list of Draft articles is getting longer - now over four thousand - and they say they are working it out in no particular order. Old people like me on the other side of eighty simply do not know if we will be spared the years to experience publication.
  

Another user then replies on 7 February: "I will ask a member of the WikimediaZA board to look into it." My, user:JMK's, contribution to the discussion was that it must not be published in main space, and user:Mieliestronk returns to the Afrikaans forum on 27 March with various non-neutral and disparaging remarks:

• Such I have not deserved, JMK ... However, when I asked here on the chat forum for advice on how to persuade the English to approve De Beer's short "draft" article for publication there faster, user JMK also referred to De Beer's involvement with the Broederbond as his "deadly sin" was hauled up. As if many other Afrikaners, and even the best among them, were not also members. I thought by myself save us from the day when we as fellow Afrikaners would tackle each other on Wikipedia about something like the Broederbond. But JMK then went on to hammer in his nails. He made a recommendation at the short English "draft", for which I only approached here for advice, that De Beer's article should not be approved because of the man's Broederbond commitment and supposed importance (I deduce). I must make it clear that I experience JMK's uncollegiate behavior as very disruptive. If I had not spoken here on the forum, he most likely did not even start his vendetta. At least he could have first told me that he intended to "shoot down" my article in English, which would have given me the opportunity to tell him that I did it for the history of Afrikaans journalism and not to to promote the Brotherhood. I did not even know the prof was a Broederbonder, and if I had known, it would not have been relevant at all. After all, there were no Nuremberg trials to crucify the Brotherhood. Should an old man in his twenties eighties now "suffer" so much with younger ones itching to condemn and break down?
  

The article is published in main space two days later, 29 March. A user asks him to accept good faith, and he replies on 29 March:

• I accept that "vendetta" is indeed not the right word after all. Actually just meant that it seems like the person may have a tendency to rail against ex-Broederbonders, while in my frame of reference it is something that has never been declared punishable... Right now, in this regard, I have no other intention than to write up the history of Afrikaans journalists in an historic era never to be repeated. Be such persons previous Broederbonders or not.
  

Following my attention to this article, user:Mieliestronk visits my talk page on 2 May in what appears like an attempt at stealth canvassing:

• Oh, my friend, why? I've said before I do not quite understand why you're so hard on a guy. Okay, I know you want to make sure that all the requirements of the English Wikipedia are met as far as the posting of articles is concerned, but it is now also the case that many of them are bypassed daily by other contributors without a rooster crowing. It seems to me you may know the person in question better than I do, it is very possible because I have never met him face to face, only in correspondence. It might explain your persistent defiance (besides the Brotherhood thing!). Can you please contact me by email at my less used email address: [his email]? I'm an old man who turns 82 in June. I do not like antagonism.

JMK, the editor is new on the English Wikipedia, and this appears to be a genuine attempt to resolve a disagreement with you. I suggest Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and focusing on improving the article. Many of the comments here don't seem particularly constructive, with an actionable outcome in improving the article. Greenman (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I may add that on the Afrikaans article the careers of de Beer's children are also included, without references, but user:Mieliestronk seems to suggest that I, user:JMK, is more closely acquainted with the subject. Then in full view above, user:Mieliestronk calls upon a user to override my contributions.

• In short, is there a way to get rid of the new objections that now reappear at the top of the article you approved yourself? After all, there can be no eternal quarrel over articles, because in the end, no one is happy with any other person's contributions.

JMK (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Which or whose comments are not constructive? I think we are far over the red line. As far as the article goes, I suspect that we'll never find the sources to make it viable, because independent sources likely do not exist. People did not write about the subject, apart from his buddy Tomaselli. When the subject and Tomaselli have nothing to write about in Ecquid Novi, they write about one another, it seems. And the removal of the multiple issues tag was premature, I would say. JMK (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

More strangeness

I thought that perhaps the two SACOMM references would not lead back to the subject again, and might substantiate the statements made, but they do lead back to the subject, and the first, co-written by the subject(!), does not substantiate the claim that he was co-founder of SACOMM in 1977, the year when he demonstrably joined the Broederbond. It states that SACOMM was founded in 1977, but that the founding documents and constitution were lost. SACOMM can show minutes of conventions since 2014 however, a 37 year gap. One also cannot deduce who the subject's SACOMM co-founders were. Was it the organizer and chairman of the 1977 RAU conference, de Koning (likely not a Broeder), or was it Gavin Stewart of Rhodes who drew up the now lost constitution with the subject's assistance, or was it the subject's close ally HP Fourie? If the subject was a 1977 co-founder, it is particularly strange that neither he or HP Fourie (member for life) can remember where that first conference of 1978 was held, or what the conference theme was. Neither can HP Fourie, or the subject, remember whether Fourie was chairman at the 1979 conference, or whether Fourie was reelected there, or where it took place, or what the theme was. At the 1980 and 1981 conferences, HP appears on the scene, and keynote speakers include broeder Piet Koornhof, Louis le Grange, etc. The subject claims that SACOMM is "the official organization representing ...", but that would imply some backing or affiliation with higher structures, which they don't mention. It is claimed that SACOMM was founded as a "non-racial academic association", but firstly the 1977 constitution which would prove this is lost, and secondly the subject joined the Broederbond this same year, which advocated apartheid. Yes, the subject, his ally HP, and the Tomaselli couple appear to be members for life. JMK (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I give up

@JMK:'s insinuation of my "attempt at stealth canvassing" while I was just trying to be a civilised Afrikaner as I was brought up to be, is the last straw. I was just trying to come to the bottom of what I perceived as a personal hostility towards the "Broederbonder". My brain could not think otherwise. If my perception was totally wrong and totally uncalled for, I am sorry. Being as uninformed as I am, I needed some clarification, be it outside the Wikipedia altogether if need be. One does not always want to discuss such mattters on an open forum when speaking about another person, in fact it would be very unfair towards any such third party. That was all really. And if there is a "closed forum" for discussing problems somewhere on Wikipedia, I did not know it existed and still would not know were to find it. I honestly can't remember reading something in this regard, but if I did, I must have misunderstood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mieliestronk (talk • contribs) 21:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

But I honestly do not want or need to quarrel with anybody about anything, especially not about the Broederbond, of which I personally never got to know anything except that it existed. So I shall respect whatever anybody decides should happen to the article. @Greenman:, being the editor who okayed it, might have a suggestion? If not, I shall also respect that. Me myself, I shall now retreat altogether on this matter and fade away like all soldiers (have to) do in the end. (Have just seen that Greenman has indeed responded more that once above. Thank you.)

My regte naam is G (Ollie) Olwagen. Ek en my bruid van baie jare sit ingeperk in 'n aftreeoord en weet as die virus ons pik, is ons kanse maar baie skraal. Hoe ek betrokke geraak het by hierdie relletjie, weet ek nie. Ekskuus maar net weer aan JMK as ek die gemoedere opgejaag het waar dit kon gebly het. En nee, ek bak nie nou valse mooi broodjies nie en soek nie simpatie met 'n heuning-om-die-mond-smeerdery nie. Ons is almal maar net menslik en begeer eintlik net vrede. Mieliestronk (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

And retire

In fact I think now is the time for me to retire from writing any article of any forum (English or Afrikaans) on Wikipedia ever again, and anyone may quote me on that. I shall continue to edit Afrikaans articles occasionally a little bit to improve style, facts and language, but that is as far as my participation should go. In that way one does not hurt or get hurt, which is all that matters in the long run. Mieliestronk (talk) 20:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Greenman: or who ever could help ☺
Did not think I would ever return to comment, but the good professor has died. His death was widely reported in the Afrikaans press and internet, comments stating, among other accolades, that he was the "doyen of Afrikaans journalism": https://maroelamedia.co.za/nuus/sa---nuus/doyen-van-joernalistiek-arrie-de-beer-sterf/ . I tried to change the article to reflect his death, but edit was reverted by someone. --Mieliestronk (talk) 04:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Reverter stated that "Death requires a WP:RS". I do not know what that means. More proof that Arnold de Beer has died is to be found here: https://www.litnet.co.za/in-memoriam-arnold-s-de-beer/ and here: https://www.netwerk24.com/netwerk24/nuus/aktueel/professor-in-joernalistiek-se-dood-laat-groot-leemte-20211021 and here: https://www.netwerk24.com/netwerk24/nuus/mense/prof-arrie-was-n-pionier-van-joernalistiek-20211021 --Mieliestronk (talk) 04:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mieliestronk:. WP:RS is Wikipedia:Reliable sources (you can click on the link in the edit summary). English Wikipedia is a little stricter, and unsubstantiated claims about living people dying can get reverted quite quickly. Feel free to restore the details of his death, with sources, or I'll take a look a bit later. Greenman (talk) 12:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Greenman: Thanks a million Mieliestronk (talk) 00:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)