Talk:Nelson Mandela/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 5 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Contents

Mandela as terrorist, criminal, and/or morally corrupt

Mandela was apparently considered a terrorist by the United States for a number of years, starting with the Reagan administration. CNN reports that "Nelson Mandela is to be removed from a U.S. terrorism watch list" pursuant to H.R. 5690 (which became Pub.L. 110–257, 122 Stat. 2426). The act mentions 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) (inadmissibility of aliens committing crimes involving moral turpitude), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(B) (inadmissibility of aliens convicted of 2 or more offenses), and 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B) (inadmissibility of terrorists). Can anyone find if and when Mandela was specifically added to any list? Int21h (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

A little complaint

"In the 1955 Freedom Charter, which Mandela had helped create, it called for the nationalisation of banks, gold mines, and land, believing it necessary to ensure equal distribution of wealth.[339] Despite these beliefs, Mandela nationalised nothing during his presidency, fearing that this would scare away foreign investors. This decision was in part influenced by the fall of the socialist states in the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc during the early 1990s"

It doesn't cite anything to say it was only to attract foreign investors that he decided against forwarding the cause of a nationalized economy. It seems to just assume it. That seems a little suspect, considering there were several intervening decades between his being involved in that 1950s communist document, and his presidency.

It bothers me people always seem to assume that important historical figures never change their minds about anything, because they stop thinking of them as real people, and make them into 1-dimensional personifications of an ideology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.198.131.133 (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

If you read through the literature on the subject of Mandela that is cited as the source material throughout this article, you will find much information on how Mandela's ideological views changed over time. They do make clear however that a big part of Mandela's decision not to nationalise anything was the collapse of the Soviet bloc and the need for foreign investment and expertise. I will try and ensure that alterations are made to the article that better reflect this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Criticsm of Turkish Human Rights Violations

Mr. Mandela became famous not only as a South African human rights activist but as a global leader for human rights. Mr. Mandela refused to accept the Turkish Ataturk Peace prize because of Turkey's brutal aparteid like treatment of the Kurdish minority and the continued use Aparteid tactics of oppression, imprisonment and, assasinations and disapearences of Kurdish leaders. After Mr. Mandela's refusal of the award, Turkish newspapers made nasty racist statments against Mr. Mandela[1][2] Edwinsoso (talk) 04:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Education- Junior Certificate

Minor quibble here, but the link Junior Certificate points to the state examinations currently sat by 3rd year students in the Republic of Ireland, I'm not sure if there is coverage on Wikipedia of the South African counterpart to this exam (read: I haven't been able to find anything) but I doubt that Mandela sat the Irish examinations. Minor, but the page traffic is huge! Tomásdearg92 (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done I couldn't find an appropriate target article so I've removed the link. Thanks for the quibble! --NeilN talk to me 04:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Article is too long per WP:SIZERULE

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

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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
Much appreciated ! Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the article is far too long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.125.176 (talk) 05:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

What an ample opportunity to jump and be the editors that created a spinoff of each section of this article! - Floydian τ ¢ 06:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC) The preceding is a fresh whipped batch of sarcasm.

This article is fine for an article of its type. There is always room to improve and article, maybe some things could be spun off in the future, but this is not atypical for an article about a significant world leader. Compare, for example Richard Nixon, which is nearly as long. Montanabw(talk) 06:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
   File size: 582 kB
   Prose size (including all HTML code): 132 kB
   References (including all HTML code): 24 kB
   Wiki text: 161 kB
   Prose size (text only): 80 kB (12939 words) "readable prose size"
   References (text only): 1893 B

Size as of now, for those that haven't installed the page size tool. Readable prose size is at 80kb. /Jiiimbooh » TALKCONTRIBS 09:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Presidency of Nelson Mandela

A merger of the article Presidency of Nelson Mandela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) into this article, "Nelson Mandela", has been proposed since 2011. Please join the discussion at talk:Presidency of Nelson Mandela#Proposed_merger -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 10:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Nelson Mandela ?

Is there any interest in creating a WP:WikiProject Nelson Mandela ? It would be akin to WP:WikiProject Barack Obama or WP:WikiProject Gerald Ford; and would need to be proposed to WP:WikiProject Council/Proposals

-- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 11:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Nelson Mandela

Please change the sort key to make this the head article

[[Category:Nelson Mandela| ]]

Will make the change. -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 10:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done HelenOnline 11:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Nelson passed away 6th December 2013

122.164.38.120 (talk) 12:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC) --122.164.38.120 (talk) 12:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done Per sources cited, he passed away on 5 December. HelenOnline 13:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

Members were tried for "acts of sabotage designed to overthrow the apartheid system". More here: Rivonia Trial. --NeilN talk to me 19:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

If you examine the historical evidence which has been critically examined by various historians and biographers, it is clear that on initial formation, MK intended to cause damage to the operations of the state with minimum casualties to either side; for this reason most of their bombings were conducted at night, with the targets being military installations and communication facilities. To characterise this as a "terror campaign" would be debatable and POV, but to refer to it as "sabotage" is something that everyone can agree on. Equally we could talk of a "bombing campaign", which would similarly be NPOV. Nevertheless, as Mandela himself admitted in his autobiography, at the time he thought it possible that in future they might have to target civilians as part of their struggle against the apartheid state; something he admitted would constitute "terrorism". This indeed came to pass to a limited extent, but only in the 1980s, long after Mandela had been imprisoned and ceased to be an active member of MK. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The "crime" they were convicted of was "sabotage" (see prisoner card). HelenOnline 20:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

No need to put this in quotation marks. This were real crimes and sabotage today just sounds like an euphemism for terrorism. He also got a fair trial and compared with the standards of the time a lenient sentence, when taken into account the atrocious nature of what had done and what was aimed for (inciting a race war in South Africa). --91.57.189.98 (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
If we wish to quote Mandela's indictment word by word, the precise charges were as follows:
One count under the South African Suppression of Communism Act No. 44 of 1950, charging that the accused committed acts calculated to further the achievement of the objective of communism;
  • One count of contravening the South African Criminal Law Act (1953), which prohibits any person from soliciting or receiving any money or articles for the purpose of achieving organized defiance of laws and country; and
  • Two counts of sabotage, committing or aiding or procuring the commission of the following acts:
1) The further recruitment of persons for instruction and training, both within and outside the Republic of South Africa, in:
(a) the preparation, manufacture and use of explosives—for the purpose of committing acts of violence and destruction in the aforesaid Republic, (the preparation and manufacture of explosives, according to evidence submitted, included 210,000 hand grenades, 48,000 anti-personnel mines, 1,500 time devices, 144 tons of ammonium nitrate, 21.6 tons of aluminum powder and a ton of black powder);
(b) the art of warfare, including guerrilla warfare, and military training generally for the purpose in the aforesaid Republic;
(ii) Further acts of violence and destruction, (this includes 193 counts of terrorism committed between 1961 and 1963);
(iii) Acts of guerrilla warfare in the aforesaid Republic;
(iv) Acts of assistance to military units of foreign countries when involving the aforesaid Republic;
(v) Acts of participation in a violent revolution in the aforesaid Republic, whereby the accused, injured, damaged, destroyed, rendered useless or unserviceable, put out of action, obstructed, with or endangered:
(a) the health or safety of the public;
(b) the maintenance of law and order;
(c) the supply and distribution of light, power or fuel;
(d) postal, telephone or telegraph installations;
(e) the free movement of traffic on land; and
(f) the property, movable or immovable, of other persons or of the state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katangais (talkcontribs)
If it's really needed, we could amend the sentence to "...leading a sabotage and guerrilla warfare campaign against the apartheid government." --NeilN talk to me 21:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
If you read through Mandela's autobiography, Long Walk to Freedom, which historians of modern South Africa broadly accept to be accurate in everything but its discussion of Mandela's personal relation with the Communist Party, he states that although he believed MK would move on to guerrilla warfare in time, they had not done so by the time of the Rivonia Trial. For this reason, I would express strong reservations about using "...leading a sabotage and guerrilla warfare campaign against the apartheid government." Instead, I would argue for retaining the prose as it currently stands, or changing it to "bombing campaign" if an alternative is necessary. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Explosives and the like I can understand, but how were hand grenades supposed to be used for "sabotage"? In any case, I support the existing wording because sabotage was nevertheless the primary charge. --Katangais (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Throw a grenade into a closed police station, post office, or into a telecommunications system, and you can cause quite a bit of damage that sabotages the operations of the state. It works the same as a timed explosive, but is a lot quicker. That is what is meant here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Is there also a rationale claim that "48,000 anti-personnel mines" would be used for sabotage and not a terror campaign? 50.142.9.22 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Please read WP:TERRORIST. All that matters here is what reliable sources say, so if you have a problem with the article wording please raise them in that context. HelenOnline 11:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Defense speech

The article makes no mention of Mandela's famous defense speech at the Rivonia trial, often called the "I am prepared to die speech" in which he explains why the ANC decided to use violence, except to mention somewhat derogatorily that "he turned his plea for mitigation into a political speech" and that it was based on a speech by castro. Mandela's defense speech is famous in its own right and should have its own article and a neutral, non-judgmental mention in the article. Here is a link to the full text of the speech[3]. I hope someone beats me to writing an article on it and to include it in a better way in the article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Is that 'defense' spelt with a "c" or an "s" in South African English? 'defence' -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 18:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
(ec)Defence - with a "c" in SA English. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I have created the article at I am prepared to die.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
It is already covered in Rivonia Trial. You may be able to improve it, please don't create a redundant content fork. HelenOnline 19:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
A separate article on the speech is not a content fork.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
It can be an intentional content fork (a spinoff article), hence the "redundant" part of my sentence. At least the two articles have been linked now. HelenOnline 19:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes it is of course a spinoff article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I think that should this article exist, it should be in South African English. For SAEng: Is it supposed to say "lawyer" or should that be "counsel"? Did South Africa call the prosecutor "Crown Prosecutor", "Queen's Counsel", or something else? Was the state referred to as the "Crown" ? Should it call the judge "Justice"? -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Legal references to the Crown were replaced by references to the state when South Africa became a Republic in 1961. HelenOnline 19:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

BTW the "political speech" mentioned in this article is a different speech from an earlier trial. HelenOnline 20:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Funeral and mourning events

Although there is a separate Death of Nelson Mandela article (nominated for deletion), there is currently nothing about the funeral and mourning events there so I have added that information here for now. HelenOnline 08:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2013

Commas and periods are supposed to be within quotation marks, never outside of them. Please fix. DannySwish (talk) 08:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done Per MOS:LQ, punctuation marks are placed outside the quotation marks if they are not part of the quoted material. HelenOnline 09:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Sons' Death Ages (under Personal Life)

There is a discrepancy between the stated death ages and their bracketed birth-death dates. Mdeba lived 1946-1969 but his death age is given as 25 whereas the year brackets indicate an age of 22 or 23, likewise with Makgatho, lived 1950-2005, but death age given as 46 whereas the years indicate an age of 44 or 45. Please check.Cloptonson (talk) 09:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done Fixed thanks. HelenOnline 10:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

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. [1] [2] Mosurotolu (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

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)
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)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The question of relevance/noteworthiness can be discussed without the edit request remaining open. Rivertorch (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

blurb in Influence and Legacy clearly slanted

Someone referenced from a HuffPo blog the following:

After his death, a number of right-wing politicians across the world continued to label Mandela a terrorist and a communist.[363]

The blog only shows "tweets" from random people with one exception, Nick Griffin of the British National Party. None of the other tweets appear to originate from politicians.

I would request this line be removed or re-worded to say, "Nick Griffin continues to label Mandela a terrorist and communist." as opposed to right wing politicians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.24.124 (talk) 21:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Better solution - just remove it entirely. So I did so per WP:BOLD. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Woah there, let's not get too keen on deleting things now. It's important that we recognise that many people do still deem Mandela to be a communist and/or terrorist; we've had big problems on this page in the past for ignoring these people's viewpoints. I am re-adding the reference. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, i noticed the user Midnightblueowl is clearly trying to maintain the assertion that "right wings keep seeing mandela as a terrorist" and avoiding the fact that many leftists also agree with that. Also this user is probably a leftist due her editions in the following pages

Please this statement was already fixed and the user keep bringing it back! (Thepalerider2012 (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC))

Your behaviour toward me is inappropriate, palerider2012. You have been repeatedly warned about your disruptive editing before, and now I must point you to Wikipedia:No personal attacks. We have these policies in place for a reason. As I have stated before, I accept that there are likely centrist and leftist figures who have criticised Mandela as a communist and terrorist, but I have also stated that I have not come upon any evidence of that. On asking you to provide evidence, you have not done so, instead launching a bizarre personal attack on myself with vague speculations as to views that I may or may not hold (for what it's worth, I have also significantly contributed to pages on right-wing topics such as Aleister Crowley and Tintin in the Congo, which you have chosen not to highlight here). We only have evidence of right-wing critics making these accusations, and until you can provide evidence showing that others share these views, you should cease removing the relevant text. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Westboro

Does this information matter for the article? It's cited, sure, but WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE applies, as well as a certain amount of WP:DNFTT. 2001:558:600A:2F:249D:F7E4:9011:42D8 (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's just put the reaction from every other meaningless organization while we are at it. - Anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.96.125 (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Removed. What Westboro does is in no way currently relevant to Mandela's biography. --NeilN talk to me 23:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Good call. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Seconded.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Right. It's a compliment to anyone's life and legacy to have those people picket one's funeral, but we must be neutral. Rivertorch (talk) 05:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Funeral of Nelson Mandela

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Shouldn't Funeral of Nelson Mandela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) redirect to Death of Nelson Mandela instead of here? -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 09:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

This has been changed to redirecting to Death and state funeral of Nelson Mandela, so this discussion has become moot, there being a different funeral article now. -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 06:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Photo of prison cell

The photo of Mandela's prison cell on Robben Island is a distortion of the truth. During Mandela's imprisonment, the cell was well equipped with a private library, table, chair, bed and proper bedding as can be seen at Yahoo News and various other sources (including the Nelson Mandela foundation). The present photo should either be replaced, or else it should be noted that it is the present condition of the prison cell as kept by the museum and that it is now just a shadow it's former glory when Mandela occupied it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UseYourGreymatter (talkcontribs) 21:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The photo does represent how his cell looked initially, the other furniture came much later (I will try get a date for you). As for photos, we can only generally use what copyright holders are willing to donate to Wikimedia Commons and older photos are naturally more scarce. HelenOnline 07:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
He got a bed for the first time in about 1973 (source). HelenOnline 07:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Please leave Article Feedback enabled

Checkingfax (talk) 03:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Why? It reduces an article read by tens of thousands and makes Wikipedia look amateurish. Where is the rule or guideline that it must be maintained? WWGB (talk) 03:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
How does it reduce an article? People only see the feedback if they want to see it. Plus, they often help contribute to articles. If they weren't helpful, they wouldn't be kept on the wiki. Bojo1498 (talk) 03:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't particularly like the article feedback system as it does get clogged with some pretty inane and pointless comments, but nevertheless, I can see the potential value of it, and that being the case I would vote to keep it on this article, for a while at least. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: What time did Nelson Mandela died?

105.228.165.138 posted this comment on 8 December 2013 (view all feedback).

What time did Nelson Mandela died?

Any thoughts? He died around 20:50 UTC Sam.gov (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

According to the sources cited in the article, he died at 20:50 local time (UTC+2). HelenOnline 18:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: Nelson mandela is selected f...

111.68.101.168 posted this comment on 9 December 2013 (view all feedback).

Nelson mandela is selected for the noble prize because he is an brave man.

Any thoughts?

He is indeed a brave man, as he spent over 27 years in prison for fighting for equal rights. Sam.gov (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Although I would concur that Mandela was apparently a particularly brave human being, as far as I am aware, he was not awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for exhibiting that bravery, for enduring his lengthy imprisonment, or for his invovlement in the anti-apartheid struggle per se. Instead, he received it alongside the National Party President F.W. de Klerk for ensuring that the apartheid state was dismantled by peaceful negotiation rather than violent revolution. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh please! Article feedback is 99.99999% undiluted sewage, it's not worth even discussing. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Mandela Family

There should be an article on the Mandela Family, being an aristocratic and a political family in South Africa. (Nelson Mandela is referred to as being a prince of his tribe [4]) This would be like articles on the House of Windsor or the Roosevelt family, types of families we have many articles on. -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 07:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I have started a draft for you at User:65.94.78.9/Mandela family.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 06:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Recent additions by Tobby72

Apart from being a clear attempt at implying guilt by association the sources given do not support the statement. The first source doesn't mention describe any close relation between Mengistu and Mandela, but only shows an image of a state visit in 1990 with MAndela shaking Mengistus hand. It does describe his close ti to ethiopia during the reign of Haile Selassie. The second link merely says that the visit came about as Mengistu pressured him into changing his travel plans for the visit. The alleged close relation then consists of a single official visit in 1990. By that measure Churchill had close relations to Stalin.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no doubt that Nelson Mandela was a great freedom fighter and human rights defender in South Africa, but I think something that is a fair criticism is that he did not strongly condemn the human rights violations going on in Ethiopia, Libya, or Cuba. He gave political support to friendly dictators rather than condemning them for human rights abuses.[5] To be fair, many Western governments are guilty of the same hypocrisy[6]
"Mengistu Haile Mariam, the former Ethiopian President talks about the special relationship between Ethiopia and the former South African President Nelson Mandela. Mengistu Haile Mariam during his reign honored Mandela with Ethiopias highest Medal. SBS Radio"[7].Tobby72 (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
That criticism is already mentioned and supported with actually valid references. The second source you present is valid, but it could not be used in the way you suggest since it shows that Mengistu claims to have had a close relation and gave Mandela a medal. Such a claim may not necessarily reflect an actually close relationship. I have not been able to find other mentions of the two meeting than the 1990 official occasion.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality of article disputed

The Article of Nelson Mandela is bias, and not neutral. Nelson Mandela is only praised, but information regarding his "dark side" is deleted from Wikipedia. The article can never be factually correct, when information is deleted. It appears if a PR company has written the Nelson Mandela article, promoting the Nelson Mandela brand. This Wikipedia article is so extremely bias, it even delete information from the talk pages. Pictures of the innocent victims of Nelson Mandela's bombs are never published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.145.84.123 (talkcontribs) 11:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Per Template:POV: "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. 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."
Per WP:NOTFORUM: "Talk pages are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article ... Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines." HelenOnline 12:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
If this anonymous user believes that the article is POV, could they please provide evidence to support their claims rather than making vague accusations. Highlight specific instances where pertinent information has been omitted from the text, with reference to valid, reliable, sources. If you cannot do that, then it is only polite of you to retract your statement. I should stress that this article has been examined for POV in the recent past, and has been accepted as NPOV as part of its GA nomination. In this article's text, we do specify that many right-wing critics believed (and continue to believe) that Mandela was the founder of a terrorist organisation and was therefore himself a terrorist, but we do not state this as an outright fact, because it is not a fact; it is a fringe opinion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
The left-right paradigm is a hoax. The term "right wing" is used to insult people. There is little value editing Wikipedia, as "fools" just delete facts and replaces it with propaganda. Wikipedia is a propaganda platform and does not reflect correct Historical facts. Talk pages are deleted to censor "points of view which doesn't support the official story" of Mandela's sainthood.
The most important information are the facts deleted by Wikipedia, e.g. the convictions of Mandela. The official list of Convictions of Nelson Mandela are deleted or not allowed on Wikipedia. Mandela was send to jail, but nobody is allowed to know why he was send to jail, only that a "saint was send to jail".
Google "Wikipedia Bias" and you will note it's a common problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.145.198.114 (talk) 09:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
There are many articles related to Mandela, which you can navigate using the navigation template at the bottom of the articles. You may be more interested in the Rivonia Trial article which lists the charges. HelenOnline 09:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
User:MagicKirin11 evading their block
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This page is a worship Nelson page. No mention of his support of dictators and terrorists nor his refusal to condemn the Nazi like BDS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.183.160.105 (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

There is text like "Mandela faced similar criticism from the West for his personal friendships with Fidel Castro and Muammar Gaddafi. Castro visited in 1998, to widespread popular acclaim, and Mandela met Gaddafi in Libya to award him the Order of Good Hope." so your assertion is incorrect. --NeilN talk to me 00:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
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)).
The delay in the removal itself was simply an insignificant trivial administrative error. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 01:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
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)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 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)

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)

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

I think it would be helpful if someone could provide more references attesting to the notability.--Nowa (talk) 10:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
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)
Hopefully, I can settle try to settle something; The African National Congress has ties to the South African Communist Party, which was the only reason the US had him on a terrorism watch list. In fact, when you look at his parade after his release from prison, the float he sat on has flags and logos of both the ANC and SACP. Does this diminish the cause of the Anti-Apartheid Movement? Barely. Does it justify Aparthied? Absolutely not! Am I defending this action by my government? Actually, no. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Whether someone is a terrorist or not is a matter of fact. The cliché that one mans freedom fighter is another's terrorist is nonsense. It would be hard to argue that Mandela wasn't a terrorist - cofounder of MK, led bombing campaign targeting White civilians, refused to renounce violence right up to the point of being released from prison. If he was a philanthropist [where did he get the money from when he was in prison?], he was certainly a terrorist.119.224.91.84 (talk) 06:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
There are certainly times when I would agree with your dismissal of the notion that "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist," but this is not one of them. Organizations that fight against freedom, such as Islamic jihadists, communists, and the like, that makes them anything but freedom fighters. In the case of the African National Congress, their ties to the South African Communist Party had to make the feds doubt they were truly about freedom (albeit wrongly), but their basic goal was just to have the same rights as the white minority. It's mainly because the ruling white supremacists became more violent that the ANC did. Keep in mind that the US declaration of the ANC as terrorists was never an endorsement of Apartheid. Also if you recall, once he got out of prison, he did in fact renounce the violence carried out by members of both the ANC and the Inkatha Freedom Party. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Please add Category:Mandela family to the article, as Nelson Mandela is a member of the Mandela family.

[[Category:Mandela family|Nelson]]

should do it. (sort key is "Nelson", because most members are named "Mandela", so the suitable sort key is their personal names)

-- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 05:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

This is not necessary. Category:Mandela family is the parent of Category:Nelson Mandela, of which Mandela is already a member of. But thanks for the suggestion. —Bruce1eetalk 06:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Edit - Death and Funeral Section

Per source # 331 of that page, as listed on source page in form of table listing confirmed attendants there are 89 (if I counted properly), while the article says over 90 attended. Source 332 does in fact state that over 90 attended, but they do not list them. I'm inclined to say change the wording (around 90?) or be clear with an exact number: 89, unless reference #332 can list over 90, or another reference can be found listing over 90. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmhurd (talkcontribs) 22:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC) Correction: this is pertaining to world leaders/delegates only, not general attendees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmhurd (talkcontribs) 22:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done Wording changed to "Approximately 90". HelenOnline 11:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Transvaal ANU

The Transvaal "ANU" presidency is mentioned twice. I think this is an error; before replacing ANU with ANC, can someone with the sources check what they say? Nothing in the article says what "ANU" would be (I'd guess African National Union), and http://www.sacp.org.za/main.php?ID=2304 refers only to the ANC. --Elvey (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done Changed "ANU" to "ANC". I don't have those exact sources so I can't check them, but they were both Transvaal ANC presidents and I can't find any similar reference to an "ANU". HelenOnline 11:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: His beliefs or religion I di...

76.170.10.173 posted this comment on 6 December 2013 (view all feedback).

His beliefs or religion I did not see anything that clearly described what he believed in on the religious side. -*+/9

Any thoughts?

Thepalerider2012 (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

He was an atheist communist (Thepalerider2012 (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC))

Provide sources not your opinion --NeilN talk to me 20:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/nelson-mandela/9731522/Nelson-Mandela-proven-to-be-a-member-of-the-Communist-Party-after-decades-of-denial.html

i told you atheist communist (20:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepalerider2012 (talkcontribs)

According to this and this he was a member of, or at least closely associated with, the Methodist Church. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
"...during his early years as an activist, Mr Mandela did hold senior rank in the South African Communist Party." Nothing about atheist. I should remind you that WP:BLP still applies here. --NeilN talk to me 20:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Anyone with a good knowledge of the life and times of Nelson Mandela would be aware that there is no evidence at all that he was an atheist. Claims to the contrary are simply erroneous and misleading. Instead, as this article explains, he was raised as a monotheist within the Christian denomination of Methodism, and seemed to retain that faith – at least publicly – throughout his life. While recent historical analysis has shown that he was indeed a member of the Communist Party for a short period in the late 1950s and early 1960s, it is abundantly clear that he did not fully embrace Marxism, and by the time he left prison in the early 1990s he was clearly not a Marxist or communist; instead, most of those who have studied him in depth have characterised his ideological views as being those of African nationalism and democratic socialism. Nevertheless, it would be difficult to characterise his government itself as socialist, given that it did not nationalise any business or industry and instead welcomed investment from foreign corporations; hardly the actions of a committed communist ! Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that Thepalerider2012's argument revolves around the assertion that because Mandela was briefly involved in the Communist Party at one point in his life, that automatically makes him an atheist. This is quite simply erroneous. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Mandela himself never claimed a religion and went out of his way to avoid anyone claiming him as part of their religion. He was a great humanist and atheist who respected religion [3] 105.236.179.105 (talk) 07:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I have half a mind to put a "citation needed" tag after the infobox listing of religion as Methodist. There certainly do not seem to be reliable sources labeling him an atheist, so I wouldn't go that far... but apart from being raised Methodist, there doesn't really seem to be evidence that he was that, either. It seems he staunchly avoided talking about religion... I think this will have to remain unknown for now, barring any new revelations. --24.93.29.60 (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

There is definitely something on his religious views in Long Walk to Freedom. I'll try to look through it and see what he said.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I see you added the citation. Great! I feel much better about it now. On a side note, I am told he also said "I never abandoned my religious beliefs" in Conversations with Myself. But the citation you have is sufficient. Thanks again! --24.93.29.60 (talk) 15:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

censorship?

I'm trying to add his religion back to the article and it's not showing up.

Anyone know what's going on?


Protostan (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Rather than crying 'censorship', how about looking at the edit summary - you've cited no source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
You stay charming Andy --Protostan (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
There's not a great source in the article: "In 1996 Mandela was asked by friends if he was religious, Mandela explained he was a Methodist but he felt as ease in multiple religions place of worship. (Interview with Mcebisi SkwatshaJan 1, 1996)." If it can be improved that should be enough? --NeilN talk to me 17:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I would prefer a more authoritative source than hearsay.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Got one. He explicitly says he is a Methodist in Long Walk to Freedom. Now I need to figure out how to cite the Kindle version. --NeilN talk to me 17:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
IN Long Walk to Freedom, Mandela mentions being baptised a methodist, and that he attached no importance to that. He also talks about several preachers that made an impression on him. At one point he is being quizzed by some missionaries about his relation between his socialism and his religion, and he says that he is a Christian and has always been a Christian. But is is unclear whether he means this to still apply to the time of writing or whether it was just an argument in that particular conversation, since it does not seem that he identifies specifically either as a Christian or Methodist elsewhere in the book.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Good thing I have a citation. --Protostan (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
"Once services were held outside, we were given the option of attending. Some men only attended services in their own denomination. Though I am a Methodist, I would attend each different religious service." --NeilN talk to me 17:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Given the present tense he used, that should do the trick. Rivertorch (talk) 06:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree, that is solid.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done HelenOnline 14:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: "in 1996 he backed the Choic...

98.145.130.178 posted this comment on 12 December 2013 (view all feedback).

"in 1996 he backed the Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act. The law reversed what had been a very restrictive abortion policy under the previous government. The Guttmacher Institute called the act “one of the most liberal abortion laws in the world.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/as-the-world-mourns-nelson-mandela-abortion-foes-protest/2013/12/10/b88496d6-61dc-11e3-a7b4-4a75ebc432ab_story.html

Any thoughts?

LEMONMELON 16:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemonmelonsuperstar (talkcontribs)

We can all view feedback. No prejudice to you, I know you're trying to help out and improve the article, but I'm not sure why every piece of reader feedback is being posted here by various editors. If an anonymous reader has a piece of compelling information and the appropriate source, they too can post to the talk page. Likewise, any interested reader or editor can read the feedback section and be bold and make changes to the article. - Floydian τ ¢ 18:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 December 2013

Can someone please change the post-nominal letters RSO in the infobox to RSerafO? I have changed it twice this year but it has been reverted each time. RSerafO is the abbreviation used for foreign Knights of the Order of the Seraphim (Mandela was appointed RSerafO on the 3rd of February 1997) whereas RSO stands for Knight of the Order of the Sword which is a lower Swedish order of merit dormant since 1975. Björn Knutson (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Changed per Royal Order of the Seraphim. As an aside, I am unfamiliar with the exact criteria for sourcing honors but these honors might need to have cites as this is a good article. --NeilN talk to me 18:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, NeilN. Also, I think it would sufficient to include a citation in the article List of awards and honours bestowed upon Nelson Mandela. A source for his appointment as RSerafO can be found in Per Nordenvall's book Kungl. Serafimerorden 1748 - 1998 [The Royal Order of the Seraphim 1748 - 1998] (in Swedish). Stockholm: Kungl. Maj:ts orden. 1998. ISBN 91-630-6744-7.  Cite uses deprecated parameter |trans_title= (help) , I am not certain on which page in the book it can be found though. Björn Knutson (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
It has been reverted again. Sigh. Björn Knutson (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I have reverted the unexplained reversion and asked the editor Hedgefall to take part in this discussion. HelenOnline 15:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
And again. HelenOnline 14:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: totally one sided

95.151.117.202 posted this comment on 15 December 2013 (view all feedback).

totally one sided

Any thoughts?

Yaakovaryeh (talk) 00:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nelson_Mandela&oldid=586257643#Criticism

Yes. Picking a single feedback comment to start a section on is totally one sided... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, they haven't read the article and 95% of reader feedback is useless in providing constructive suggestions on how to approve articles. --NeilN talk to me 00:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I second Andy and Neil's statements on the matter. Anyone who thinks that this article is "totally one sided" clearly hasn't even bothered to read it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Criticism section

Don't throw out the baby with the bath water. I added the following section - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nelson_Mandela&oldid=586257643#Criticism. For which Checkingfax thanked me. and some guy just took the whole thing down. I'm open to making changes if it is explained to me exactly which parts are problematic and why. Checkingfax told me that I can put it back up, which is what I will do if I don't get an adequate reply. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

An 'adequate reply' will start by suggesting that you read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. And then Wikipedia:Criticism#"Criticism" section. This is a Wikipedia:Good article, with long-standing stability, and the unilateral insertion of a 'criticism' section without discussion is highly questionable. It is generally agreed that criticism is best treated as is other commentary, and covered in appropriate sections, rather than inserting a separate section. If there is to be such a section, it should be decided by consensus, after discussion of its merits. I suggest you start by explaining why you think this article needs such a section. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Make sure your Criticism section is written in a neutral tone.
The Mandela article is too long; edit some of the article out before adding your revised section in. Or, better yet, start some new article pages that incorporate the existing prose.
The "some guy" who took your piece down was User:John.
Checkingfax (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Andy is spot on when saying that any criticism should be integrated within existing sections (e.g., if he was criticized for a policy, integrate it within the Presidency section). Also, some of the content appears earlier in the article in one form or another. --NeilN talk to me 00:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
As a major contributor to this article, with a keen interest in how it develops (it was I and User:Khazar2 who pulled it up to GA status after a lot of hard work several months ago), I will stress my strong opposition to the inclusion of a "Criticism" section, which I personally feel to be completely counter-productive. Andy and Neil have pretty much summarised the reasons why it is a bad idea, and I strongly second their experienced opinions on the issue. Nevertheless, I hope that User:Yaakovaryeh will not be disheartened as a new Wikipedia user, and would like to thank them for their interest in the Nelson Mandela article to start with. Wikipedia needs fresh new users who are happy to get involved, and we all make mistakes in our early years, but the main point is that we learn from them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Nelson Mandela is most read page?

I was looking at page stats for December and Nelson Mandela has over 3,000,000 hits while Paul Walker has over 6,000,000 hits for December. Just to put things in perspective. LOL Checkingfax (talk) 18:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate and share your interest in such figures, Checkingfax, but they're probably not really relevant to this talk page. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
The appropriate spot to discuss it has been archived. Checkingfax (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Honorific Prefix and Suffixes

I suggest we move the honorific titles from the infobox in this article and use them in its appropriate article: List of awards and honours bestowed upon Nelson Mandela. Let's keep the infobox simple. Ali Fazal (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: his height

105.163.221.158 posted this comment on December 8, 2013 (view all feedback).

his height

Any thoughts?

ke4roh (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

height=1.83 m (6 ft 0 in)[4] -- ke4roh (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Why is this important for a political leader? --NeilN talk to me 17:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to dodge the question, but this article has some information: Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States. In brief, height can be a proxy for influence. -- ke4roh (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Which is fine for an article topic dealing with height or if we had sources stating that Mandela's height was notable in some way. I had a brief look at some bios of recent presidents/prime ministers - none mention height. --NeilN talk to me 18:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Neil. We have no reason to assume that Mandela's height was particularly notable, and thus no reason to include it in the article. Furthermore, it might be stating the obvious, but it's probably worth noting that Mandela's height would have changed from his childhood to his adulthood to his old age; which of these heights would we deign worthy of a mention and which would we not ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Grave Location

The location of the Nelson Mandela's grave -- Firefishy (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Do we have conformation of when he died?

Ref.. http://lifestyletabloids.wordpress.com/2013/12/19/nelson-mandela-died-in-june-family-finally-admit/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.186.73.134 (talk) 14:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Per reliable sources (not self-published blogs, Guardian Express editorials or tabloids) cited in the article he died around 20:50 local time on 5 December 2013. Regarding the unreliable source you posted, please note Wikipedia is not a grapevine or tin foil hat society. HelenOnline 15:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Alleged Mossad training

This claim, curiously unearthed shortly after Mandela's death, just added has been denied by the Nelson Mandela Foundation. Should we be including such claims that have been denied and have not been verified? HelenOnline 15:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The Telegraph states that "Nelson Mandela received judo, sabotage and weapons training from Mossad agents in Ethiopia, it has been claimed" - they aren't reporting the supposed training as fact. I'm inclined to suggest we wait to see what other sources have to say on the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

CP membership

The article says that historical evidence suggests NM might have been a member of the Communist Party for a brief period. Actually, since his death, the ANC and SACP have both officially confirmed that he was a CP member at the time of his trial ( http://www.bdlive.co.za/national/politics/2013/12/06/sacp-confirms-nelson-mandela-was-a-member ) and not only that, but he was also a member of the CP leadership (Central Committee). Whether it was just for a brief period, they haven't said. http://www.bdlive.co.za/national/politics/2013/12/06/sacp-confirms-nelson-mandela-was-a-member 86.177.208.99 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done
I have added a sentence to that effect. HelenOnline 15:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Much of this is also discussed in his autobiography Long Walk to Freedom if you're looking for additional sources. Mkdwtalk 18:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
This could do with some amphlification. On the one hand we have Mandela's decades of denial, on the other the SACP's claim that he was a member of its Central Committee.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
A new section to this effect has been added, along with full references. This is a historically significant addition, but for some reason two editors have seen fit to remove it already. Please keep the article referenced and fully inclusive.TheFallenCrowd (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Please do not misrepresent what other contributors have done. Nobody has 'removed' the information. Instead, it was incorporated into an existing section. If this is 'historically significant', please provide sources which suggest so. Frankly, I don't think it is news to anyone that Mandela was at least closely associated with the CP at the time of the Rivonia Trial. And incidentally, your edit seems to imply that Mandela continued his membership later - something the source cited doesn't support. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
The information is relevant to the MK section it was in, which specifically refers to other communist influences. It can be expanded but I think it disrupts the flow of information to put it elsewhere. The fact that the information is new is irrelevant, we need to avoid undue focus on recent events. HelenOnline 19:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
"Undue focus" on recent events? Are you serious? The whole point of Wikipedia is to provide as complete, referenced, coverage as possible. The admission by the SACP that Mandela was Central Committee member is MAJOR news, not some side-issue. This is especially important in view of the fact that Mandela lied about his SACP membership in his autobiography. Please stop censoring referenced contributions on political grounds.TheFallenCrowd (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
If it is 'major news', find a source that says so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Nobody is excluding the information, just including what is appropriate and where appropriate in the article according to consensus. Regarding "MAJOR news", please note Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a newspaper. HelenOnline 07:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I think Mandela's membership of the CP is very important, as membership of a party is important for any politician. The problem is we don't know how long he was a member. Plus, this evidence has only recently been unearthed, so there isn't much discussion and analysis of it.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I might point out that the new information shows that Mandela was not "just" a member of the South African Communist Party, but actually part of its leadership team and sat on its Central Committee (as outlined and fully referenced in the new section). For this reason, a separate section on his involvement in that party is completely justifiable.TheFallenCrowd (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
That is your opinion, and others disagree with you (at this time anyway). You do not get to veto everyone else's opinions by edit warring and personal attacks, that is not how Wikipedia works. HelenOnline 17:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
The fact of Mandela's recently-revealed leadership role in the South African Communist Party is not my opinion, but a matter of fact. And your accusation that I have engaged in edit-warring is completely false. In fact, I have not deleted any information, just added new referenced material. It is you who has arbitrarily decided to remove this referenced new information, not me.TheFallenCrowd (talk) 08:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, then someone add the Category:Members of the South African Communist Party tag, please. Joe Slovo is already listed as member of the South African Communist party, you should get the category there. --197.229.143.79 (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

TheFallenCrowd can't seem to hear others but I will try explaining one last time anyway.

  • We are talking about how to incorporate the facts into the article, not the facts per se.
  • TheFallenCrowd has actually removed (sourced) material ([8] [9]).
  • Reverting and edit warring does not only relate to removal of content.
  • I and others have not removed the new information altogether but incorporated it where appropriate. I was the first to add something about it.
  • I have not done anything "arbitrarily", see WP:CONSENSUS. HelenOnline 08:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2014

how did nelson president life go

71.238.63.96 (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Technical 13 (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2014

103.4.233.2 (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. HelenOnline 07:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Section on Mandela's membership of the Communist Party

As a longstanding contributor to this article, who helped pull it up to GA status earlier in the year, I have become deeply concerned with many of the edits that have been made to this page over the past few weeks. A lot of them have been from disruptive editors insisting that it is an objective fact that Mandela was a terrorist and a child-murderer and that the page is therefore POV because we do not present their fringe opinions on the issue as if they were fact. We've been able to deal with these editors in a reasoned and efficient way. But more problematic (in my opinion) have been the well-meaning editors who've wanted to keep adding information and sections to the page that might not be entirely necessary. A recent case of this has been the actions of User:TheFallenCrowd, who has repeatedly added a section devoted to Mandela's membership of the Communist Party to the article. When I reverted their addition, explaining why it is inappropriate, they simply re-added it, accusing me of being "a politically motivated censor". In an attempt to prevent an edit war, I hope to bring the subject to the talk page so that it can be dealt with in a reasoned and polite manner.

To clarify, it is of the utmost important that this article does indeed include information on Mandela's involvement with the Communist Party. When I was radically restructuring this article to put it forward for GAR earlier this year, it was I that actively made use of the work of historian Stephen Ellis which proved Mandela's party membership; I say this not to brag, but to make it perfectly clear that I am not the politically motivated censor that I have been accused of being. My problem is not with the inclusion of information on Mandela's CP membership; it is with the creation of a new section explicitly devoted to it, something which I maintain is counter-productive and against Wikipedia guidelines. Information on this fact should be included in the sections titled "Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK) and African tour: 1961–1962" and "Political ideology", because it clearly belongs there; in fact TheFallenCrowd has actively removed the information on Mandela's CP membership from the former section. This being the case, there should be no need for an additional, stand-alone section devoted to the subject. Furthermore, this page is long enough without the addition of a new section, particularly one which spends more time quoting the Communist Party than doing anything else. I call for the removal of this superfluous section and the re-integration of the information on Mandela's membership of the CP into the correct sections of the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I see that independently to my own actions, User:HelenOnline has taken more stringent actions to deal with TheFallenCrowd's disruptive actions and taken the case to The Administrator's Noticeboard. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
The historical significance of the revelation that Mandela was not only a "member" of the South African Communist Party, but actually a leading member of its Central Committee (as outlined and fully referenced in the new section) makes the addition of a new separate section dealing with this matter completely appropriate and justifiable. I am baffled why you claim the contrary, unless you have a motive to suppress this information.TheFallenCrowd (talk) 16:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
We all seem to agree that this important information should be included in the article. That is not in question. However, there is a consensus that this information should be included in the chronologically correct section of the article as per Wikipedia policy on article structure, not in a stand-alone section towards the end. And yet you have repeatedly ignored this consensus, and when we have tried to restrain your actions, you have made ridiculous, erroneous accusations against us, and resorted to edit warring. You have acted in complete opposition to Wikipedia's rules governing how Wikipedians should behave, and for that reason it has been necessary to take the case to the administrators' noticeboard, for which you may well be disciplined. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps Communist Party membership could be a subsection of Political Ideology. The problem with the chronology argument is that we don't actually know how long Mandela was a member.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

We have already covered his views about communism in that section. The SACP quote says more about what Mandela means to them than what they meant to him. I think membership of the SACP per se fits into the section where communist alliances played into the struggle. HelenOnline 07:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
We might not know the exact dates of when Mandela was a Communist Party member, but we are aware of the general period in which it happened, thus making it perfectly possible to include it in the chronological scheme of this article; see the work of the historian Stephen Ellis on the issue. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

There doesn't seem any information as to when he ceased to be a member.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

(First time editor here) The Spectator this week has an article comparing the final version of Long Walk with the original manuscript (here) before it was edited by Rick Stengel. I'm not in a position to judge the claims that Stengel bowdlerised the more Stalinist bits to make it more palatable to Western liberal sensitivities but it feels like it's a matter that deserves discussion here ahead of some kind of mention in the article.Le Deluge (talk) 12:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

For those who are interested, there have been a few opinion pieces about it in the local press this month:

I don't see any of this as conclusive. It's not surprising that the text of Long Walk was edited in the 30 years before publication. Mandela's friendship with Castro and the socialist nature of the Freedom Charter are well known. The counter-argument that Mandela could have been a non-party member of the Central Committee is just speculative and is not what the SACP has said. As far as I can see, the most significant piece of information is the quote from the original draft about "dialectical materialism" which undermines Mandela's claim not to be a Marxist. I don't think there's anything that adds a lot to what's already in the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to help craft a proposal

Surveillance awareness day is a proposal for the English Wikipedia to take special steps to promote awareness of global surveillance on February 11, 2014. That date is chosen to coincide with similar actions being taken by organizations such as Mozilla, Reddit, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Feedback from editors of this article would be greatly appreciated. Please come join us as we brainstorm, polish, and present this proposal to the Wikipedia Community. --HectorMoffet (talk) 12:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Do pardon my abruptness, but of what relevance is this to the Nelson Mandela article ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

controversies section

It is quite common for political leaders to have a "controversies" section, where their more unpopular or controversial actions are discussed. I believe such a section might be quite appropriate here. I believe the following entries might be appropriate additions to a controversies section:

Nelson Mandela was the head of UmKhonto we Sizwe, (MK), the terrorist wing of the ANC and South African Communist Party. At his trial, he had pleaded guilty to 156 acts of public violence including mobilizing terrorist bombing campaigns, which planted bombs in public places, including the Johannesburg railway station. Many innocent people, including women and children, were killed by Nelson Mandela’s MK terrorists.

Nelson Mandela's failure to criticize and denounce African dictators is controversial. Mandella's position on General Sani Abacha is a prime example of this policy. Additionally, two of the ANC’s biggest donors, in the 1990s, were Colonel Muammar Gaddafi of Libya and President Suharto of Indonesia . Not only did Mandela refrain from criticizing their lamentable human rights records but he interceded diplomatically on their behalf, and awarded them South Africa ‘s highest honor. Suharto was awarded a state visit, a 21-gun salute, and The Order of Good Hope (gold class).

Mandela embraced some of America’s biggest political enemies. Mandela incited shock and anger in many American communities for refusing to denounce Cuban dictator Fidel Castro or Libyan Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, who had lent their support to Mandela against South African apartheid. He also called the controversial Palestinian Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat “a comrade in arms.”

Mandella was a great man and did great things during his life, but a balanced and accurate view of his life should include a clear and accurate section of his faults. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavesPlanet (talkcontribs) 04:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Controversy sections may be common but are actually discouraged per WP:CSECTION. Most of what you wrote is already incorporated within the article as is the norm for better written articles. --NeilN talk to me 04:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
The "America's biggest political enemies" statement is not only irrelevant it is also highly POV - besides the Americans have an addiction to collecting enemies. In many parts of the world "enemy of America" is an honorable appellation - but that is also POV. Both Gaddafi's Libya amd Cuba were close allies of the ANC during the struggle era. BTW using the word "terrorist" is very POV and is generally avoided on WP. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I second the views expressed by NeilN here. It is bad practice to have a "controversies" or "criticism" section within an article such as this; instead, such controversies should be detailed throughout the text, as they are here in this article already. I also agree with Roger (Dodger67), in that DavesPlanet's comments do express a strong U.S.-centric POV here that is not necessarily in tandem with wider world opinions. But still, thank you for expressing your concern, DavesPlanet. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is a link to an article in which Mandela described as a terrorist by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom as a 'terrorist' : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/05/nelson-mandela-terrorist_n_4394392.html Please add link to the reference to this 4th paragraph of the opening section.

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2014

39.55.91.250 (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC) nelson mandela was a great humanist.

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, Mandela was not a humanist as the term is commonly understood today; instead, he was a Christian. What I believe that this individual probably means to say is that he was a humanitarian, but that, however, is a subjective opinion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

kids - too many

One of his kids are mentioned twice.

Not sure how to change it: Makaziwe Mandela — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.86.252 (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

"The couple had two daughters, both named Makaziwe Mandela (born 1947 and 1954); the first died at the age of nine months, the second, known as "Maki", survived Mandela." --NeilN talk to me 15:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Mandela had two daughters by the same name Makaziwe . The first died at infancy the second is still alive Bobbyshabangu talk 11:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Mandela bio-Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2014

Nelson Mandela was the first elected leader who brought elective democracy to South Africa.


World.news.editor3 (talk) 17:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a specific change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm perplexed as to what this user is actually requesting, given that Mandela's role as the first chief executive of South Africa elected during a fully representative election is already made very clear within this particular article. If they are suggesting that it was Mandela's administration which implemented "elective democracy" (i.e. elections) to South Africa then they are wrong; elections designed to select the government of the country had existed throughout most of the twentieth century, despite the fact that participation in those elections was restricted to specific ethno-cultural groups. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)