Template talk:Apartheid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Church and apartheid[edit]

There was a time when some Churches justified apartheid policies by referring to scripture. Gregorydavid 06:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

then the link should have pointed to the three churches that did so: NG, hervormde and gereformeerd. Suidafrikaan 15:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Has everyone forgotten Johan Heyns?Gregorydavid 10:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Problems[edit]

there appears to be some vandalism that has damaged the template. Could this be fixed by someone who understands wikicode better than I do? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.221.194 (talk) 01:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"Other" category[edit]

I think Apartheid laws – which are central to the entire topic – should top the list. Perhaps with a heading like "laws and documents " or "legislation" and then include the Tricameral Parliament and the new Constitution of South Africa etc. I don't think that Mahatma Gandhi is directly relevant to the South African apartheid.

Laws and documents

Apartheid lawsTricameral Parliament • new Constitution


--Deon Steyn 07:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"People for/against"[edit]

Aren't these lists a little too broad, because essentially the entire global population would be in one half or the other. Perhaps the headings could be changed to "activists" and "protagonist"? Maybe not even list a few people, but simply link to a specific category like Category:Anti-apartheid activists? --Deon Steyn 07:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The categories are also overly simplistic. At the moment, FW de Klerk and Pik Botha are categorised as both supporters and opponents of apartheid, which may be true when considering their changing viewpoints over time, but it's a poor use of categories. Zaian 07:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I propose that Category:Apartheid government be used instead of "people for". It's a neutral category, whereas Category:Supporters of apartheid is sometimes subjective, and can someone's support for apartheid can change over time. Zaian 08:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Agree (along with Category:Anti-apartheid activists instead of "people for"). The other category you mention ("Category:Supporters of apartheid") is a new one, created along with Category:People opposed to apartheid which looks like it will be deleted. --Deon Steyn 12:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Disagree. First, not all notables that supported apartheid were members of the government. Second, this category does not have to be POV. In fact it should become a wikipedia practice to specify the sufficient empirical criteria used to add an individual item to a category. Towards this end please see criteria for inclusion.
Suidafrikaan 16:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Your criteria are a step in the right direction, although I think they still need work - see Category talk:Supporters of apartheid. From what I've seen in the debates about categories, WP strongly discourages "people by opinion" categories, because they're inherently hard to manage and are often abused to label people in a POV way. Categorising by something neutral like membership of a party or government is better. It's notable, and a defining characteristic, that Person X was once a member of such a party, but it's not as notable, and far more open to debate, that Sports Captain Y once made a pro-apartheid comment in an interview. Zaian 17:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
unless of course the interview is available and can be citedSuidafrikaan 18:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn't mean the existence of the interview is debatable; I meant that someone's pro-apartheid opinion is often going to be debatable, even if there's a source, and it's not a very compelling category if that's how it is filled, whereas membership of an organisation is a pretty clear cut categorisation. Zaian 19:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Overcrowding[edit]

The infobox is getting a bit big...time to remove some items.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Suidafrikaan (talkcontribs)

Since the last blanket revert of my edits some deletions have been added again and I have added some more too so the template may be looking overcrowded again. I think CODESA looks out of place. CODESA was an event forming part of the negotiation process, the other events were violent incidents. The Rivonia Trial was also an event.

Why has the DA been left out? Only two letters required and only one member of parliament for years, they cannot be accused of overcrowding.Gregorydavid 01:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Template width[edit]

I see that the overiding criteria in sorting template entries is that the end result must look good. I have added the DA seeing there was no opposition to my suggestion that the organization be added.Gregorydavid 01:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The template is already a little crowded, so if something could be trimmed I would think a political party only founded in the 2000 would be a prime candidate? Their inclusion is surely already a little contentious? --Deon Steyn 07:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
If you mean the inclusion of the DA you should be able to see that it is not affecting the template width and if you had taken serious note of my edit summary (through the DA runs a thread of opposition in politics that goes back a long way..) you will know what I am getting at. All the prime ancestor parties of the DA probably redirect there anyway. How can we include Helen Suzman without making mention of the party..?Gregorydavid 08:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I meant the DA, my post was directly under and threaded under you post discussing the DA's inclusion. Suzman can be included, but then surely one of the parties of the time could rather be included, e.g. Progressive Party, Progressive Federal Party or subsequent Democratic Party. All of these parties actually have their own articles and it would make more sense to include them than the DA which is only successor of sorts (and then only from 2000). --Deon Steyn 06:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Organizations[edit]

I moved the unsigned edit above to create a new section.Gregorydavid 09:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Other topic linking[edit]

Other topics (notably the SADF topic) that include the contents of this box (Apartheid template) do so at the risk of making the topic lose its objectiveness. The SADF topic should contain relevant data on the organization, including its role in the apartheid era of South Africa and crimes it committed against civilian citizens of South Africa. The problem is that by having this Apartheid template on the SADF page at the location it is currently placed (top right), it skews the SADF topic and makes an implication that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. The specific issue is the image of a public notice on the Apartheid template (which is appropriate for the template), but when the SADF topic uses the Apartheid template it completely changes the tone of the contents of the SADF topic itself. Please understand I'm not indicating that there is any issue with this Apartheid template or the image in its contents. Nor am I suggesting to alter the SADF topic in a way that would mislead readers about its role in the apartheid era of South Africa. The issue is solely the effect that the template has when placed in the location used for the SADF topic. If you look at the SANDF topic you'll notice that the box in the top right of the page has relevant information for the organization itself, and the image is relevant to the organization itself (in otherwords, it's objective based on the focus of the organization). The actual article should contain the Apartheid template, but that should put the template within the contents of any relevant disclosure about the SADF and its actions (relating it to the general topics of apartheid). Rob Leach 19:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

There still aren't any links to Church articles. Neither the Nederduits Gereformeerde Kerk or the Afrikaanse Protestantse Kerk are mentioned... there are articles on both, as well as on the Belhar Confession. The DRMC and the DRCA don't have separate articles, sadly. Relata refero (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of box[edit]

Under what circumstances can a contributor remove the apartheid info box? Depending on the size of the article, it can appear really large, intrusive, and irrelevant.

Alternatively, is there a way of editing the box so that only those categories relevant to the article can be retained? Thanks. DocDee (talk)

Edit request from 92.4.236.4, 11 July 2010[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}}

Winnie Mandela's name should be in the list of people. Thank you very much.


92.4.236.4 (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks! Samwb123T-C-E 18:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested edit[edit]

Please change the template's code -- except the noinclude section after its end -- to the code for the opposite, so the template has a simpler Sidebar format, larger font and more visible dots between links. No content has been added/removed. Thank you. 213.246.85.235 (talk) 09:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Current seems to be the best option for size issues. Jnorton7558 (talk) 08:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
  • "Size issues" -- don't understand. Please explain. The font-size in the current version is smaller than in similar templates elsewhere and the dots between links almost invisible. Or perhaps it's the height that's of concern..? In that case, I've seen "Navbox with collapsible lists". 213.246.86.52 (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I support making the change, as the IP's version is much easier to read. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
If there is a consensus to change this then I don't object, but don't really know about templates enough to edit it myself. Jnorton7558 (talk) 08:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Done Jnorton7558 (talk) 09:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)