| Revision as of 17:51, 5 July 2005 edit69.209.239.161 (talk) →NEW PROPOSAL (collaboration for improved text)← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 23:53, 26 December 2013 edit undoDESiegel (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users50,971 editsm DESiegel moved page Talk:Apartheid/Archive6 to Talk:Apartheid/Archive 6: match archives 1-4 | ||
| (92 intermediate revisions by 21 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{talkarchive}} | |||
| Older discussions about apartheid has been moved to: | |||
| :''This discussion is continued at ]'' | |||
| ==Archived discussions== | |||
| ]<br> | ]<br> | ||
| Line 6: | Line 10: | ||
| ]<br> | ]<br> | ||
| ]<br> | ]<br> | ||
| ] | |||
| == Proposal for moving forward == | |||
| ===Section 1=== | |||
| I propose that we conduct a vote which shall last 5 days (beginning at 08:00:00 UTC, Sunday July 3, 2005. Votes closing 08:00:00 UTC, Friday, July 8, 2005): | |||
| #'''Concur''' ] <sup><font size=-1 color=129DBC>]</font></sup> July 3, 2005 07:50 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Concur''', but clarification re: starting time needed. --]] 3 July 2005 16:10 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Concur''' ] 3 July 2005 19:15 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Concur''' ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 3 July 2005 20:41 (UTC) | |||
| ===Section 2=== | |||
| The purpose of which is to determine the inclusion or exclusion of specific "significant groups" in the makeup of ZA's White population as outlined in the article: | |||
| #'''Concur''' ] <sup><font size=-1 color=129DBC>]</font></sup> July 3, 2005 07:50 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Concur''' --]] 3 July 2005 16:10 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Concur''' ] 3 July 2005 19:15 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Concur''' ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 3 July 2005 20:42 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Concur''' see Googletest results. ] 5 July 2005 14:29 (UTC) | |||
| ===Section 3=== | |||
| This vote shall not consider anonymous IP addresses, nor registered wikipedians with fewer than 500 edits not directly related to this issue prior to June 30, 2005: | |||
| #'''Concur''' ] <sup><font size=-1 color=129DBC>]</font></sup> July 3, 2005 07:50 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Agree'''. Sock puppets have already been used in this debate.--] 3 July 2005 15:53 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Concur'''; I'm not quite comfortable with the 500 edit limit, but given the fondness for puppetry here, I'm not sure where I'd set the limit. --]] 3 July 2005 16:10 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Concur''' I don't think any of the proper editors involved in this discussion have fewer than 500 edits on the 'pedia. ] 3 July 2005 19:15 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Concur''' ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 3 July 2005 20:42 (UTC) | |||
| #'''ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE''', that is censorship at work. Are you Jimbo Wales? Thankfully not.] 4 July 2005 17:48 (UTC) | |||
| Please reread: | |||
| * "Misplaced Pages is the the free-content encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit. Misplaced Pages is a WikiWiki, which means that anyone can easily edit any unprotected article and have those changes posted immediately to that page. EVERYONE can edit pages in Misplaced Pages — even this page! Just click the edit this page link at the top of any page (except for protected pages) if you think it needs any improvement or new information." | |||
| * '''"You don't need anything special; you don't even need to be logged in.''' We (on Misplaced Pages) don't individually try to "own" the additions we make to Misplaced Pages. We are working together on statements of what is known (what constitutes free human knowledge) about various subjects. Each of us individually benefits from this arrangement. It is difficult to single-handedly write the perfect article, but it becomes easier when working together. That in fact has been our repeated experience on Misplaced Pages." | |||
| * Editability "Misplaced Pages articles are extremely easy to edit. ANYONE can click the "edit" link and edit an article. '''Peer review per se is not necessary and is actually a bit of a pain to deal with.''' We prefer (in most cases) that people just go in and make changes they deem necessary. This is very efficient; our efforts seem more constructive than those on similar projects (not to mention any names). Misplaced Pages is open content, released under the GNU Free Documentation License. Knowing this encourages people to contribute; they know it's a public project that everyone can use." | |||
| ::Actually, the precedent is fairly well-established, especially in Votes for Deletion. Here's the following text from the Votes for Deletion info page: | |||
| ::* Your opinion will be given the most weight if you are logged in with an account that already existed when the nomination was made. Anonymous and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their votes may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith. | |||
| ::* Please vote only once. If there is evidence that someone is using sock puppets (multiple accounts belonging to the same person) to vote more than once, those votes will not be counted. | |||
| **That's false. This is a kangaroo court with no standing. Even Bishop ] himself could not vote according to the rules this little group has set up: ''This vote shall not consider anonymous IP addresses, nor registered wikipedians with fewer than 500 edits not directly related to this issue prior to June 30, 2005''. '''Unacceptable.''' Unless ] says this proposal is acceptable, then forget it. Work to provide an improved text, please do not allow censorship or ad hominem illogic. Strive for the facts, consistency, no denial, etc. Work to provide an improved text.] 5 July 2005 14:21 (UTC) | |||
| ===Section 4=== | |||
| The subject of this vote is the wording proposed by ] as opposed to that by the vandalistic and increasingly verbally abusive anon: | |||
| #'''Concur''' ] <sup><font size=-1 color=129DBC>]</font></sup> July 3, 2005 07:50 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Disagree'''. Characterization of anon is unnecessary. --]] 3 July 2005 16:10 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Disagree''', for the same reason as jpgordon.--] 3 July 2005 17:03 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Disagree''' I do however agree with jpgordon's alternative ] 3 July 2005 19:15 (UTC) | |||
| ====Section 4 alternative==== | |||
| The subject of this vote is the wording proposed by ] as opposed to that by the anonymous editor most recently editing as ], as 69.*.*.* generally, and also as ] and ]. | |||
| *'''Comment:''' I put this forward as an alternative -- but I'm not sure we need this section at all, since the rest of the survey makes clear what it's about. --]] 3 July 2005 18:41 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Agree'''. ] <sup><font size=-1 color=129DBC>]</font></sup> July 3, 2005 19:31 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Agree'''. I think we need this explanatory section for the benefit of people who haven't been following the voluminous debate. Might want to expand the list of sockpuppets.--] 3 July 2005 21:08 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Disagree''' A vote by a small group of individuals, those determining the so-called rules, is undemocratic. There needs to be an explanatory section regarding a small-group of that operates as a Revert Team to censor.] 4 July 2005 18:03 (UTC) | |||
| :::If what you say were true, none of the votes on the Misplaced Pages, especially Votes for Deletion, would be valid. Fact is, most decisions on articles on Misplaced Pages are taken through finding consensus, whether this be between 3 editors or three hundred. What these votes are is a measure of what the editors ''involved with the article in question'' believe is the best option. Clearly, all the editors who have been involved in this article over the past month or so are against your inclusion, which means consensus has been reached against you. This is the way Misplaced Pages works. ] 4 July 2005 18:52 (UTC) | |||
| ===Section 5=== | |||
| This vote shall '''authoritatively''' determine the wording of the "white origins" sections of the ] article for a period to last NOT LESS THAN TWO MONTHS: | |||
| #'''Concur''' ] <sup><font size=-1 color=129DBC>]</font></sup> July 3, 2005 07:50 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Concur''', though it's too short. --]] 3 July 2005 16:10 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Concur'''. I think two months is fine. The period should be relatively short. The whole problem here is that the article has become locked in stone. If I wanted an article I couldn't edit, I'd use a print encyclopedia. The article needs to be improved extensively, and we don't want a straightjacket that prevents major changes a long way into the future.--] 3 July 2005 17:06 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Concur''' ] 3 July 2005 19:15 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Concur''' ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 3 July 2005 20:42 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Disagree''' Wikpipedia is not a paper encyclopedia limited in size. The "white origins" included diaspora Jews. Anything that says otherwise is untrue, and cannot ever be considered authoritative.] 4 July 2005 17:52 (UTC) | |||
| ===Section 6=== | |||
| The two forwarded proposals are as follows: | |||
| *'''PROPOSAL #1''': The version proffered by Anon: | |||
| ** '''''"South Africa was settled initially by the ], ] and ] from the ] onwards. The ], other smaller groups of ] settlers and diaspora ] followed in the 19th and 20th centuries.''''' | |||
| *'''PROPOSAL #2''': The version proffered by User:Jayjg: | |||
| ** '''''"South Africa was settled initially by the ], ] and ] from the ] onwards. The ] and other smaller groups of ] settlers followed in the 19th and 20th centuries.''''' | |||
| ===Section 7 (VOTES)=== | |||
| *In favor of '''PROPOSAL #1''' (by Anon) (votes MUST be signed by valid WP editors): | |||
| # | |||
| *In favor of '''PROPOSAL #2''' (by Jayjg) (votes MUST be signed by valid WP editors): | |||
| #'''Aye'''. ] <sup><font size=-1 color=129DBC>]</font></sup> July 3, 2005 07:50 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Aye'''. – ] July 3, 2005 15:32 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Support'''. --] 3 July 2005 15:40 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Ayup'''. --]] 3 July 2005 16:10 (UTC) | |||
| #'''YES''' --] 3 July 2005 17:47 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Aye''' – ] 3 July 2005 19:15 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Aye'''. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 3 July 2005 20:42 (UTC) | |||
| #'''No''' A requirement that voters be considered "so-called valid" as determined by a small group of individuals is subjective. Let's get the founder of Misplaced Pages to vote on this. No censorship and vote rigging.] 4 July 2005 17:56 (UTC) | |||
| ===Section 8=== | |||
| '''Comments in favor of neither: ''' | |||
| * | |||
| ===Section 9=== | |||
| '''Comments in favor of either: ''' | |||
| * As the originator of this vote, and a rather vocal participant in the latter stages of the discussion on this issue, my vote is obviously (to anyone who has read the relevant foregoing discussion), in favor of Jayjg's proposal, which I have no doubt, is based in some small part on my many cogent previous posts on this subject. For more, please see "]" below. ] <sup><font size=-1 color=129DBC>]</font></sup> July 3, 2005 08:12 (UTC) | |||
| *The Anon's posts are cogent, well-researched, footnoted, justified, and proven correct (see Rebuttal Summary) to a '''far greater''' degree. | |||
| **Only to the satisfaction of the Anon in question. ] <sup><font size=-1 color=129DBC>]</font></sup> July 4, 2005 18:33 (UTC) | |||
| **Just a clarification: the comment above beginning with "The Anon's posts are cogent..." came from ip 69.219.53.138, the same as the rest of the string of anonymous edits. In other words, it's the anon praising himself.--] 4 July 2005 18:40 (UTC) | |||
| ===Section 10=== | |||
| '''Miscellaneous commentary: ''' | |||
| *This immobile discussion has gone on long enough. My sense is that there is a single anonymous (and rather cantankerous) editor who is attempting to insert a specific (albeit unspecified) POV into the article, and that EVERY OTHER EDITOR WHO'S PAYING ATTENTION TO THE DISPUTE IN QUESTION disagrees with the editor in question as to the relevance of the specific information said editor repeatedly insists needs to be inserted into the article for "accuracy" and "inclusivity". Since discussion has not resolved the issue in the form of either side convincing the other, I propose this vote so that we can, all of us, vote to demonstrate consensus (or lack thereof) and move forward for at least two months to more productive activity than bashing each other over the heads with the same, by now, tired discussion points. I say, for now at least, let's vote and have done with it for 2 months and move on. WHICHEVER "SIDE" WINS, I say that UNLIMITED daily reverts, WP policy notwithstanding, in favor of the winning position be permitted for the specified period, and that any questions by admins whose "help" is sought to block those reverting to uphold this decision, be referred to this vote and discussion, and that such admins take both seriously. This argument has consumed FAR more time and effort than should be necessary to resolve such disputes. Should this vote be characterized as an attempt to squelch a POV, let me be perfectly clear: THIS VOTE IS DESIGNED TO SQUELCH, FOR THE SPECIFIED PERIOD, THE "LOSING" POV. ] <sup><font size=-1 color=129DBC>]</font></sup> July 3, 2005 08:01 (UTC) | |||
| YES, THIS VOTE IS DESIGNED TO SQUELCH, and censor the facts of the settlement of South Africa, especially in the 19th and 20th centuries. Misplaced Pages is not limited in size. The improved text (two words) improves the accuracy of the article, and takes into account the concerns of all editors, except those that want to '''totally delete/withhold accurate information''' "just because they don't like it". It's not about being on a losing side. It's about honesty, accuracy, and historical fact. | |||
| *Any text that omits the diaspora Jews as settlers is false and intellectually dishonest, as the Googletest proves. Please work to '''come up with an improved text''' that addesses your concerns about relative populations or whatever, but don't delete facts. Improve Misplaced Pages, please don't censor it based on POV. ] 4 July 2005 18:26 (UTC) 4 July 2005 18:12 (UTC) | |||
| :*I'm sorry for throwing a spanner into the works! - I totally agree with the last statement of the anonymous editor. ] 4 July 2005 20:41 (UTC) | |||
| :**The problem is not the inclusion of Jews into a list of immigrants to ZA. The problem is that such a list belongs in a discussion of ], not in ]. ] <sup><font size=-1 color=129DBC>]</font></sup> July 4, 2005 21:03 (UTC) | |||
| ::I had a quick look at ] and I cannot agree with some of the figures mentioned, i.e. the population of Bloemfontein compared to Vereeniging! Never ever can the population of Vereeniging be almost the same, even more than Bloemfontein! Maybe with all the surrounding towns of Vanderbijlpark, Sasolburg & Meyerton (called the Vaal Triangle), included but not Vereeniging alone! Just compare the changes that user:152.163.100.203 on 17 June 2005 has been made on his/her own previous edit to the population levels of the two cities – cut it almost by halve! Ridiculous, where did these statistics came from? Is that the whole population of the two cities, or only a certain group? Who checked it? | |||
| ::OK, that’s a different case and must be treated seperately, but you claimed that the Jews should be mentioned on said article. Where? I cannot find any mentioning of Jews in ]! Anyway the Jews, however a small percentage of the South African white population, have made major contributions to the development of South-Africa, politically but especially economically, and virtually in all facets of life. To mention a few, ], the ], ] and many more. In fact, there are several Jews in leading positions in the politics of SA at this present moment; therefore I agree with user 69.219.53.138 that they are worth mentioning in this article. Without that, the article will be incomplete and inaccurate! | |||
| ::I would advise all editors to have a good look at ], and evaluate themselves in terms of their attitude in connection with i.e. anonymity, subjectivity, etc. ] 5 July 2005 15:14 (UTC) | |||
| :::OK, so vote for the anon's formulation. Help us form consensus. --]] 5 July 2005 15:38 (UTC) | |||
| The two should be consistent, not inconsistent, that's POV.] 5 July 2005 14:04 (UTC) | |||
| ==NEW PROPOSAL (collaboration for improved text)== | |||
| *Any text that omits the diaspora Jews as settlers is false and intellectually dishonest, as the Googletest proves. Please work to '''come up with an improved text''' that addesses your concerns about relative populations or whatever, but don't delete facts. Improve Misplaced Pages, please don't censor it based on POV. | |||
| ::Clarification: this comment was not signed, and appears to be by the same anon. (When I first read this, I thought that this paragraph and the one after it, by Red King, were both by the anon.)--] 5 July 2005 17:16 (UTC) | |||
| * This will be taken by some people as ducking the issue I know but, looked at from the PoV of the people whose land was taken by force of arms, it is rather irrelevant from which European tribe they came. So how about: '''"South Africa was colonised by European settlers from the 17th century onwards. The early settlers spoke Dutch and German, later settlers followed in the 19th and 20th centuries, speaking English, French, Yiddish, Russian and other European languages"''' --] 5 July 2005 14:49 (UTC). | |||
| ::That's just a re-hash of the same trivia in an attempt to make is more palatable, and it's original research to boot. Do you know what the prevalence of language spoken by immigrants to South Africa was? Even if you did, why on earth would it be relevant to and article about '''Apartheid'''? It might have a place in a ] article. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 5 July 2005 15:09 (UTC) | |||
| ::: It's an attempt to try again from a different perspective. Yes, your counter-argument is valid '''but''' the logical conclusion of your position is that ''all'' the colonists' original nationalities are irrelevant and so the ''only'' NPOV opening para is '''"South Africa was colonised by European settlers from the 17th century onwards."'''. Drop the dutch, the german, the english and then you have a reasonable basis to drop the diaspora jews. Otherwise you don't. --] 5 July 2005 16:45 (UTC) | |||
| :::The Dutch, the Germans, and the English were the very heart of the history of apartheid in South Africa. So-called "diaspora Jews" were not. --]] 5 July 2005 17:13 (UTC) | |||
| Oh, what happened to the "French"? The diaspora Jews settled in South Africa. Reread the text. It does not say blame the Jews, which is the '''ONLY''' issue you care about, not facts, not truth, not historical accuracy, nothing else but your biased POV. | |||
| == Why should this redirect to ] == | |||
| Thank you. Jayjg is still here pushing his POV, that has already been disproven. The Jewish community was considered white, and it was a relevant and notable community in the 20th Century. The 17th Century Germans and French, that ] dishonestly demands be on the list, were much less significant as political or economic entities during the 20th Century in South Africa. This the Googletest proves with flying colors. After all this time, nobody has addressed the inequities of the text as it relates to "the list" until now, even after many requests. So thank you for contributing and not joining a kangaroo court. Not one person has addressed the history of ] and ] and the political implications and issues that resulted during the apartheid era. Irrelevant? Maybe to some with a history of POV. The improved text is accurate, fair and inclusive. The amount of denial and POV by a few problematic editors, lasting over 2 months, in the face of mountains of information and thoroughly researched and footnoted data, is staggering.] 5 July 2005 17:12 (UTC) | |||
| :''I have moved the following discussion here from my talk page. This follows an attempt to create a new article about international uses of the term Apartheid at ], which previously redirected to ] 21:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| This is not a new proposal, it's a reiteration of the same intellectually vacuous arguments that the anon has been repeating for months, and that have already been rejected by a clear consensus of the editors who are interested in this article.--] 5 July 2005 17:16 (UTC) | |||
| ==apartheid== | |||
| That's the same empty rhetoric you've been using for months. Empty. It adds nothing, it contributes nothing. Address the issues raised, just one time. ] 5 July 2005 17:19 (UTC) | |||
| Then why is the article called "History of South Africa in the apartheid era" rather than just "apartheid"?] 21:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not going to start a revert war, but ] is a high-quality article, and South African apartheid is the only "indisputable" use of the term Apartheid, because that's where it was invented and officially used. The redirect to the specific name is to prevent the page being diluted with discussions of other countries, where the term has no official status. This is by far the preference of the editors of ] and I respectfully request that you, in turn, respect this. ] 21:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I have addressed the issues raised, just one time. It's just that, unlike you, I don't crapflood the talk page by repeating the same arguments over and over.--] 5 July 2005 17:24 (UTC) | |||
| Why don't editors of ] want to move that article to ] then? ] 21:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The consensus, achieved after much discussion and upheld over several years, is that ] should redirect to ] as the article about the official use of the term. The longer name is to prevent confusion and controversial editing involving other countries (in particular Israel) from taking place at that location. That debate should not take place under the official ] heading as it is very much secondary to the official historical use of the term in South Africa. If you would read the many archives at both ] and ] you would see that your recent editing of the page ] is a perhaps unintentional hijacking of this topic. Again, I respectfully ask that you allow it to be returned to the previous status quo. Otherwise I've absolutely no doubt that a great many editors of the South African article will disagree with your move and see it as unilateral. ] 21:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==How is the Discussion History archived and accessed?== | |||
Latest revision as of 23:53, 26 December 2013
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Apartheid. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
- This discussion is continued at Talk:History of South Africa in the Apartheid Era
Archived discussions
Talk:Apartheid/Israel
Talk:Apartheid/Archive1
Talk:Apartheid/Archive2
Talk:Apartheid/Archive3
Talk:Apartheid/Archive4
Talk:Apartheid/Archive5
Why should this redirect to History of South Africa in the apartheid era
- I have moved the following discussion here from my talk page. This follows an attempt to create a new article about international uses of the term Apartheid at Apartheid, which previously redirected to [[History of South Africa in the apartheid era Zaian 21:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
apartheid
Then why is the article called "History of South Africa in the apartheid era" rather than just "apartheid"?Sonofzion 21:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not going to start a revert war, but History of South Africa in the apartheid era is a high-quality article, and South African apartheid is the only "indisputable" use of the term Apartheid, because that's where it was invented and officially used. The redirect to the specific name is to prevent the page being diluted with discussions of other countries, where the term has no official status. This is by far the preference of the editors of History of South Africa in the apartheid era and I respectfully request that you, in turn, respect this. Zaian 21:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Why don't editors of History of South Africa in the apartheid era want to move that article to apartheid then? Sonofzion 21:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- The consensus, achieved after much discussion and upheld over several years, is that Apartheid should redirect to History of South Africa in the apartheid era as the article about the official use of the term. The longer name is to prevent confusion and controversial editing involving other countries (in particular Israel) from taking place at that location. That debate should not take place under the official Apartheid heading as it is very much secondary to the official historical use of the term in South Africa. If you would read the many archives at both Talk:Apartheid and Talk:History of South Africa in the apartheid era you would see that your recent editing of the page Apartheid is a perhaps unintentional hijacking of this topic. Again, I respectfully ask that you allow it to be returned to the previous status quo. Otherwise I've absolutely no doubt that a great many editors of the South African article will disagree with your move and see it as unilateral. Zaian 21:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)