Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:01, 6 July 2005

Older discussions about apartheid has been moved to:

Talk:Apartheid/Israel
Talk:Apartheid/Archive1
Talk:Apartheid/Archive2
Talk:Apartheid/Archive3
Talk:Apartheid/Archive4

Proposal for moving forward

Section 1

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

1. Concur Tomer July 3, 2005 07:50 (UTC)
2. Concur, but clarification re: starting time needed. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 3 July 2005 16:10 (UTC)
3. Concur Impi 3 July 2005 19:15 (UTC)
4. Concur Jayjg 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:

1. Concur Tomer July 3, 2005 07:50 (UTC)
2. Concur --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 3 July 2005 16:10 (UTC)
3. Concur Impi 3 July 2005 19:15 (UTC)
4. Concur Jayjg 3 July 2005 20:42 (UTC)
5. Concur see Googletest results. 69.209.239.161 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:

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

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 Desmond Tutu himself could not vote according to the rules this little group has set up: This vote shall not consider anonymous IP addresses, nor registered wikipedians with fewer than 500 edits not directly related to this issue prior to June 30, 2005. Unacceptable. Unless Jimbo Wales says this proposal is acceptable, then forget it. Work to provide an improved text, please do not allow censorship or ad hominem illogic. Strive for the facts, consistency, no denial, etc. Work to provide an improved text.69.209.239.161 5 July 2005 14:21 (UTC)

Section 4

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

1. Concur Tomer July 3, 2005 07:50 (UTC)
2. Disagree. Characterization of anon is unnecessary. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 3 July 2005 16:10 (UTC)
3. Disagree, for the same reason as jpgordon.--Bcrowell 3 July 2005 17:03 (UTC)
4. Disagree I do however agree with jpgordon's alternative Impi 3 July 2005 19:15 (UTC)

Section 4 alternative

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

• Comment: I put this forward as an alternative -- but I'm not sure we need this section at all, since the rest of the survey makes clear what it's about. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 3 July 2005 18:41 (UTC)

1. Agree. Tomer July 3, 2005 19:31 (UTC)
2. Agree. I think we need this explanatory section for the benefit of people who haven't been following the voluminous debate. Might want to expand the list of sockpuppets.--Bcrowell 3 July 2005 21:08 (UTC)
3. Disagree A vote by a small group of individuals, those determining the so-called rules, is undemocratic. There needs to be an explanatory section regarding a small-group of that operates as a Revert Team to censor.69.219.53.138 4 July 2005 18:03 (UTC)

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. Impi 4 July 2005 18:52 (UTC)

Section 5

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

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

Section 6

The two forwarded proposals are as follows:

• PROPOSAL #1: The version proffered by Anon:
  • "South Africa was settled initially by the Dutch, Germans and French from the 17th century onwards. The English, other smaller groups of European settlers and diaspora Jews followed in the 19th and 20th centuries.

• PROPOSAL #2: The version proffered by User:Jayjg:
  • "South Africa was settled initially by the Dutch, Germans and French from the 17th century onwards. The English and other smaller groups of European 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):

1. Aye. Tomer July 3, 2005 07:50 (UTC)
2. Aye. – Seancdaug July 3, 2005 15:32 (UTC)
3. Support. --Bcrowell 3 July 2005 15:40 (UTC)
4. Ayup. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 3 July 2005 16:10 (UTC)
5. YES --Jcw69 3 July 2005 17:47 (UTC)
6. Aye – Impi 3 July 2005 19:15 (UTC)
7. Aye. Jayjg 3 July 2005 20:42 (UTC)
8. 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.69.219.53.138 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 "miscellaneous commentary" below. Tomer July 3, 2005 08:12 (UTC)

• The Anon's posts are cogent, well-researched, footnoted, justified, and proven correct (see Rebuttal Summary) to a far greater degree.
  • Only to the satisfaction of the Anon in question. Tomer July 4, 2005 18:33 (UTC)
  • Just a clarification: the comment above beginning with "The Anon's posts are cogent..." came from ip 69.219.53.138, the same as the rest of the string of anonymous edits. In other words, it's the anon praising himself.--Bcrowell 4 July 2005 18:40 (UTC)

Section 10

Miscellaneous commentary:

• This immobile discussion has gone on long enough. My sense is that there is a single anonymous (and rather cantankerous) editor who is attempting to insert a specific (albeit unspecified) POV into the article, and that EVERY OTHER EDITOR WHO'S PAYING ATTENTION TO THE DISPUTE IN QUESTION disagrees with the editor in question as to the relevance of the specific information said editor repeatedly insists needs to be inserted into the article for "accuracy" and "inclusivity". Since discussion has not resolved the issue in the form of either side convincing the other, I propose this vote so that we can, all of us, vote to demonstrate consensus (or lack thereof) and move forward for at least two months to more productive activity than bashing each other over the heads with the same, by now, tired discussion points. I say, for now at least, let's vote and have done with it for 2 months and move on. WHICHEVER "SIDE" WINS, I say that UNLIMITED daily reverts, WP policy notwithstanding, in favor of the winning position be permitted for the specified period, and that any questions by admins whose "help" is sought to block those reverting to uphold this decision, be referred to this vote and discussion, and that such admins take both seriously. This argument has consumed FAR more time and effort than should be necessary to resolve such disputes. Should this vote be characterized as an attempt to squelch a POV, let me be perfectly clear: THIS VOTE IS DESIGNED TO SQUELCH, FOR THE SPECIFIED PERIOD, THE "LOSING" POV. Tomer 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. 69.219.53.138 4 July 2005 18:26 (UTC) 4 July 2005 18:12 (UTC)

• I'm sorry for throwing a spanner into the works! - I totally agree with the last statement of the anonymous editor. JohanL 4 July 2005 20:41 (UTC)
  • 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 Demographics of South Africa, not in Apartheid. Tomer July 4, 2005 21:03 (UTC)

I had a quick look at Demographics of South Africa and I cannot agree with some of the figures mentioned, i.e. the population of Bloemfontein compared to Vereeniging! Never ever can the population of Vereeniging be almost the same, even more than Bloemfontein! Maybe with all the surrounding towns of Vanderbijlpark, Sasolburg & Meyerton (called the Vaal Triangle), included but not Vereeniging alone! Just compare the changes that user:152.163.100.203 on 17 June 2005 has been made on his/her own previous edit to the population levels of the two cities – cut it almost by halve! Ridiculous, where did these statistics came from? Is that the whole population of the two cities, or only a certain group? Who checked it?

Take it up at Talk:Demographics of South Africa. Tomer July 5, 2005 18:09 (UTC)

OK, that’s a different case and must be treated seperately, but you claimed that the Jews should be mentioned on said article. Where? I cannot find any mentioning of Jews in Demographics of South Africa! Anyway the Jews, however a small percentage of the South African white population, have made major contributions to the development of South-Africa, politically but especially economically, and virtually in all facets of life. To mention a few, Barney Barnato, the Harry Oppenheimer, Sol Kerzner and many more. In fact, there are several Jews in leading positions in the politics of SA at this present moment; therefore I agree with user 69.219.53.138 that they are worth mentioning in this article. Without that, the article will be incomplete and inaccurate!

How is such a miniscule group, even if they are presently in leading positions of power, or have made significant contributions to the development of ZA, sufficiently relevant to warrant prominent mention in a discussion of APARTHEID? That the Jewish immigrants are not mentioned in Demographics of South Africa is a shortcoming of that article, not this one. That there are Jews in leading positions in the current government of ZA is probably irrelevant all around, unless such things are considered sufficiently noteworthy in ZA that their prominence should be noted, not here, but in Politics of South Africa. Tomer July 5, 2005 18:09 (UTC)

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. JohanL 5 July 2005 15:14 (UTC)

OK, so vote for the anon's formulation. Help us form consensus. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 5 July 2005 15:38 (UTC)

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

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

NEW PROPOSAL (collaboration for improved text)

• Any text that omits the diaspora Jews as settlers is false and intellectually dishonest, as the Googletest proves. Please work to come up with an improved text that addesses your concerns about relative populations or whatever, but don't delete facts. Improve 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.)--Bcrowell 5 July 2005 17:16 (UTC)

• This will be taken by some people as ducking the issue I know but, looked at from the PoV of the people whose land was taken by force of arms, it is rather irrelevant from which European tribe they came. So how about: "South Africa was colonised by European settlers from the 17th century onwards. The early settlers spoke Dutch and German, later settlers followed in the 19th and 20th centuries, speaking English, French, Yiddish, Russian and other European languages" --Red King 5 July 2005 14:49 (UTC).

That's just a re-hash of the same trivia in an attempt to make is more palatable, and it's original research to boot. Do you know what the prevalence of language spoken by immigrants to South Africa was? Even if you did, why on earth would it be relevant to and article about Apartheid? It might have a place in a Languages of South Africa article. Jayjg 5 July 2005 15:09 (UTC)

It's an attempt to try again from a different perspective. Yes, your counter-argument is valid but the logical conclusion of your position is that all the colonists' original nationalities are irrelevant and so the only NPOV opening para is "South Africa was colonised by European settlers from the 17th century onwards.". Drop the dutch, the german, the english and then you have a reasonable basis to drop the diaspora jews. Otherwise you don't. --Red King 5 July 2005 16:45 (UTC)

The Dutch, the Germans, and the English were the very heart of the history of apartheid in South Africa. So-called "diaspora Jews" were not. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 5 July 2005 17:13 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seems to me this would have been perhaps the best edit, independent of this entire brouhaha. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 6 July 2005 00:01 (UTC)

How is the Discussion History archived and accessed?

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

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