Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:00, 1 June 2006

Misplaced Pages:Africa-related regional notice board/template

Software: Computing Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Template:FAOL

Apartheid received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Politics Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Apartheid has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}.

Archives
Archive before page move (2005/07/10) Archive 1 (2005/09/03) Archive 2 (2006/05/16)

Reverting additions

There is a tendency by Ziain to revert all changes that does not meet his personal criteria. As far as I am aware there is no requirement that anybody who wants to contribute should be logged in. All changes made by me can be verified (I was a journalist in South Africa in the period 1980 to 1998 and I helped record the history of South Africa through the more than 7000 articles I wrote during this period) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.25.216.194 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for entering into a discussion. There is no requirement, but usernames, edit summaries and participation in discussions all help to build trust in other contributors' 'good faith'. This is vital for a collaborative project like this one. For instance, if your contributions were linked to a user page mentioning your status as a journalist during the era under discussion, others could ask you to assist with sources. Please do not use loaded phrases like "There is a tendency for Ziain (sic)..." and "his personal criteria". I make a solid effort to explain my criteria for the changes I have made, and I have often encouraged others (yourself included) to do so. If your changes can be verified, please provide sources. If a particular phrase causes debates about neutrality, the disputed text needs to be rewritten collaboratively. Zaian 12:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Zaian can help us in explaining why the references added to the changes were not acceptable 196.25.216.194

I would suggest that you add those references to the article, not to the edit summary, as is standard practice in both print and Misplaced Pages. I would also find it more polite if you would address me in the first person. I maintain that the paragraph needs to be rewritten with a NPOV, as you are currently the only one adding the loaded term "classic terrorist" to the text. Please also refer to Misplaced Pages:Words_to_avoid#Terrorist.2C_terrorism. I am now backing out of this discussion. Zaian 11:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

If the US National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism describes the ANC's strategy post-Sharpeville as "terrorist", then I think it's a valid description - providing it's referenced to show that it represents a single POV. "Classic terrorist", however, is a bit woolly and meaningless, and more suitable for an op-ed than an article that aspires to neutrality. I hope the current revision is acceptable to all POVs. Humansdorpie 14:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy with the changes Humansdorpie has made. The tactics are in fact described as terrorist by some, but there's an explanation of why these tactics were adopted, as well as a reference to those using the term, so that their agendas can be investigated. This is sufficient for anyone can make up their own mind based on the information provided. Greenman 15:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this really true?

"the (apartheid) government even collaborated with Israel in developing nuclear weapons?"

I am finding this hard to believe. And further still hard to understand why Israel, with a Jewish population, and such a strong sentiment of being against white supremacy. Why would they collaborate with a Nazi-like organization?? Is there more information about this if it's true or can we just remove this if it is false? --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, see South Africa and weapons of mass destruction. Israel's involvement in SA's programme is generally accepted. SA dismantled its nuclear programme under IAEA supervision shortly before the end of apartheid. Zaian 06:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

In fact, South Africa and Israel's collaboration on the development of weapons went much further. Israel helped South Africa to upgrade old Mirage III fighter aircraft (called Cheetah in South Africa).The standard SA Army assault rifle, the R4 , was also jointly developed by Israel and South Africa during the apartheid years. Other areas of military co-operation included the development of unmanned aircraft, tanks and uniforms. Most Western countries as well as Taiwan and Israel supported the old South African government right up to the end.196.25.216.194

Yes its all true, what's so surprising, it was the cold war, no one wanted the USSR gaining control of Africa, good on them. This doesn't mean Israel supported apartheid (although the current traitor government seems to think applying apartheid style forced removals against Jews in Yesha is really cool, but thats another can of lokshen). I'm currently working with two ex-military engineers who remember being constantly berated about apartheid by the Israelis they worked with. Kuratowski's Ghost 10:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the alleged Israel-South Africa technological collaboration is yet another conspiracy theory of dubious origin as there is no evidence supporting it.

The article suggested by Zaian as a source cofirming the theory, fails to provide any evidence either. In fact, quoting from that article "In September, 1979 a flash over the Indian Ocean detected by a U.S. satellite was suspected of being a South African nuclear test, in collaboration with Israel (this event is known as Vela Incident). No official confirmation of it being a nuclear test has ever been conducted, and multiple expert agencies have disagreed on their assessments." That is, this article confirms the dubious status of the theory rather than verify it.

I believe that articles in wikipedia should correspond to the highest standards and rely solely on facts rather than rumors. Therefore unless reliable evidence can be found, this conspiracy theory should be removed. Tomer Ish Shalom 16:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into a detailed argument, as I'm not an expert on this topic, but since my 2-line comment has prompted a 3-paragraph response, let me at least reply. I provided the link because the user asked where he/she could find further information. At the time I made the link, the article said "Assumed by many analysts to have been a joint Israeli-South African test". A reference to those analysts would be useful. Clearly, official Israeli government confirmation is going to be hard to come by, whether the claim is true or false. However, it is probably not fair to call it a conspiracy theory either. I don't object to your removal of the reference to Israel from this article, though, as it was not properly cited as it stood. A better place to discuss this is Talk:South Africa and weapons of mass destruction. Zaian 17:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Israel and South Africa did indeed co-operate in many military-technological fields, a fact which has been acknowleged often in the past and is not exactly a secret. This co-operation was conducted mainly due to necessity, as both South Africa and Israel were relatively isolated, and in similar strategic situations against Soviet-backed forces. In South Africa's case, it was the Angolan and Cuban armed forces in Angola, and in Israel's case it was the surrounding hostile Arab states.

As for specific areas of co-operation, there is as yet no conclusive proof that the Israelis offered any assistance to South Africa's nuclear weapons program. In fact, the seemingly totally different enrichment methods used by the two countries would count against such co-operation or assistance. However, areas in which SA and Israel are known to have co-operated are the following: ICBMs (the RSA and Jericho range), air-to-air missiles (the R-Darter and Derby are almost identical), UAVs, vehicle armour, tank fire control systems and the upgrade of Mirage III airframes into the Cheetah standard. In addition to that, Israel sold 9 Reshev-class (Sa'ar 4) patrol boats to SA in the early 1970s, along with a complement of Gabriel missiles; allowed SA to licence-build a version of the Galil assault rifle (known as the R4) and supplied at least 38 basic airframes for use in the Cheetah program. In return, SA is thought to have sold Israel at least one G5 howitzer and to have contributed some of the funding for Israel's first spy satellite.

Amidst all this though, it's worth remembering that the two countries co-operated for self-interested strategic reasons, and not for any ideological reasons. It was a productive partnership that benefited both countries at a time when their respective security situations were rather tricky. Incidentally, referring to apartheid-era South Africa as "Nazi-like" serves in my mind to cheapen the Nazi adjective. While the apartheid-era SA government's actions and policies were reprehensible, they were miles from the acts and policies of the Nazis. — Impi 18:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Chapter and verse on Israel/South Africa nuclear co-operation is at Advena. Maybe Tomer Ish Shalom wants to reinsert the link recently removed?Phase4 22:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I have three things to say about this matter:

• Any statment made in a wiki article must be verifable. That is, hard evidence, e.g. internal document or an eyewitness testimony, should exist to which one can make reference. Reference to another article can not be considered a verification.
• The Advena article pointed to by Phase4 mentions an Israeli-SA collaboration on ICBM but not on a nuclear program. Anyway, that article only puts forth propositions without establishing them.
• As pointed out by Zaian, a more appropriate place for this discussion might be Talk:South Africa and weapons of mass destruction.

Tomer Ish Shalom 23:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Erudite discussion of the SA/Israel nuclear co-operation issue continues at Vela Incident talk page (Recent developments)Talk:Vela_Incident#.22Recent_developments.22 et seq.Phase4 14:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Page move

This page was moved to Apartheid by Homeontherange (talk · contribs) but I have moved it back as there was no prior discussion for this move. The name History of South Africa in the apartheid era is the result of consensus following much controversy over the use of the term in contexts that had little to do with South Africa (see Talk:Apartheid for archived discussions before the page was renamed). Any major move like this should be discussed first according to Misplaced Pages:Requested_moves. Zaian 08:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

See belowHomey 03:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Blanking by Kuratowski's Ghost

A rather silly edit that deserves to be reverted PDQ. The editor should consult Samora Machel and hang his head in shame!Phase4 22:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but Misplaced Pages articles aren't intended for promoting dumb conspiracy theories. I will look into what nonsense is in the Samora Machel article tomorrow. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Missed that you had reverted my chnages. Can you cite any official investigation that found that South Africa sabotaged Samora Machel's flight or that holds South Africa responsible for Lockerbie? Get real. Adding rubbish like this to articles borders on vandalism. Kuratowski's Ghost 14:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You're at it again and I've reverted you again. You really must take note of the statements made in the relevant articles and the evidence provided in support of the statements. You might not agree with these statements but if you don't you should discuss your concerns on the talk page – where others can enlighten you – instead of simply vandalising the articles by blanking them. Thanks nonetheless for your interest and the time taken to edit Misplaced Pages articles.Phase4 14:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Your conspiracy theory is labeled clearly as speculation ("suspected of sabotaging"), and not presented as fact. Also, the fact that Pik Botha and his delegation didn't take the flight is surely fact, not speculation? Why did you remove that paragraph then? dewet|✉ 15:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Dude, get real. Blaming SA for Lockerbie is pure nonsense and you know it. The Samora Machel conspiracy theory is worth mentioning as something historically interesting in its own right but should clearly be labeled for what it is. Kuratowski's Ghost 21:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This latest contribution fits well with your earlier efforts: "vigilante justice"! Six-guns at the ready! Are you editing an encyclopedia or gun-slinging at the OK corral? Come on Kuratowski's Ghost, you can do better than that!Phase4 22:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Next step, request for arbitration. Again, wikipedia isn't for promoting crackpot conspiracy theories. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Letsby Avenue, then!Phase4 22:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Please cool off! There is room for compromise. You're not even necessarily disagreeing, just insisting on your own wording. Aggressive blanking, name-calling and threats take us nowhere. Misplaced Pages is not about calling things "conspiracy theories". It is about saying "A claimed B in source C" and giving suitable encyclopedic context to the statement. SA's suspected involvement in the Machel crash is mentioned, with suitable disclaimers, in many respectable sources. The wholesale removal or downplaying of it in this article is not appropriate. I suggest a return to the original text but with more emphasis on the unproven nature of the allegation. SA's alleged involvement Lockerbie is perhaps more of a fringe theory - it is dealt with in great detail on the Pan_Am_Flight_103 and Alternative_theories_into_the_bombing_of_Pan_Am_Flight_103 pages. If it is included here, this needs to be given more context. Zaian 00:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Remaming this article "Apartheid"

It's quite silly *not* to have an article called Apartheid in favour of having a long title such as "History of South Africa in the apartheid era". Does anyone honestly think that most users are not going to come to this article looking up "Apartheid" and reading the first sentence, which defines apartheid, it is already written as if that is the title. This must be the only general encyclopedia in the world that has no entry under "Apartheid". Time to move it back, it only makes sense. Now that there is an Apartheid (disambiguation) page the reason that the article was originally moved no longer exists ie the "other" apartheids are now dealt with via the disambig page freeing us up to have an article on the principle meaning of the word. Homey 03:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the redirect as it is currently; in fact, it provides much more context to the reader, and a user looking up only "apartheid" will be transferred there automagically. As the disambig page proves, there's no single, homogenous concept of "apartheid" other than its dictionary definition, but there are a number of implementations of it that matter. Therefore the qualifying title of the article. dewet|✉ 06:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Passive voice

"South Africa was suspected of causing the crash..." By who? Tom Harrison 01:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Did apartheid seperate what each group build?

I'm curious was the apartheid system so bad? It seems it kept the cities the Whites built to themselves and the areas the Blacks built to themselves. What was the problem? Because one group did not advance the land as much? Volksgeist 02:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Unassessed software articles
• Unknown-importance software articles
• Unassessed software articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Computing articles
• Unknown-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Software articles
• Old requests for peer review
• Unassessed politics articles
• Unknown-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Undated GA templates
• Good articles without topic parameter