This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Relata refero (talk | contribs) at 18:40, 13 February 2008 (→Please discuss!: note). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:40, 13 February 2008 by Relata refero (talk | contribs) (→Please discuss!: note)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Please discuss!
Can the editor who has recently made several wholesale reverts please explain here which particular points he objects to? I made a series of incremental changes, each with an informative edit summary. I shall list them here so as to save him any trouble. Relata refero (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- this diff avoids obfuscation about the support for the pre-1991 dispensation in South Africa.
- No. You have changed that to an overtly political statement. The WGI supported European government, not only there but in other parts of Africa also. Apartheid was a government policy, not a government. Chelsea Tory (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Really? provide a diff. Because it appears they supported the Conservative Party and not the National Party, both of whom were for European government, but only one of which was sufficiently hardline on apartheid. Relata refero (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- No. You have changed that to an overtly political statement. The WGI supported European government, not only there but in other parts of Africa also. Apartheid was a government policy, not a government. Chelsea Tory (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- this edit rewords a sentence for clarity and explains the background of the SA Conservative Party.
- No. You are trying to make a point here. If people want to know about the Conservative Party of South Africa they can look at its Wiki page. Chelsea Tory (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- As I say above, that is precisely relevant to who and what they supported. There was considerable mainstream support in the Tories for the National Party at the time. What was special about the WGI? This explains. Relata refero (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- No. You are trying to make a point here. If people want to know about the Conservative Party of South Africa they can look at its Wiki page. Chelsea Tory (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- this diff reduces a lengthy clause, focuses on an individual's primary role (and the reason for his death, which is relevant in this context) and provides some extremely neutral information about another individual's affiliation.
- (1) You offer no accessible source for sixty members of the State President's Council.
- (2) You may not think it important to clearly state that this fellow was a terrorist leader whose gangs were busy murdering inocent people but it is relevent to the WGI and this article. It is all in context. You are attempting to partly sanitise him. Chelsea Tory (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Here's a paper outlining the reforms of 1980, including the replacement of the Senate by the sixty-member, multiracial, nominated council.
- About the relative importance of Hani being a Communist as opposed to a militant (though he had ceased violence at the time), I am merely going by what Mr. Derby-Lewis and the Pole themselves said. His status as a communist was important, not his militancy. Relata refero (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- this diff removes a particularly irrelevant and unexplained part of an image caption.
- There is a limit to how much one can say in a caption, I suppose. But it is surely clear that in the photo these boats are all carrying flags and that is the explanation. Otherwise why the flotilla? It has to have some meaning. The flags represent provinces, cities and towns etc., which were given to the communists. Chelsea Tory (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Very well. Perhaps we can make it clearer. Relata refero (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- There is a limit to how much one can say in a caption, I suppose. But it is surely clear that in the photo these boats are all carrying flags and that is the explanation. Otherwise why the flotilla? It has to have some meaning. The flags represent provinces, cities and towns etc., which were given to the communists. Chelsea Tory (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- this edit asks for a source for a summary of a speech.
- The Western Goals Institute Newsletter, Spring 1990 edition. Also a mention in a couple of newspapers but I can't find them now. Griffith was a complex character.Chelsea Tory (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed he was, and a fascinating one. However, I would like to, as far as possible, have a close summary of that speech, just to be certain we are paraphrasing it correctly. Relata refero (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- The Western Goals Institute Newsletter, Spring 1990 edition. Also a mention in a couple of newspapers but I can't find them now. Griffith was a complex character.Chelsea Tory (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
What here requires vaguely insulting edit comments and a series of wholesale reverts? Please, let's be civilised about this, and lets have a bit of an organised discussion, shall we?
Relata refero (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- I will hold off restoring my changes in case the anyone wishes to take up the baton from the now-blocked User:Chelsea Tory. Relata refero (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)