Talk:Apartheid/Archive 3

Supporters of the Palestinian cause, discriminatory

South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu has accused Israel of practising apartheid in its policies towards the Palestinians. This man ought to know.

I think it's pretty clear what the Palestinian cause is, is there really any question? As for the treatment, saying that it is discriminatory is assuming a conclusion; saying that supporters object to the treatment is NPOV. Jayjg 11:23, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I also wikilinked Israel and Palestinian in the paragraph so that anybody curious can follow through to the related articles where the entire conflict is covered in immense detail. There's no need to turn an article on a system of South African laws into yet another battleground for the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Impi 12:29, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, it's nice to see that two Zionists are in agreement on the issue of not discussing Israel's discriminatory policies that amount to apartheid. It is not at all clear what the "Palestinian cause" is because every article on Wikipedia has been slanted to the Zionist perspective. The two wiki-linked pages contain nary a word about Israeli policies of discrimination against Palestinians. Where is the mention of Israel's law banning citizenship through marriage (applied only against Palestinians)? [1] Where is the mention of all the laws applied to restrict and deny equal rights to Palestinians, the security laws, the water rights and allocations, the housing construction permits, the laws barring Arabs from military service in the IDF, and the subsequent discrimination in jobs, loans, and other veterans' government services? Where is the link to the Israeli Separation Wall built on Palestinian land to keep Palestinians out of land seized by Israel for illegal Jewish settlements? NOWHERE in Wikipedia! Why? Because it is deleted at every opportunity by hasbara promoting editors, just like in this case. --Alberuni 13:43, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are not citizens of Israel, nor do they want to be. They are citizens of the Palestinian Authority, run by Palestinians. As well describing their treatment as discriminatory is assuming a conclusion. Finally, the attempts of anti-Israel activists to turn every article into another battleground in which to promote their propaganda is tiresome. Jayjg 14:55, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So discrimination against Israeli Arabs who marry Palestinian refugees is OK by you and we should all just shut up. No , sorry. It is the constant hasbara efforts of Zionist propagandists on Wikipedia that is immensely tiresome. --Alberuni 15:02, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox and associated links. Let's reserve the Talk: pages for discussing article content. Jayjg 15:37, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I pointed out why Israel discriminates against Israeli Arabs and gave you a link to an Israeli website. So the characterization that this is an issue between Palestinian supporters and Israeli supporters is the usual simple-minded Zionist ignorance that Wikipedia has been forced to become accustomed to. In reality, the issue of Israeli apartheid policies is opposed by Palestinians and Israelis who believe in human rights versus Zionists who believe that Jews come first. The issue of biased editing Zionist partisans is a valid issue. There's no point in pulling out your Wikipedia rule book to find some way to censor criticism of your pro-Israeli propagandizing. --Alberuni 16:01, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The law you referred to applies equally to Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs. Israeli Jews can be supporters of the Palestinians; unlike Palestinians in the Palestinian Authority, Israelis (Jew, Arab, and other) are ruled by law, and have these basic rights. In any event, the wording is now parallel and NPOV; do you have any further issues with it? Jayjg 16:42, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The marriage law is just one more racist law of exclusion used by supremacist Jews against the Palestinians whose land was stolen to create a Jewish state. The racist Israeli marriage law applies only to marriages with palestinian refugess and does not apply to marriages between Israelis and any other nationality. Israelis are ruled by law, indeed, racist Zionist laws that create an apartheid Jewish state in the land of Palestine. The article will be edited with more complete reference to Israel's Zionist apartheid conditions and its opposition by human rights supporters to correct your bigoted misrepresentation of the dispute as being an ethnic one between Israelis and Palestinians. --Alberuni 17:10, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alberuni, first of all it would be far easier for us to get things done here if you refrained from making continuous personal attacks on other editors. Your seeming insistence on turning the Apartheid article into yet another Israel-Palestine battleground is both unnecessary and an insult to Apartheid's South African victims. For instance, if we were to get technical, Apartheid is a system that was in South Africa only and nowhere else. That is because Apartheid was a planned system of laws (planned precisely under the term Apartheid) to discriminate and separate South African citizens according to their race. As such, this system was in South Africa only, because while other countries have practiced racial discrimination it has never quite been the same. The thing is though, that Apartheid is often used nowadays as a sort of catch-all metaphor for racially discriminatory laws whereever they may be, and that is misleading. As such the focus of this article should be on Apartheid in South Africa, and not on accusations of racial discrimination around the world. In any case, legally and logically the situations are different. Palestinians are not citizens of Israel, and thus this is not a case of a state discriminating against portions of its own populace, as was Apartheid. For instance Israeli Arabs are full citizens of Israel, whereas Black South Africans were never full citizens of apartheid-South Africa.

So, a simple mention that Palestinian supporters accuse Israel of following policies similar to those used in apartheid, and that Israel's supporters deny it, is all that is needed. Both the Israel and Palestine articles link to many other articles on the conflict, which are filled with all the necessary information, as that is where it belongs, not here. In any case, by stating in this article that Israel pursues discriminatory policies, you have forced the article, and therefore the reader, to take up a single POV. The point of Wikipedia is to provide facts and accusations and attribute them, allowing the reader to make up his/her own mind. That is the spirit of NPOV editing. If you're opposed to that policy, then you're editing in bad faith I'm afraid. Impi 17:21, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No surprise that a Zionist sees nothing discriminatory about Israel, the Jewish state, against Israelis who are not Jews. Just like southern slaveholders always say that blacks are better off under slavery, Zionists like to think that "their" Arabs are happy and content. Your attempts to dance and weasel out of comparisons with apartheid are typical propaganda, straight out of the hasbara manual. [2] [3]--Alberuni 21:09, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ah, there you go with more personal attacks Alberuni, those don't help much in writing good articles... What's more, you failed to reply to any of my points and instead accused me of saying something I did not, and then attacked that. Quite simply you have not yet offered a decent reason as to why an article on a South African system of laws should be turned into yet another Israel-Palestine battleground article. Impi 21:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The article is about apartheid, not just South Africa. You just wish to exclude discussion of Israeli apartheid because of your pro-Israel POV. That's all it is. BIAS. Israel's "Jews Only" policy regarding the Right of Return allows any Jew in the world to claim Israel as home while excluding Palestinians born there - simply because they are not Jewish. This is just one of many examples of Israeli apartheid, like the ones I described and provided links for earlier; the marriage law, the security laws, the water rights and allocations, the housing construction permits, the laws barring Arabs from military service in the IDF, and the subsequent discrimination in jobs, loans, and other veterans' government services, etc etc etc Enjoy your next vacation in the Jewish State. --Alberuni 03:45, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1. Israel does not have a Right of Return, it has a Law of Return, which applies to more than just Jews, and which does not automatically allow all Jews to become citizens. 2. Arabs can serve in the IDF, and indeed Arabs do serve in it. Jayjg 03:57, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Israeli Law of Return applies to the Jews' claims of Right of Return. Almost every Jew can claim right to citizenship under the Israeli Law of Return (who is excluded? Converts that are not recognized as true Jews). Who aside from Jews are included in the Law of Return? Russian Christians/athiests, Falasha and others who claim descent from Jews. What Arabs are serving in the IDF? A slight handful of Bedouin and Druse while greater than 99% of Israeli Arabs are excluded from service and all the rights that accrue. Why? Because they are not Jews. What is wrong with granting equality and the right of return to Palestinina refugees who were actually native to the land rather than Jews from Canada and Argentina who have never set foot there? Because Israel only pretends to be a democracy. In fact, Israel insists on maintaining the Jewish character and Jewish privilege in the "Jewish state" and that entails a whole host of discriminatory practices against native non-Jews that amount to apartheid. --Alberuni 05:28, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jews and others can request citizenship under the Law of Return, but that does not mean they are granted it. There is a vast difference between between not being drafted and being excluded, and any Arab can volunteer to serve in the IDF; as it stands, the policy discriminates against Jews, in that it forces them into the IDF, while not forcing Arabs in. As for treatment of Palestinians, Lebanon does not allow them citizenship or even to hold jobs, even though they have been living in Lebanon for generations. And Islamic states like Saudi Arabia discriminate against all non-Muslims and do not even allow non-Muslims to live there. If these are not "apartheid", then Israel's vibrant multi-cultural multi-ethnic multi-religious democracy, which has strongly enforced human rights legislation, is surely not apartheid. Jayjg 13:00, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jews are granted Israeli citizenship almost automatically, that's what the Law of Return is all about. I don't know why you insist on such dissembling. Being drafted in The IDF is a responsibility that comes with important subsequent rights in Israel's militarist society as I have detailed twice in this discussion and you continue to ignore with your usual method of dishonest debate and tendentious sophistry. Palestinians are not citizens of countries where they are refugees, they are Palestinians who have been expelled from their homeland by the establishment of the apartheid Jewish state. The policies of Islamic or other states has no bearing on Israel's apartheid policies and your raising the issue reflects your usual methods of fallacious argument by distraction. Israel is an apartheid state built on the racist ideology of Jewish supremacism, Zionism, close kin to Nazism and Afrikaaner apartheid ideologies. --Alberuni 16:59, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, your comments have again descended to personal attacks. Talk: pages are for discussion of article contents, not editors. Jayjg 17:13, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Crying foul is your usual tactic when you lose an argument. --Alberuni 17:23, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Aberuni: I agree with Impi. But I am very interested in hearing about discriminatory measures in Israel or elsewhere. Please write your article on this subject and link to it from this article. That Wikipedia is part of some worldwide Jewish conspiracy is just nonsense. Paul Beardsell 21:00, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I never claimed that Wikipedia was part of a worldwide Zionist conspiracy so don't put words in my mouth. That there are Zionists on Wikipedia who promote a biased pro-Israeli POV is beyond obvious. --Alberuni 21:09, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I did not mean to overstate what you said. But I do correctly charaterise what you say. Please, if the information you provide is not on Wikipedia already, write the article. If it already is then we can link to it. Paul Beardsell 07:01, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If apartheid means "discrimination based on race" and if, as many say, there is no racial difference between arabs and jews then apartheid is not a good term to describe the discrimination suffered by the Palestinians at the hands of the Israelis. That would then be a discrimination based on nationality (from an Israeli perspective possibly) or religion (from a Palestinian perspective maybe). Paul Beardsell 07:01, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alberuni, once again you failed to discuss my points and instead went off at a tangent attacking statements that I never made. Quite simply I do not want to get into a discussion over the Israel-Palestine dispute, I should think that was pretty clear. My point is two-fold: One, that this is an article on a South African system of laws and as such its overwhelming focus should be on South Africa. Whether Israel, Bermuda or Mars has discriminatory policies is reallly irrelevent, because the presence of discriminatory laws does not automatically equal Apartheid. There was only one Apartheid, and while other systems may be compared to it, they are never the same. In this case I pointed out a simple point that Apartheid discriminated entirely against citizens of South Africa, whereas the examples you are pointing out for Israel tend to show discrimination of people of another nationality entirely. Also, South Africa's policy regarding blacks was consistent, regardless of which country they came from. Israel offers different treatment to Israel Arabs as compared to Palestinian Arabs, so there's another example of a key difference. My second point is that allegations of discrimination based on race, nationality, religion, hair colour or whatnot should be in the articles dealing with the countries themselves. Thus it does not belong in this article, but in articles relating to the Israel-Palestine issue. Otherwise we'll be faced with a return to the farcical state in which this article was originally, where there were only a few short lines about South African Apartheid and paragraph after paragraph about racial discrimination elsewhere. I don't want to see a return to that.

Paul, you're exactly right. The problem is that, as discussed earlier on this talk page, Apartheid is a loaded POV term which is seen as a convenient weapon to be used against countries which one does not like, due to the severe emotions it invokes. It's also a neat word to use when attempting to delegitimise whichever country it is applied to, and as such should be treated with extreme caution just like every other loaded word on Wikipedia. In short though, regardless of allegations in other countries, there was only one Apartheid. Impi 11:20, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu has accused Israel of practising apartheid in its policies towards the Palestinians. This man ought to know.

Rename article?

I suggest we move this article to Apartheid in South Africa and that the Apartheid article be changed into a disambiguation page or a page which explains that some (me included) prefer to use the term to refer to the political system of that same name in South Africa, and that others want to use it metaphorically to refer to any systematic discrimination anywhere. Paul Beardsell 07:01, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Paul, I would disagree with that. If we're going to do something along those lines, rather make a note at the top of the page linking to another page called "allegations of racial discriminatory laws" or even "allegations of apartheid" in other countries. Impi 11:20, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Allegations? They are not just allegations. There most certainly are policies in place in various parts of the world which are similar in some or many respects to South African apartheid. That the term "apartheid" is used to describe legalised RACIAL discrimination anywhere in the world I have no real problem with. It is like referring to a vacuum cleaner as a Hoover: Inaccurate but the battle is lost and it's no big deal. And nobody is arguing that Democracy can only be used in a Greek context but that is where the original democracy was. Paul Beardsell 21:18, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I can't see the racial aspect of the supposed Palestinian "apartheid" but I also do not want to be associated with apologists for Israel: I regret that some of those who do have a problem with apartheid being used outside of a South African context are as vehement in their defense of Israel as others here are in its condemnation. I want an article about the original apartheid, the South African system. And if I can get to keep discussion of Fiji and Palestine out of this article by a simple renaming I intend to do just that. I will wait a day or two so more can voice their opinion about a renaming to Apartheid in South Africa. Paul Beardsell 21:18, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I suggest the word "apartheid" is defined as (i) a political philosophy and (ii) an official government policy of the SA Govt 1948 - 1990 and (iii) legalised systematic racial discrimination in any country. Point (iii) is what (some say) is happening in Israel and elsewhere today. Point (iii) applies also to South Africa pre-1948. An article on "apartheid in South Africa" would have to include pre-1948 also as the system then falls under definition iii. Paul Beardsell 08:09, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The term "apartheid" has global applicability: That is how it is being used commonly in the newspapers and by the UN. And the global applicability is sensible for the reasons democracy is a term used globally not just for Greece BC. Paul Beardsell 08:09, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See [dictionary.com] Paul Beardsell 08:09, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Democracy is more an idea than a real system, as there's no real set of rules for a democracy other than that all citizens have a fair say in who gets to run the country. Some would say it requires more than that, such as a free press and independant judiciary, but it's more of an ideal of government being accountable to its citizens than anything else. The actual systems are the various forms democracy may take, such as constituent systems or proportional voting, republics or ceremonial monarchies etc. These are also all labels governments strive for, so they change the way their country runs in order for it to be a democracy, and within that a republic or whatnot, or they change it to be a Communist state. It's therefore usually a matter of countries adjusting the way they do things to fit in with the definition of a word rather than a word being stretched this way and that in order to apply to as many situations as opponents of those situations see fit. I think that's what's happened with the word Apartheid, for the reasons mentioned by another contributor above. It's a loaded word and a convenient weapon. That said, I think you're on the right track, but I don't believe this article should be renamed. Rather leave this as Apartheid, but in Italics at the top make a mention (better worded than this obviously) about how some believe certain countries are guilty of practicising racial discrimination, and then direct that to an article called something like "Allegations of institutionalised racism in certain countries" and over there such allegations can counters can be shown in detail. That avoids a disambig page, as they are often annoying for editors, yet still provides an avenue for such allegations to be detailed without hiding them away or compromising the article on Apartheid. I also think that way will be more neutral. Impi 13:35, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC) (more comments in next section)

Apartheid started in 1948?

Before 1948 could a black man vote? Could he live in a White area? Could he send his children to a White school? It is a plain nonsense that Apartheid started in 1948. It was enthusiastically pursued, strengthened and the system was even more formalised but it existed before. That Jan Smuts was considering dismantling some aspects of apartheid before that date simply proves it existed before 1948. Paul Beardsell 21:49, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Apartheid itself only began in 1948, though it followed on from a number of segregationist policy steps taken by various previous governments. I haven't seen Smuts' quote from 1917 where he is said to have mentioned the word Apartheid, but he never used it in terms of any policy he implemented, so far as I know. Apartheid as a concept was something the HNP (Purified National Party) trumped, and as such when I said Smuts opposed Apartheid I mean he opposed the HNP's plans for Apartheid. Agreed, Smuts was not the greatest in terms of segregationist legislation, quite a bit was passed under him, such as the Natal Pegging Act. This has been attributed by some as appeasement of the pro-segregationist elements in his attempts to first heal the divide between English and Afrikaner before tackling the wider issue of other racial and cultural groups. In short though, while previous governments and colonial authorities did indeed implement segregationist policies, Apartheid was the name given by the NP (HNP) to its racial policies. They used this name officially until it was meant to officially change post-1976 to one of "separate development", which was still basically Apartheid but with some changes. For instance many of the "petty Apartheid" laws were repealed, whilst yet others were strenghthened. Also, the treatment of Black South Africans changed from treating them as a single race into treating them as separate "nations" (divide and rule), hence the attempts to create each homeland into nominal independent countries. Still the same system basically though. I can't find any contempory reference of the pre-48 system of laws as "Apartheid" legislation, though Hertzog certainly was in favour of many of its elements. Impi 23:13, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Lots of interesting facts. But you miss the point. If you insist on not allowing the 200000BC Oak Tree to be recognised now as being an Oak Tree although it existed before anyone ever called it that then we are on a road to nowhere. We are drifiting into ontology and epistemology. I could suggest that we rename the article racial discrimination in South Africa but then you just have the same problem again: The term "racial segregation" was not in common use 200 years ago. And South Africa did not exist as a country back then. But 200 years ago in the Cape Colony there was legally instituted racial discrimination. Apartheid is today's term for a legally instituted system of racial segregation. It is ALSO the official name of a former SA Govt policy. I repeat my democracy argument: It is not exclusively Greek! Paul Beardsell 00:06, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and Jan Smuts made the first noted use of the term in 1917. See The Afrikaners by Herman Giliomee. You want us to have an article called "Apartheid" which denies pre-1948 apartheid when a leading SA politician referred to it 3 decades previously. Paul Beardsell 00:06, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

First of all, what HTML did I use in my addition? I just added it using the standard method. Also, what context was Smuts' use of the word? I'd be interesting to know, because it is an Afrikaans word. Was he discussing the apartheid between the estranged English and Afrikaner communities, was he using the word in terms of the ongoing war, or was he using it to describe a government policy he had implemented? This is important because Smuts spent most of his time between 1914 and 1918 in London, both as part of the Imperial War Cabinet and as a sort of troubleshooter for Lloyd George. Your analogy with the oak tree is also flawed, a better example would be Stalin's Purges. Though purges occured under Lenin, and there's little doubt that he used the word long before Stalin, we separate the two because they are different. That does not mean we're excusing Lenin for his crimes, just that lumping everything together is historically inaccurate. Apartheid was the name given both by the HNP and its opponents to its plans for racial segregation post-1948. They crafted this plan both in response to the relaxation of segregation under Smuts' UP post WWII, but also in response to more moderate members of the NP (such as Hertzog) who wanted segregation but were perceived by the HNP (which split from the NP) as being too soft on segregation. The key difference between pre-1948 and post-1948 is that while before there were a great number of segregationist laws and measures, it was only after 1948 that a system was devised to encompass it all, unify it, and make it stronger. I suppose an analogy would be with a country that has implemented some laws which are also found in a communist country, yet has not adopted the communist system. Though there will be similarities between the two countries, we don't call the first country communist unless it adopts the communist system (we probably call it socialist). However, I am not suggesting we just ignore all prior racial discrimination in SA (or I would not have attempted that compromise addition), I'm just pointing out that we need to acknowledge 1948 as the turning point. Even the official South African Dept of Education history literature lists Apartheid as beginning in 1948. So what I propose is an addition to the article detailing how racial discrimination as state policy did exist in South Africa prior to 1948, and that Apartheid built on it and made it much worse. That way we retain accuracy whilst not sweeping previous policies under the rug. Impi 11:29, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You used a BR tag. Paul Beardsell 07:52, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You make a number of suggestions I like but on the question of the use of the word apartheid I continue to disagree. The word is an Afrikaans one invented by Afrikaners but its root is in English. The "apart" bit is English - "heid" is the Afrikaans stem equivalent to the English "ness". That you think that the word could be used to describe the rift between Afrikaans and English speaking is incorrect: No one ever did that as far as I know. But if they did then it would require changes to this article: An encyclopaedic article on "apartheid" would have to mention that as well. You cannot at the same time want this article to refer ONLY to the official government policy of 1948-1990 denying its pre-1948 usage - including the usage I think you invent of the English-Afrikaans antipathy. I have suggested a way forward elsewhere on this talk page. Paul Beardsell 07:52, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Once again, I said I do not want this article to refer only to the period 1948-1990, but we have to acknowledge that that period of time is the officially recognised timespan for Apartheid's existence. Even SA Dept of Education textbooks show that. My suggestion was that a section be created detailing previous South African segregationist laws and norms, and explaining how the NP took this as its base when its racial strategists crafted the system of Apartheid. As for the word, I expressed myself badly. I was not trying to infer that I know for certain that the word was used to refer to the estrangement between the Afrikaans and English-speaking whites in SA, I was just illustrating the fact that I don't have any context for the use of the word (which is why I asked for more details of the 1917 speech), and so I was uncomfortable with the automatic assumption that it was used in the context with which we are now familiar. I am not denying it was used in a white-black sense, especially because 1917 was sometime before Smuts' attitudes on race changed, I'm just illustrating what's possible and why we should not assume without seeing the speech (then again, maybe you have). Also, my notes seem to indicate that Apartheid in reference to a system of racial segregation was coined sometime in the 1930s, before being used as a political slogan for the NP in the 1940s, so a full copy of the speech would be doubly interesting for me in tracking down the origin of the word.

Another thing is that just about every single encyclopaedic source I have read on Apartheid, from Britannica and the Columbia Encyclopedia to the literature from the South African History Organisation, the South African government, and the Apartheid Museum, lists Apartheid as having begun in 1948, as a policy of the National Party. Though all include at least a short paragraph mentioning the racial segregation that had gone before 1948, all were rather clear in pointing out the distinction of pre-1948 = racial discrimination and post-1948 = Apartheid. I don't think we could go far wrong in following those sources.

Lastly, the <br> tag is also present in Wikipedia's markup, so it doesn't really qualify as using HTML. Impi 13:35, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The word "apartheid" is commonly used by the UN and elsewhere to refer to any legalised system of racial discrimination anywhere in the world. There was a ploticial philosophy of "apartheid" discussed in South African circles and the first recorded use of the term was in 1917 by Jan Smuts (see The Afrikaners by Giliomee). There was an offical policy of certain White South African political parties which they called "Apartheid" and this official policy existed prior to 1948 as well as after 1948. There was "Apartheid" implemented by the National Party government 1948-1990. Those are the facts. Paul Beardsell 12:23, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Impi, you are conspicuously wrong in wanting us to use the term "apartheid" in one sense only. Paul Beardsell 12:23, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Were I just independently insisting on this, then perhaps I could be incorrect, but I have the weight of the above-mentioned sources behind me. The literature from all of them lists Apartheid as having begun in 1948, and specifically does not refer to the pre-1948 period as Apartheid. A quick perusal of current South African Department of Education source material for Matric students shows the same thing. They go into a decent amount of detail of the pre-'48 segregationist laws and norms, but make it clear to the student that these were all the build-up and the launching point for the National Party's system of Apartheid. A visit to the Apartheid Museum will show the visitor the same thing, its history displays depict Apartheid as having begun in 1948. In recognising this we are neither letting previous governments off the hook nor denying their segregationist legislation, but we would be wrong not to illustrate the difference between the two eras.

If I am conspicuously wrong in this, then so is the South African Government, the Apartheid Museum, Encyclopaedia Britannica, the Columbia Encyclopedia and the South African History Organisation. Impi 17:42, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You wrote "[many sources] lists Apartheid as having begun in 1948 as a policy of the National Party". As a policy of the National Party! Yes, perhaps, but apartheid was discussed in 1917 before the National Party even existed. And note apartheid was the policy of the National Party for years before 1948, when it won the election. You ignore Smuts, the UN and [dictionary.com]. Paul Beardsell 18:39, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have asked for context about Smuts' 1917 use of the word, as I do not have a copy of Giliomee's book. Without context, we do not know how the word was used, or whether it was even used in the same sense as its later use by the NP. dictionary.com is of little interest to me because dictionaries of necessity have brief and therefore often vague definitions of words like this. As for the UN, it has never, to the best of my knowledge, labelled the pre-1948 period as Apartheid, regardless of what definition it came up with for Apartheid in intl law. Apartheid as we know it was the policy adopted by the National Party under D.F. Malan. It was a system crafted by the HNP's political and social strategists, not by the UP (even though the UP did have segregationist legislation).

In any case, you're ignoring the foremost sources on Apartheid and South Africa's history of racial segregation. If we were to call the period pre-1948 Apartheid as well, we would be flying in the face of what has been established by the SA government, the official Apartheid Museum, the SA History Org and certain credible encyclopaedias. To do that would basically constitute original research, which is against the rules of Wikipedia, and it would also be wrong. Impi 22:47, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Go to the library or Exclusive Books. Even larger branches of the CNA stock the book. Alternatively, take my word for it. If(!) it were used in a different context then an encyclopeadic article on the word would need to mention that context. But it was not. The point is: Apartheid means more than what you will admit to. It is intellectually dishonest to want to use the word in the one context only. You continue to ignore Smuts, the NP prior to 1948, the UN and [dictionary.com]. You have at least been to dictionary.com, yes? And I am not trying to "label the pre-1948 period as Apartheid" - you put words in my mouth both in this instance and elsewhere. Paul Beardsell 08:14, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

An encyclopaedic article on apartheid must deal with the term {(what I want to do) not a particular period in a particular place (what you want to do)} as it has been used and as it is currently being used. The term was in use and is in use to refer to (a) a political philosophy pre- and post-1948, (b) as the major policy of various SA political parties including the NP both pre- and post-1948, (c) as SA Govt policy 1948-1990, (d) as any legalised system of racial discrimination (the UN and others) internationally. Incontrovertible fact. You want an article dealing more or less exclusively with (c) AND SO DO I. I will rename this article Apartheid in South Africa. Paul Beardsell 07:55, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So for wishing to follow the example set by the foremost authorities on Apartheid I am intellectually dishonest? Aside from the unnecessary insult, you have not contested my central point: That these sources refer to Apartheid as having been from the period of 1948 until 1990. The United Nations also defines this time period as the period of existence for Apartheid [4]. Are they all then intellectually dishonest too for daring to contend that Apartheid was a specific system created by the National Party and in place from 1948-1990?

That there are additional meanings for Apartheid is undisputed by me, which is why I have not once opposed the inclusion of the "Apartheid in international law" section of the article. I also don't mind that it is detailed (within reason) on how some claim other states practice policies akin to those carried out by the National Party government. In addition, I have not opposed a section detailing previous segregationist measures in South Africa and showing how these led to the creation of the system of Apartheid, in fact I even went so far as to add some of this detail in advance in an attempt at a compromise solution. You accuse me of putting words in your mouth for saying you were trying to label the pre-1948 period as Apartheid as well. Yet this dispute began when on the 24th of November you changed the "Between 1948 and 1990" statement to "until 1990", which looks to me as if you were labelling the pre-1948 period as Apartheid as well (else why remove the "1948"?)

None of the sources I have listed in my previous post refer to the pre-1948 period as Apartheid, though as I said they do provide information on it as an important precursor to the NP's system of Apartheid.

Lastly, I have not given any indication that I wanted the Apartheid article to deal exclusively with the system put in place by the NP between 1948 and 1990, as I made clear above. My standpoint is now and always has been that though the focus of the article should be on the system of Apartheid that was created by the National Party and instituted between 1948 and 1990 , the other meanings and possible allegations be shown as well. In fact, I'm pretty happy with the article as it is now in terms of the system of Apartheid being defined as the NP's policy enacted from 1948-1990, the segregationist measures that led to it being shown, and both the info about Apartheid in intl law and allegations of apartheid in other countries being part of the article as well (though of course like most articles it could do with yet more detail).

Anyway, I find disambig pages messy, and I try to avoid creating them wherever possible. If we really do want to have articles focus on one segment only, I'd suggest keeping '48-'90 (along with background info about pre-'48 segregationist measures) as the main Apartheid article as this is by far the meaning with the greatest use and recognition, and then leaving a note in italics at the top of the page about the United Nations' definition of the term in international law and detailed allegations of Apartheid-like policies in other countries, which then link to focused articles.

--Impi 19:06, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think you should do what you propose. Paul Beardsell 07:56, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Which you haven't done. So we'll do it my way? Paul Beardsell 10:56, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I refer you to the section in my previous post where I said:In fact, I'm pretty happy with the article as it is now in terms of the system of Apartheid being defined as the NP's policy enacted from 1948-1990, the segregationist measures that led to it being shown, and both the info about Apartheid in intl law and allegations of apartheid in other countries being part of the article as well (though of course like most articles it could do with yet more detail).

Thus, what was there to change? Of course I would love to expand the article with some more detail, but otherwise I'm fairly happy with it.

Incidentally, the only proposal I made in my last post was a suggestion to use ONLY if you insisted on having separate articles for each theme in the current article, such as "Apartheid in South Africa", "Allegations of Apartheid in other countries" etc all linked with a disambig page. As extra articles such as "Allegations of Apartheid in other countries" have not been created, there is no current need for my suggestion, and therefore no need to implement it.

So in short, you're the one who wants to change it, I'm happy with the format as it is. My suggestion was to make a change better only IF you really wished to make that kind of a change. Impi 13:13, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Link suggestions

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Apartheid article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Apartheid}} to this page. — LinkBot 00:57, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The End of Apartheid

This article has a lot of information about Apartheid, but none at all about the end of it. We really need a lot more information here. I am not qualified to write it, but I would love to see more. Thank you! Páll 08:11, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Controversial changes by 80.229.148.161

A recent change by 80.229.148.161 added the following sentence: "A period of political instability ensued. More South Africans died from political violence from 1990 to 1994 than in the preceeding 42 years." Does anyone have a source backing this? I feel skeptical about this claim, but would like to debunk it before removing it. Dewet 07:33, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC).

Update: More controversial changes by 80.229.148.161: "Recent political realignments in South African politics is another interesting pointer to the nature of South African politics. 'White', ' Indian' and 'Coloured' voters have aligned themselves in opposition - in ways unthinkable during the days of Apartheid - to the Black majority." This is patently false, and speculation at best, in my opinion. Dewet 07:51, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Update again: The last one for now: Changing "South Africa was colonised by the Dutch and English from the 17th century onwards." to "South Africa was settled by the Dutch, Germans and French from the 17th century onwards. The English followed in the 19th century." These are borderline cases, which is why I'm not simply reverting, but I do not want these to go unchallenged. Any other opinions? Dewet 07:54, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

language

what's with the big section in some other language?

Picci

The German Wikipedia has a picci of a sign showing a whites-only beach [5]. I'm not familiar with how you tranfer piccis to Commons and then link them through to various WP's, but if anyone else is, it would be good to add the picci to the English article too, jguk 18:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)