Talk:Apartheid/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

RfC on whether to mention Ronald Reagan's response to Apartheid in the lead section of his bio

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Ronald Reagan#RfC. Sdkb (talk) 05:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I feel like it should be added along with the opinions of other world leaders. GonzoTribune (talk) 03:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of the country infobox

Hello all. Over the past couple of months, I've noticed that the country infobox has been repeatedly added to this article. This is seriously problematic, because this is an article about a defunct legal system in a nation-state which still exists (the Republic of South Africa), rather than an article about a defunct nation-state or polity, which appears to be the assunption as of late. An article about a series of laws passed between 1948 and the early 1990s is not the same as an article about a former country which existed between 1948 and the early 1990s. Again, to reiterate: apartheid was a legal system, not a country. I have removed the infobox - bizarrely, it was located in the "Society" section of this article, which has no relevance to that infobox anyway - and cannot endorse its re-addition to the article without at least some kind of discussion here on the talk page. --Katangais (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

It's perfectly fair to have an infobox. Post-apartheid South Africa is in their third republic following independence from the United Kingdom in 1961. South Africa's first (1961-1984) and second (1984-1994) republics/constitutions both upheld apartheid, which is relevant to the article. And I honestly see no reason why it shouldn't be on this page. Pretty much every country has articles for the previous republics. Nigeria's first republic has its own article when it only lasted 4 years. Apartheid was a legal system at the least. It was the law of the land and pervaded every facet of life. Which is why I also think it is fair to keep it in the "society" section until further notice. Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 03:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

None of that makes "Apartheid" a former country. Zaian (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. The Republic of South Africa still exists, albeit with a new constitution and massive changes to its government and politics in 1994. Apartheid was not a country, and if we accept this reasoning, then this page is not an article about a country. The country infobox remains inappropriate. --Katangais (talk) 01:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Defiantly would say that The Republic of South Africa (1961-1994) is worthy of its own article, with its very own country infobox of course. But I can see why placing an infobox here may not be appropriate. --Theimmortalgodemperor (talk) 05:51, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Feedback on Draft:First Republic of South Africa

I'd appreciate some feedback on Draft:First Republic of South Africa. In reviewing it, I am unclear about whether it's needed. It could be merged into this article. Is there a need for it? There's been prior discussion (see talk history) about the focus of Apartheid. The once-proposed History of South Africa in the apartheid era is slightly broader than just the legal system, and even the current discussion about the country infobox reflects this current lack of clarity. Greenman (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I support this request right now, this article should be made because it had a different political system Mhatopzz (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Never thought this article was needed. South Africa has never formally declared a second republic, making use of the term "First Republic of South Africa" rather redundant. If we're going solely by constitutions, then we have to accept South Africa has had three republics - one in 1961, one in 1983, and one in 1994. This is problematic because "First Republic of South Africa" includes the 1983 period in its summarization. That leaves the third option: that this is a purely subjective designation used by contributors who wish to have a separate article for South Africa as it existed during the National Party era from 1948 to 1994. Covering the whole period from 1948 to 1994 is an issue for those who espouse this view because it was technically the Union of South Africa prior to 1961, which is not interchangeable with "Apartheid South Africa" since part of the Union era predated National Party rule. The alternative thus, is to create a separate article for the Republic of South Africa as it existed from 1961 to 1994, a period in which the country could correctly be described as being under apartheid in some form or another. Like I said, this is problematic because it's a subjective point of view. It basically boils down to people wanting a separate article for South Africa in the apartheid era, which I'd argue is redundant (to this article) and like I said, rather subjective. --Katangais (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks really good! Definitely should be made an article. Is needed. --Theimmortalgodemperor (talk) 06:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

"Europeans only" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Europeans only. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 9#Europeans only until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Talk page archive problem

I wondered why extended-confirmed protection had been applied to this article so I looked at the Talk page, but the earliest edit appears to be from May 2021. So I tried looking in the Talk page archives, but the most recent addition to Talk, in Archive_8, appears to be July 2017. Anyone know where the intervening four years of Talk are, and how to make them available? Clark42 (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Somehow there is both a Talk:Apartheid/Archive_8 and Talk:Apartheid/Archive8, and only the older one is listed. It's probably got to do with how User:Lowercase sigmabot III archives the page, but I'm not sure how to sort it out. Zaian (talk) 06:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah. Archiving of this page was broken during that time. It was fixed by this edit in January 2021 and since then Archive8 has been created but not linked up correctly to the list. I've merged them now and I will check if the archive bot creates Archive 9 in its next update. Zaian (talk) 06:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

from 1948 until the early 1990s

Didn't Apartheid ended in South West Africa/Namibia in 1990 and South Africa in 1994? ColorfulSmoke (talk) 06:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

There is an annotation in the article which explains the date: "the Population Registration Act, 1950, the basis for most apartheid legislation, was formally abolished in 1991, although the country's first non-racial government was not established until multiracial elections held under a universal franchise in 1994." - htonl (talk) 07:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

apartheid

what was the main of The prohibition of mixed marriages and immorality act? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.116.157.241 (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

You are probably looking for this page here: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 14:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

See also

I think the list is bordering on being excessive. Nevertheless, I added a couple of links to articles about the legislative treatment of Maori within NZ. They are granted certain rights and privileges not given to other New Zealanders. The simplest example of this is separate Maori seats in parliament but similar legislated apartness exists in society. Sound familiar? Here is the opening sentence to the Apartheid article: "Apartheid (/əˈpɑːrt(h)aɪt/, especially South African English: /əˈpɑːrt(h)eɪt/, Afrikaans: [aˈpartɦɛit]; transl. "separateness", lit. "aparthood") was a system of institutionalised racial segregation that existed in South Africa and South West Africa (now Namibia) from 1948 to the early 1990s" This is a quote from a source about the Maori seats I will shortly add to my "See also" link: "Separate representation has been indicated as a kind of political limbo, both irrational and reactionary to the point of apartheid. In the words of one foreign correspondent: 'The parallels between New Zealand and South Africa are ominous'. MOS:SEEALSO says: 'A "See also" section is a useful way to organize internal links to related or comparable articles and build the web.' Need I go on? User Turnagra, an active promoter of the Maori Renaissance has chosen, quite adamantly, to remove my additions as irrelevant with no connection to apartheid, and s/he has invited me to come here instead. Is racial separation policy in NZ worthy of including in the See also section? I was also going to add the post independence constitutions of Fiji, but I will hold off on that for a while. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Māori electorates and the Treaty of Waitangi are not even remotely comparable to apartheid, and it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise. As with your other edit on Māori electorates, which Schwede66 rightly reverted, this edit not only paints an incorrect picture of the settlement process and Māori electorate seats. The source you provided isn't actually equating Māori electorates with apartheid, but rather quoting an article from the early 1980s to express that side of the argument. The very next paragraph reads:

But others claim a more positive attitude towards the existence of Maori representation. Politicians, for example, are anxious to endorse retention of the status quo, while Maori leaders of various party persuasions perceive guaranteed representation as a vital component of their cultural heritage, and defend the system as indispensable to Maori political aspirations.

The paper as a whole does nothing even close to equating these electorates with apartheid, and is rather examining them as something potentially able to be applied to the context of Canada's indigenous representation. I'd also like to remind you of WP:ASPERSIONS again, given your initial comment. Turnagra (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

When you say that Māori are granted certain rights and privileges through having electorates, you display a lack of knowledge how the electorates came about in the first instance. Schwede66 21:13, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

You are missing the point which I think is blatantly obvious. The point is not comparing the negative intent, implementing and consequences of apartheid in SA with what applies in NZ. The connection is that both countries had/have a constitution and legislation in place that acknowledges and treats people differently based on their ethnicity. That is why I mentioned post-independence Fiji - and the issues around native Fijians becoming a minority. Apartheid was a policy backed by legislative racial distinction of the population. The policy on how to handle the Waitangi Treaty is, to an extent, the same - it treats people differently based on their ethnicity. This has nothing to do with the effect the SA and NZ policies have on Blacks and Maori, which is what you are focusing on. Of course Maori are not in anything like the same position the SA blacks were under apartheid. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

You may not perceive it to be that, but there is absolutely an implication there focusing on the negative aspect. I think that's taking a way too overly broad interpretation of "see also" - if we included everything which treated people differently based on ethnicity, the list would be enormous and would dilute actual relevant links. If anything, we should cut down the "See also" links further to actual relevant examples, instead of such an unhelpful broad brush. Turnagra (talk) 00:04, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

You are right to an extent, I do not see it that way, although I'm not even sure what 'that way' is. Logically, the ethnic groups to compare are black SAs and non-Maori NZers, not, as I think you are taking it, as blacks=Maori and whites=non-Maori. If you think my view is simplistic or rigid then I can see your point although I don't agree with it. Yes, we can look at other examples where ethnicity is built into a constitution. Going back only 50 or so years we would certainly be swamped with examples. As of today there would be fewer examples but probably more than one might think. I am not familiar enough with the Israel/Palestinian situation to comment except that there is clearly something amiss there. Back to the issue in hand. What is apartheid? An official way of separating races (as the article's opening sentence says) or an official way of keeping one race in a superior position? Both descriptions probably fit but I think the first is more neutral and more accurate. In any case there is a clear enough connection between the SA and the NZ situation to justify inclusion in the See also section. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:25, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the fact that you just said the position of Pākehā New Zealanders is analogous to that of black South Africans during apartheid says it all, really. Turnagra (talk) 08:37, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The fact that you are once again blind to any balanced discussion on this topic, even to the point of putting words in someone else's mouth, says it all really. Now, I will revert your deletion of cited detail on the 'as is' section and invite you to establish consensus here first before any decision on it is made. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:25, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

How else am I supposed to take Logically, the ethnic groups to compare are black SAs and non-Maori NZers, not, as I think you are taking it, as blacks (equals) Maori and whites (equals) non-Maori? You clearly have a warped interpretation of race relations in New Zealand and so far have only been able to produce a source from the 1980s to back up your outrageous claims, as if race relations in NZ have not progressed in forty years. This has nothing to do with what "my view" is (since I know you think I'm a government agent, or something) but rather that you're making a massive, politically loaded statement, one which frankly doesn't hold any water. Turnagra (talk) 09:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

You should know better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger 8 Roger (talk • contribs) 09:25, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

There is no consensus to add the text, and the source that supposedly compares the Maori situation to apartheid is not accessible to me to see. Arguing what you or I think is not important. We need reliable sources making this comparison. I suggest sharing the full text of this source and any other sources, and let's evaluate context and reliability. Until then, please cease repeatedly adding to the article. Greenman (talk) 09:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Turnagra. Yet again, you are avoiding the issue. This is NOT about race relations, it is about legislation that separates people based on their ethnicity. You can stomp and shout as much as you like but until you address that point this discussion will go nowhere. You earlier tried to dismiss the source I gave. The point of the source is that a RSS, the publication, confirms that my view of one possible interpretation of the Maori seats is also held by others. That makes the source reliable for that purpose. The author does not have to say whether that interpretation is correct or not to be added to the See also section. @Greenman, the source is open to view in full online here Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)