Talk:History of South Africa in the apartheid era/Archive3

message: 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)
replies: text: I would suggest that you add those references to the article, not to the edit summary, as is standard practice in both print and Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Terrorist.2C_terrorism. I am now backing out of this discussion. Zaian 11:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Reverting additions 

message: This page was moved to Apartheid by  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 Wikipedia:Requested_moves. Zaian 08:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page move

message: 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)
replies: text: Sorry but Wikipedia 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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 Wikipedia articles.Phase4 14:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Letsby Avenue, then!Phase4 22:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Blanking by Kuratowski's Ghost

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: IIRC, there used to be two articles, Apartheid and History of South Africa. They were largely redundant, and the Apartheid article had lots of cruft in it relating to people's attempts to use the word "apartheid" as a bludgeon against regimes they didn't like. Naming it History of South Africa in the apartheid era has the advantage of insulating it from the silliness, and also shows how it fits into the History of SA article. It's normal for an article on the history of an entire country to be split up into smaller articles (see the U.S. history article for an example).--24.52.254.62 05:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think Homey has a point. Wizzy…☎ 15:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: In principle I strongly agree with you. The present unhappy compromise is best explained by looking at the AfD discussion on Apartheid (disambiguation). Basically there are people who find it unacceptable that apartheid is used in anything but the historical sense. Albeit they are fighting reality, but that is why we have this; to avoid offending the many Israeli-POV people who cannot abide their policies even being compared to RSA's on a disamb page of the project. If the disambig page is deleted, we'll need to keep the status quo (or find a different solution), so I would certainly hold off at least until that is decided. --Guinnog 16:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Note Apartheid (disambiguation) has been created by Homey, and is currently on  AfD. -- Heptor  talk 17:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't really se how the disambiguation page impacts this article. I too think it is better to move this article back to Apartheid. Saying this, I do not claim to be an expert on Apartheid, and if people who edit the article think otherwise, they are probably right. The disambiguation page should however be deleted. Disambiguation is needed when one word have many possible meanings, like Gorilla and Gorilla (computer_game), not when somebody calls George Bush a gorilla. -- Heptor  talk 17:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  PS: What I said about disambiguation is in accordance with Wikipedia:Disambiguation. The nominator for the  AfD explained it in his rationale for nomination. -- Heptor  talk 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Just to be clear, I agree that the debate on Apartheid (Disambiguation) has nothing to do with naming of this article - I simply don't see how Homey made the connection, and I have no intention to participate in the debate. I posted the above note after he started talking about renaming the article. -- Heptor  talk 20:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming this article "Apartheid" 

message: "South Africa was suspected of causing the crash..." By who? Tom Harrison Talk 01:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By just about everyone at the time I seem to recall! It was the most obvious explanation for it. Which is not to say that it is what actually happened of course, but it is certainly verifiable that people thought it at the time. --Guinnog 15:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passive voice 

message: 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)
replies: text: I won't comment on the moral aspects of the system that was severely lacking.  In practice, however, blacks were given a disproportionally small area to live on, while the whites claimed the "prime" land in all the major cities, as well as huge stretches of arable agricultural land.  That's a good part of why townships formed — blacks were designated a "suitable" area just outside city borders (from which they had to commute in) without any real infrastructure.  Lastly, the "self-governance" that the black homelands had was only that in name;  all their doings were veto-able by the government and closely monitored. dewet|✉ 05:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, but what I was getting it... It seems the Whites kept the cities THEY built. A lack of education I don't understand because again Whites were keeping their educational system from Europe... but the Bantu areas, what could they really learn? When Whites got to Africa the continent was thousands of years behind the rest of the world, and pretty much still is. Volksgeist 19:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whites and Blacks are artificial constructs, made and used by racists, which is why they have no official status in any country or with any scientist today. Did you hear that the human species originated in Africa? --Guinnog 19:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? Because last time I checked they were plenty of groups in the United States willing to give scholarships over Whites to people who had lower grades/test scores because of their 'race.' The whole nonsense that race is an "artificial construct" is a result of the liberal media that goes against common sense. Even now they are finding certain genes that affect intelligence and anger, pretty soon this whole ridiculous house of cards is going to tumble. It makes no difference where humans originated or evolved because they still adapted to their environment through physical characteristics and, whether the liberals want you to know this or not, mental characteristics. Volksgeist 01:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The urge not to feed the troll, but slap it around the head a couple times, is almost overwhelming. To claim that "Whites built the cities" is to wilfully ignore the fact that A) Blacks were intentionally given substandard education and prevented by law from being employed in skilled positions, and B) That it was cheap black labour that built the cities, and mined the gold, etc etc etc. Besides, the comment about "Africa being thousands of years behind the rest of the world" is a complete non-sequitur. After all, the indigenous inhabitants of Brazil were "backwards" compared to the rest of the world when European colonists first arrived, but today Brazil's Embraer is the third largest airliner manufacturer in the world, behind Boeing and Airbus. Nice work for people who were thousands of years behind the West, eh? — Impi 12:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's like saying that the United States is the way it is today because of the Native American population -- which were thousands of years behind the West as well. Whether you realize it or not, Whites make up a near-majority of the population in areas such as Sao Paulo in South Brazil. Actually SP wants to leave Brazil because their economy is so much bigger then anyone else's (wow -- wonder why?). And guess where Embraer is located? Yup, you guessed it cowboy, Sao Paulo. There goes your attempt at a ridiculous comparison. Volksgeist 01:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This is off topic. Please take this conversation to User Talk:Volksgeist. This talk page is about the article, not about personal theories on race. Zaian 06:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did apartheid seperate what each group build? 

message: I was wondering what people thought of moving the article to a shorter name, something like History of South Afirca during apartheid. It would conform better to Wikipedia naming standards, and somehow seems less cumbersome to me. Any thoughts? P?ll</font> (Die pienk olifant) 15:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the discussion above named Renaming this article "Apartheid.--Ezeu 19:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: Humansdorpie today gave two citations for the actual implementation of sanctions against South Africa by the United States, Britain and 23 industrialized nations in the 1980s. The first  says:
:"In the South Africa case, however, economic sanctions were applied piecemeal over a number of years, often halfheartedly, and at their height were far from comprehensive. The most significant sanctions, embodied in the U.S. Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act (CAAA) of 1986, were imposed only after Congress overrode a presidential veto, and administrative enforcement was reportedly weak. Even the CAAA, however, affected only some trade and financial relations, and except for the Nordic countries (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland and Denmark), other countries' sanctions were even less stringent. Thus, by the summer of 1991, the UN arms embargo had been in place for over a decade, an OPEC oil embargo for a similar number of years, and expanded U.S. sanctions for over five years. Yet the white government and the two major black opposition groups (the African National Congress and Inkatha) – though closer than previously – were still struggling to find common ground on which to begin constitutional negotiations. Assuming that reform is achieved and that South Africa does not degenerate into bloody civil war, sanctions will have made a modest contribution to the happy result[my italics]."
The second citation relates to an ex-parte action by Shell UK against Lewisham Borough Council.
Neither citation, in my view, justifies the bold assertions made in the "Sanctions" section.Phase4 22:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations for sanctions

message: Hello there. Apartheid redirects to this page. As we are all aware of Apartheid has become a concept used in various contexts outside South Africa. Therefore I urge you to ensure that this article keeps a link to Apartheid (disambiguation). Bertilvidet 09:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a really silly link.  Come on, folks - "Apartheid" is Afrikaans and refers to South Africa.Timothy Usher 10:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: May I remind that the article's title is "History of South Africa in the apartheid era"? The dab page, the necessity of which is disputed, does not refer to the term "History of South Africa in the apartheid era", as the dab link suggests. Apartheid (disambiguation) does not disambiguate the term "apartheid"; it serves as a search aid for other articles where the word "apartheid" is used, which is a blatant contravention of WP:DAB. Pecher Talk 12:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So delete the disambig page, or has someone already tried that? --Coroebus 18:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that failed, so now they are evidently trying to delete any *link to* the disambig page. Homey 18:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Please!  Some of us would really appreciate it if you didn't let the Israeli apartheid / Apartheid (disambiguation) unwinnable arguments spill over onto this page in the form of a revert war. Zaian 17:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This debate does not belong here. Let's show some respect to the editors dealing with South Africa and conduct this debate at its relevant places, such as Talk:Apartheid (disambiguation). Bertilvidet 18:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree.  It shouldn't spill over to this page or this article.  Removing this pointless activism-motivated link is the best way to ensure that the issues are not intermixed.Timothy Usher 07:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  link to disambiguation page 

message: There's no mention of the Gleneagles Agreement or the sporting sanctions that effected the South Africa national rugby union team or South Africa cricket team.GordyB 13:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sporting sanctions

message: I think some of the discussion here is whether or not international law is possible in geopolitics where power is one of the key drivers.  In this case, the laws are usually only enforced when they are aligned with the major powers.  The international domain is a power game and thus international laws that sound good on paper are often not worth even the paper they are written on.  This fact that international laws are unenforcable if a great power(s) decides to state that they are unapplicable does not change that the laws do infact exist.  The trick is not to question whether the crime of apartheid, which is part of the Rome statute, is a valid international law, but whether or not power constraining international laws are actually fully binding on great powers.  --Ben Houston 06:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't validly seperate these two questions, as pronouncements by those without meaningful jurisdictions are almost by definition not "laws".Timothy Usher 06:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would argue that all international laws fall into this category.  Even ones that the US or other major players have agreed to are regularly breeched with no consequence -- remember the US declaring a new category of people called "enemy combatants" to whom the geneva conventions do not apply.  The US also recently decided to ignore a series of NAFTA and WTO rulings in Canada's favor (i.e. the "softwood dispute") -- they just said simply "too bad Canada, we don't agree with the rulings" -- these rulings, which Canada won after years of legal NAFTA/WTO procedures were supposed to be binding, well they weren't because most rules at the international level are in essence voluntary if you are a major power.  --Ben Houston 06:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: International law vs. Power

message: From "Courting disfavour", The Economist, April 12 2002
:"The success in establishing a permanent international criminal court is a triumph for those who want to strengthen international law. But the Bush administration hates the idea, and the court has put America and its allies on a collision course"
:"THE cause is worthy, but the timing is terrible. For its supporters, the dream of an international criminal court became a reality on April 11th. With ten more nations ratifying the treaty setting up the court, the number exceeded the 60 that were required."
From the Encyclopedia Britannica:
:International law
*Nonstate actors in international law > Individuals
Historically, states were the only subjects of international law. During the 20th century, however, a growing body of international law was devoted to defining the rights and responsibilities of individuals. The rights of individuals under international law are detailed in various human rights instruments and agreements. Although references to the protection of human rights appear in the UN Charter, the principal engine of the process was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948; UDHR). The UDHR has been supplemented by an impressive range of international treaties, including the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (1979), the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984), and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989). With the exception of the convention on genocide, these agreements also have established monitoring committees, which, depending on the terms of the particular agreement, may examine the regular reports required of states, issue general and state-specific comments, and entertain petitions from individuals. The committee against torture may commence an inquiry on its own motion. The broad rights protected in these conventions include the right to life and due process, freedom from discrimination and torture, and freedom of expression and assembly. The right to self-determination and the rights of persons belonging to minority groups are protected by the convention on civil and political rights. In addition, the UN has established a range of organs and mechanisms to protect human rights, including the Commission on Human Rights.
Human rights protections also exist at the regional level. The best-developed system was established by the European Convention on Human Rights, which has more than 40 state parties as well as a court that can hear both interstate and individual applications. Other examples are the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights, which has a commission and a court, and the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (1982), which has a commission and is developing a court.
In addition to the rights granted to individuals, international law also has endowed them with responsibilities. In particular, following the Nürnberg Charter (1945) and the subsequent establishment of a tribunal to prosecute Nazi war criminals, individuals have been subject to international criminal responsibility and have been directly liable for breaches of international law, irrespective of domestic legal considerations. Individual responsibility was affirmed in the Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols and was affirmed and put into effect by the statutes that created war crimes tribunals for Yugoslavia (1993) and Rwanda (1994), both of which prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced persons accused of war crimes. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which entered into force in 2002, also provides for individual international criminal responsibility.
				
(emphasis added) Homey 07:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting source.  What do you think it means, other than individuals from countries who have ratified the treaty are bound by its provisions? Do you have anything which deals with the apartheid stuff, and it being part of customary international law? Jayjg (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It says a lot of things, but it doesn't actually say what you wish it did.  It's quite clear that citizens of signatories of the Rome Accord are bound by its claims, but that doesn't extend it to common international law.  I'm not going to use original research to extend what Britannica says to unsourced claims. Jayjg (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Interesting quote; what original research edifice are you attempting to build on it? Jayjg (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: He is reminding you that you can not take a reliable source and use it to support a novel thesis.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Huh? The Economist can do original research if it wants; newspapers and newsmagazines often do.  But what does that have to do with my question? Jayjg (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: There is clearly a difference between saying that the ICC strengthen's international law, and saying that the ICC is international law.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some  sources 

message: Thanks Coroebus, your change 'is' better. I realized later that this type of minor metonymy is too common in language generally to seek it out for correction.
Re signing with 4 tildes: I don't understand what this refers to but am signing by linking my name. Lumbercutter 20:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Re minor thing/name metonymy

message: Should this article be moved to apartheid or should Apartheid outside of South Africa and Apartheid (disambiguation) be merged and moved to Apartheid?216.249.5.164 21:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The short answer is "No". The longer answer is "Not without discussion and consensus first". However, there have been many previous discussions on the page name; some of them on this page, and the rest in the talk archives. The current redirect from Apartheid to this page is the result of that consensus. Zaian 07:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Apartheid

message: I guess that this might be a stupid question but I have to ask it. Since when did we use single-quotes in South African English? Or is this another one of those "cosmopolitan" practices from Cape Town (another one being utter ignorance about and insensitivity to African culture)? It looks bad in the article when you have single-quotes mixed with double-quotes in the same sentence. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 09:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dumb question 

message: User:KimvdLinde  suggests merging Israeli apartheid into Apartheid. Are you in favour or opposed to this proposal?Homey 21:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger discussion

message: 
The RfM is not directly about this page, but it will tought on the apartheid redirect, and as such, I think it is better to inform people here also. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfM 

message: It seems odd to me that the word "Bantustan" does not appear in this article outside of a "see also". - Jmabel | Talk 03:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bantustans 

message: There are almost no referances made in this article. Therefore any fool could have come up with this. How can we regard this as truthful history without any grounds of proof? Even though I am not in favour of the use of referances (because the book or article or whatever the referance refers to could also have been written by a fool), I think it necessary that it be used here as anything referanced in Wikipedia is regarded as factual. Please, someone, referance this stuff. Scotteh 14:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a separate section in the article entitled References. The article is entitled History of South Africa in the apartheid era which effectively ended in 1994. Why drag AIDS/poverty/drugs/TB/corruption into the apartheid era when you are clearly implying these are post-apartheid problems.Phase4 21:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nonsense?

message: More than half the page seems to be missing since the last time I visited it. Sabotage?Panu Petteri Höglund 14:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sabotage?

message: Get references on this page, FAST.  There are so many claims made and many seem presumptuous, with not a single reference at the bottom.  Every other page on wikipedia has references at the bottom of the SAME PAGE.  And why has half the text disappeared? Laikalynx 17:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conspiracy!

message: While no right-minded person (and I don't think there's a NPOV issue here) supports the actions I think it would be interesting to see the justification for introducing apartheid. The article mentions that the NP campaigned on such a platform but are there any quotes that might give any indication of their reasoning for such actions? Me677 22:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe part of the justification was the "Swart gevaar", the fear the government instilled in white workers of their jobs being taken. They also used a certain Bible verse taken out of context (I forget which it is) as a justification. Justification differs from the actual reasons they did it of course. -- Banes 10:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: "In 1955 an American academic called Milton Mayer published a book entitled "They Thought They Were Free" in which he explored how it was that millions of ordinary and basically decent Germans were conditioned into going along with Hitler even though they suspected what might be happening in the death camps. This process of conditioning people into condoning great wickedness, rather than tendentious comparisons of apartheid with Nazi crimes, is where there is some sort of analogy between Germans in the 1930s and 1940s and white South Africans during the apartheid era. It is a subject worth study for the lessons that might be learnt about, for example, the dangers of stigmatising people."
 
Stigmatising people seems to be Paul Beardsall's goal - another example of "political vituperation" .  In pursuit of this goal, he attempts to discredit Giliomee's book, a tactic once employed by John Vorster, former prime minister of South Africa, when he berated Andreas Wassenaar's book "Squandered Assets" (about the profligacy and socialist policies of the Nationalist government) in parliament.  Hopefully, as with Wassenaar's book, Paul Beardsell's attempts will merely increase sales of the book.
As Raymond Tucker pointed out, there is no need to exaggarate the evils of apartheid
.
Also worth reading "They also didn't know" by Rian Malan, author of the acclaimed book My Traitor's Heart 
HeervanMalpertuis 20:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Justification?

message: When one puts a  tag on an article a standard boilerplate text is diplayed.  This can now be seen at the beginning of the article but here it is, for ready reference:
:The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page.
So, placing the tag requires explanation:  What it is you think is not nuetral?  No "discussion on the talk page" means no tag.  Tag removed.  
Paul Beardsell 10:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed 100%.  User:Yakuman, please take a helpful approach and highlight areas where you feel the general focus is biased, specific statements that you feel are biased, which views you feel are not represented, etc.  Without that explanation, it's not even clear whether we should be looking to remove pro- or anti-apartheid bias, or some other sort.  We need a target: a specific list of concerns that can be evaluated and addressed, so that once they are addressed and consensus is reached, the tag can be removed again. Zaian 10:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag