Talk:History of South Africa/Archive 1

message: Added a refernece to the bantustans/homelands and migrant labour, it needs some filling out.  anyone with more info?  Peregrine
This article needs beefing up.  I wanted to link to an area called "ant-apartheid movement" and then discovered that there wasn't one.  This article makes it sound like the calendar solved apartheid: "...the 1990s ushered in a new government...".  Need some knowledgeable people to fill in here in this important topic.
:I've been writing in chronological order and working towards that time frame, but as you can see I've only got to Soweto so far. Please do go ahead and add some stuff if you can. -kwertii
--
The stuff about everyone rushing off to Australia and the economy going into rapid decline is nonsense. I've replaced it, but it needs much more detail - an analysis of RDP and GEAR, increase in growth rate at the same time as the increase in unemployment, AIDS, etc
--
Can you cite a case of UK etc AIDS money going to cars? The KZN AIDS fiasco meant the money was lost, not misused.
----
This is a good article.  But there is some duplication between this and apartheid.  Paul Beardsell 19:46, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

message: You have confused Xhosa who are a Bantu-speaking people with the Khoisan, who include Khoi-Khoi (once known as Hottentots) and San (formerly Bushmen) who speak distinctive click languages, with sounds made by clicking the tongue. The archeological evidence suggests that the Khoisan were the hunter-gatherer people who dominated until around 200 A.D. when they were dispalced by an iron-age cattle herding people, presumably the Bantu.
This is based on archeological evidence which can only confirm the material culture, but fits with the linguistic evidence and continuity to historical times.
There is some inter-action, the Khoi-Khoi had iron tools and cattle by the time of the Dutch arrival and it is presumed that the acquired them by trade or escaped slaves from the Bantu.
----
The above anonymous contribution may or may not be correct but the point is:  Edit boldly!  Edit the article, not the talk page.  Paul Beardsell 11:40, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xhosa 

message: I just posted a large rewrite to this article. While I highly appreciate the contributions of everyone who has worked on this article before, I found that the previous article did not flow every well, and the apartheid section was quite massive while other sections did not seem to join into the next. I tried to address that with this rewrite, as well as adding images. I am more than willing to re-incorporate content from the previous version, in fact, I would appreciate it. Thanks so much! Páll 21:31, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree that there are parts of the article that isn't as NPOV as I'd like, there are a lot of bad changes (grammar and inflection) that you are introducing.  For that reason I think it is best to revert it;  maybe you would find it usefule to tackle the article section-for-section, so that we can work on it systematically? Dewet 10:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, now that I've thought about it, this article is way too long already.  Maybe it would make sense to split it into subarticles by date, similar to the Cape Colony series?
If there are changes you agree with, I think you should leave them there ; if you cannot corect mistakes yourself, I am sure someone else would soon if the article is left on, that's how it always happens; English is not my native language. While after deleting useful info and changes and NPOVing, it will take a way longer time before someone else would decide to do itDeirYassin 12:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: Given the sensitivity of the topic, I'll spell everything out on the talk page. I've rewritten some statements I considered too POV. Mind you, I agree with them.
:"Darkest times"—too emotionally loaded. 
:"Gusto" implies an inappropriate enthusiasm.
:"Most odious" by whose standards?
JRM · Talk 08:42, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
:: Quite like your edits, keep up the good work! Páll 08:45, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV-check

message: As discussed in the FAC nomination, there were problems with a bunch of the images. Someone has discovered that a lot of the apartheid-era photos are actually available from the UN without the noncommercial restriction, and has retagged them -- yay! I've also gone through and replaced some of the legally problematic images with ones from the UN that don't have the legal problems, and I've added some more images from the UN archive. In some cases, this has resulted in the juxtaposition of photos from one time period with text from another. For instance, next to the discussion of the Separate Amenities Act, I've placed a photo of a segregated beach from 30 years later. There are simply a lot more images available from the end of the 20th century than from the beginning, and it's not practical to cram them all in at the end of the article. In some cases I had to put a photo in a subsection before or after the subsection where it really belonged, just because of formatting concerns.--Bcrowell 16:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: Now that the History of South Africa article has been renominated for FA, there has been some discussion about taking out some of its content and moving it into other articles. Some people think the apartheid-era section of the HSA article is out of proportion to the article as a whole. Other people, including me, think that it's not out of proportion, but that the article as a whole is simply too long, and should be split up. (The recommended upper limit on length of 32k is a rough guideline, but the HSA article is currently about 60k, which is indeed very big.) Complications: (1) the HSA article is currently being discussed as an FA candidate, and splitting it into pieces might derail that; (2) a lot of the apartheid-era history is duplicated in the apartheid article, but that article has been enduring a revert war. To me, it would make  sense to split the HSA article into three parts: before apartheid, apartheid era, and post-apartheid. I don't think there's any useful distinction between the kind of stuff that's now in the apartheid article and the kind of stuff that's now in the apartheid-era section of the HSA article, and I think the useful contents of both should be merged, and should replace the current apartheid article. User:Maveric149 originally volunteered to move a bunch of stuff out of HSA and into apartheid this weekend, but doesn't seem to have done it, and has not responded to my attempts to initiate discussion about how to do it -- probably he's just been busy.--Bcrowell 21:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - I was busy this weekend. On the spur of the moment my partner and I decided to spend most of the weekend in Great Smoky Mountains National Park. I think your idea for splitting makes a great deal of sense in the long term but there still will be a need for a general survey-level article that introduces the whole history of South Africa. As a first step I can split off the ==Apartheid== section to history of apartheid, leave an abridged summary of that here (just under half the length of the current section) and then create a lead section for the history of apartheid article from the abridged summary. This should take me a couple hours. That new article can stay as-is until the revert war at apartheid settles down. Then we can merge the two if that makes sense. Once the ==Apartheid== section is thus reduced we can get a better idea of what else needs to be trimmed and by how much. I think it will be very hard to do justice to the history of this country with anything less than 40KB. It is always harder to be comprehensive using less text but the result is often much more useful to readers. --mav 00:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a good plan to me. It's great that you're willing to put in the work! Let me know if you can use a hand with anything.--Bcrowell 03:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Somebody will also need to add a whole bunch of inline cites as well before I remove my objection. But I'll help with the summarizing either way if there is consensus to go down that path. I'll be able to do this after work on Tuesday. --mav 00:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Splitting up article?

message: Most survivors were left with no option but to work for the Europeans in an exploitative arrangement that differed little from slavery.
Does "exploitative arrangement that differed little from slavery" mean "indentured servitude"?  It's not very clear what the arrangement was, exactly.
74.74.221.4 03:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arrival of the Dutch 

message: This article really looks bare without an image next to the lead. Any ideas? Looking through the images in this article, and in History of South Africa in the apartheid era, I'm not finding much that seems appropriate. Another possibility would be to do it sort of like History of the United States, where you have one main article that starts with a table of contents, and does little more than point to the sub-articles. To me, the current state of the article seems a little strange and asymmetric, since the apartheid-era stuff has been spun off, but the colonial and post-apartheid stuff hasn't. Maybe the difficulty of finding a properly iconic image is really a symptom of the fact that the article is in this strange state. If people agree with the idea of continuing the spinning-off process, what would be a good periodization, and good titles?--Bcrowell 15:30, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Need a good image for lead; or continue process of spinning off sub-articles?

message: A related topic, spice trade, is currently nominated on WP:IDRIVE. Support or comment on the nomination there if you are interested.--Fenice 09:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement drive

message: "Although many important events occurred during this period, apartheid was the central fact around which most of the historical issues of this period revolved."
Sure, apartheid happened. But alot more happened in South Africa! The weapons trade with Israel? The nuclear bomb development? The differing governments and their policies?
Just because apartheid is what the rest of the world focuses on does not mean it was the sole event in this period of South Africa's history. I'd hope that this article does not get featured article status before this issue is addressed - Political Correctness should not coax the editors of this article into swaying away from an integral part of the country's history.
- G 13:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: South Africa's missing history

message: The British and Dutch version of this article concerning the British colonization of South Africa do not match.
--Martin253 22:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  British and Dutch version of this Article 

message: I need to verify this and shore up the facts, but... The arrival of the English at the Cape was not simply to 'fill a vacuum'!  What I believe happened is this.  After the French Revolution, the possibilty of a revolution spreading through Europe placed the position of European royalty and nobility in jeopardy.  The surrounding Monarchies rallied behind what was left of the deposed French nobility and under threat of war attempted to sway the revolutionaries to reinstate the monarchy.  The revolutionaries retailated by threatening to take the revolution to these countries.  The Dutch Prince of Orange approached the English Monarchy for help, and the Cape of Good hope was traded for the protection of the Dutch royalty.  Though no revolution occurred in the Netherlands, Napoleon's army invaded. The British sent a warship to the Cape, and when they landed on the shores of False Bay and presented to the Dutch settlers the news that the Cape was now English sovereign territory, the settlers did not believe them and the Battle of Muizenberg ensued.  The British were victorious.  When, some months later, the news arrived from the Netherlands that the English had indeed been given the Cape, Gordon - the commander of the Dutch force at the Cape - after whom Gordon's Bay is named, committed suicide.
Potion 21:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The French Revolution and its effect on the History of South Africa 

message: I remember hearing that when the Dutch first colonized South Africa, the boers colonized in areas that were completely uninhabited, and it wasn't until the English arrived that there was any contact between Europeans and Africans in the region. Can anyone confirm this? R'son-W 06:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply not true, although the fiction of an empty land colonised by Europeans suited successive white governments. Early colonisation was characterised by continous contact between Europeans and Khoikhoi in the frontier zone - ships had been bartering with Khoikhoi inhabitants of Table Bay for 60 years before the Dutch founded a settlement at Cape Town - and there was contact between Europeans and Bantu-speaking African people from the early 1700s. Humansdorpie 20:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Initial Colonization 

message: I think that ending this article with comment on emigration and gated communities is POV. In fact, though gated communities may be fairly prevalent in Johannesburg's northern suburbs, that's really only of concern to wealthy people who reside in Johannesburg, a fraction of the country's population.
I propose (me or someone else) rewriting the end to be more NPOV.  I'll park that thought for now - any ideas are appreciated. Caroline Greenway 09:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Into the Future 

message: This article fails to meet at least three major Good Article criteria:  quality of writing, logical structure, and breadth of coverage.  There are some factual accuracy issues as well although sometimes they may derive from writing problems or lack of breadth problems.
The most fundamental problem is the lack of breadth which also is a POV problem.  The article greatly overemphasizes the history of white South Africans and narrow political & military history at the expense of the majority of the people and of economic and social history in which the sources of much of the political history are to be found.
The logical flow problems are related to this content bias.  It has an intro, then an overview of "modern South African history" i.e. the period of white colonization and settlement down to the present, then a very cursory and factually problematic discussion of the history prior to white arrival, reflecting virtually none of the archaeological, historical linguistic and historical scholarship of the last 50 years on precolonial history.  Then we launch into "modern" i.e. mostly white history again, repetitiously, with more political-military detail, Africans appearing mainly as military enemies.  In the 20th century there is a tremendous imbalance in the stress on participation in the World Wars.
The person who complained about overemphasis on apartheid is sort of right although partly for the wrong reasons -- it is not that the emphasis is p.c., but that it doesn't deal with the social and cultural transformations that shaped 20th century South Africa, created by the mineral and industrial revolutions.  Those forces drew or forced first a majority of Afrikaner boers (farmers) off the land, often in conditions of considerable poverty, along with many Coloured and Indian South Africans, and did the same to Africans at a lagging rate proportionally, though because of the African demographic majority even an urban-oriented minority rivalled the urban white population.
Without that context, the creation of Afrikaner nationalism as a populist movement, the rise of National Party dominance, and the appeal of apartheid to S.A. whites cannot be understood.  Even more significantly, the tremendous social and cultural changes in African life are almost completely invisible (to give just one example, the first S.A. Union census shows about 10% of Africans as Christian; by 1990 the figure would be about 90% self-reported, although maybe half of those belonged to "independent" churches some of which were not recognized by many orthodox denominations, esp. the more conservative).  Likewise neither the sources nor the effects of the bantustan policies, whether in population removals or efforts to de-nationalize Africans and deny them S.A. citizenship, can be understood without grasping the history of land and its use, and the forms of segregation and economic domination created prior to 1948, by both Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking whites.
To a very large extent this reads like a high school or maybe basic university textbook written for English-speaking white South Africans from about the 1970s.
I would simply move to delist the article as "Good" except that a) I need to figure out how to do the technical stuff and b) it appears that good etiquette requires raising the issues here first.  Those who may be concerned should consider (some of, by no means all in detail) the issues raised.
Chris Lowe 06:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article should be delisted as Good Article 

message: I am trying to expand this article, mainly focusing on the differences between this book and other accounts (books and otherwise) of South Africa throughout this period. Any comments or suggestions are appreciated on the peer review page: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Mandela:_The_Authorised_Biography" BillMasen 17:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Mandela: The Authorised Biography]]

message: quote: "This was the first time that there was a South African president in sixty years, since the days of the old Transvaal South African Republic when President Paul Kruger was exiled by the British in 1900. "
unlike swart, kruger wasnt president of south africa, only of transvaal("south african republic"). you cant compare the one with the other. --Severino 22:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  President 

message: Some of the sources given for the crime section are erroneous. Sarcastic Sid 02:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral article? 

message: Neutrality is disputed and almost none of this content has been attributed. Perspicacite 05:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed-GA

message: "The Bantu-speakers not only had domestic animals, but also practiced agriculture, farming wheat and other crops."
I have a feeling that should be sorghum, the drought resistant grass imported from Northern Africa, and the dominate staple crop until it was replaced by (the less healthy and famine inducing) maize 500 years ago.
Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 10:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wheat? 

message: "Most significantly, the new Union of South Africa gained international respect with British Dominion status putting it on par with three other important British dominions and allies: Canada, Australia, and New Zealand."At this point in the article those different once-sovereign nations were recently conquered by a hostile alien invader in a series of brutal and terrible wars. They had lost children, men, freedom, kings, land, rights, heritage, etc. It may be POV to state that the newly grouped-together bunch of defeated nations gained a new respect because of dominion - as if it was a favour the aggressor bestowed on them. The article has a number of these POV slants that may just be insensitive.--Zalatunzi (talk) 02:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  gained international respect 

message: The San people are the original native South Africans and anything saying otherwise is a filthy politically motivated lie! The original natives are a completely different race to the Xhosa and Zulu, and their hunter-gatherer way of life has almost been driven to extinction by the brutal waves of migration by European settlers and other African tribes. The Xhosa and Zulu are just as guilty or more than the Boer for destroying the indigenous population of this country. Why are the San never mentioned and only the Xhosa and Zulu who are so prominent in the modern day are constantly praised and supported? This indicates populism and racist bigotry. Clearly this article assumes a position of political and racist bias to strengthen a violent racist political cause which asserts that only the Xhosa and Zulu majorities have heritage there.
This the same lie responsible for the current crisis of racial attacks in South Africa, where the Boer and San are both faced with a genocidal bloodbath at the hands of a violent vengeful negro population with a presumtous belief that the land all belongs to them.
It is really shocking to see the level of blindness, naiveness and pig ignorance from Western scholarship that allows puke like this to be passed off as credible factual material.
:Wow. You sure are a stupid one, aren't you? Have you read this article?
:Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 01:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  South African "indegenous population" debate 

message: I disagree with the reference to certain examples of segregationist legislation mentioned in the last two paragraphs of Section 6 as being specifically "British" in origin. In my opinion, that qualification would apply to legislation introduced in the Natal colony prior to the dominion era, but does not apply directly for example to the Native Land Act, the Urban Areas Act or other similar major pieces of legislation of the 1910-1948 period.
My point is that the aforementioned acts were actually acts of the Union parliament, as opposed to British colonial assemblies. Even though English-speaking whites were represented in parliament and even in government, the Union parliament was nonetheless from its inception dominated by Afrikaners. In fact, the two major parties of the 1910-1934 period, namely the South African Party and the National Party, had Afrikaner roots and all South African prime ministers of that era (Botha, Smuts, and Hertzog) were of ethnic Afrikaner descent.
Please note that I do not deny the complacency with or even collusion of English-speaking South Africans in the increasing body of discriminatory legislation enacted by the Union parliament in the pre-apartheid period. However, given the composition and correlation of forces in the national legislature, I stand by my point of view mentioned above that it is misleading to refer to that series of parliament acts simply as "British segregationist legislation" as the Wikipedia article literally does.
On a more controversial note, I would also object to the inclusion of the pre-Union Franchise and Ballot Act (1892) enacted by the Cape colonial legislature in the list of examples of "segregationist legislation". I say so because, even though the net effect of the said act was effectively to restrict black franchise on grounds of income and education, the legislation per se was not racially oriented, as it was the case BTW of most "British" legislation in the Cape colony following the 1828 ordinance that established equality before the Law between whites and non-whites, see Cape liberalism.
Finally, it must also be added that even the post-Union Native Land Act 1913 excluded in particular the Cape territory and the Urban Areas Act (1923) was largely not enforced in the Cape due to resistance of local authorities and black/coloured franchise and property rights.
200.168.20.65 (talk) 11:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: British segregationist legislation ? 

message: Replication in this article of identical Sections in Military history of South Africa, namely:
8 World War II
8.1 Political choices at outbreak of war
8.2 Declaration of war against the Axis
8.3 Prime Minister and Field Marshal Smuts
8.4 Military contributions and casualties in World War II
9 Aftermath of World War II
Propose summarising and retaining only main points of above, and deleting rest of text, to shorten article as per tag that says article too long. Communicat (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose removing or reincorporating other (unsourced etc) repetitions in text, which have been overtaken etc by my sourced recent additions. Communicat (talk) 18:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replication  

message: Extensive cleanup has been done. I assume consensus because nobody else seems interested and there's been no responsive discussion or participation from anyone of late, except for party who keeps hounding me, who has previously done no work whatsoever on this article, and who shows no sign of ever doing so, apart from reverting text he considers to be "fringe" and reverting the cleanup tag, as though he's the boss around here and hence entitled to wield the big stick. Communicat (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean-up

message: It would be interesting to mention, maybe at the end of this article or somewhere else that, after reading the sentence,
"Before long the Union passed a barrage of oppressive legislation, making it illegal for black workers to strike, reserving skilled jobs for whites, barring blacks from military service, and instituting restrictive pass laws."
I was reminded of the fact that right now South Africa's Army is on strike, their emergency medical service is on strike, an the ANC with affirmative action prevent whites from getting many skilled jobs, and there is now a ban on any new whites or coloureds to enter the armed forces in South Africa. Welcome to the New South Africa!
P.S. - No, I'ven't found reliable verifiable sources for all of these claims but I'm not planning on putting them in an article yet either. Invmog (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please note yourself this is not a rightwing propaganda forum, and also see WP:SOAPBOX. The so-called "facts" that you refer to above are sheer fantasies. The army is not on strike. The emergency services are not on strike. There is no ban on white or coloured army recruits. Where did you get all this nonsense from? I happen to live in SA and I know what's going on around me -- unlike a mischeivous someone who describes himself as a "Christian", who apparently lives in Texas, and who hasn't got a clue about what's happening in SA. 41.135.78.117 (talk) 15:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: It Would Be Interesting to Note

message: Too many linked words and phrases creeping into this article. You should link only words/phrases that have direct contextual relevance to the meaning of the text, otherwise linking words like "tent", "wagon", "advocacy group" etc serve only as a distraction. Whoever's doing it, please pause for thought. There's a WP rule somewhere about making a page too blue. 20:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Too blue

message: Regarding this edit, a user has queried its validity, as it was made by a now blocked user. There doesn't seem to be anything controversial about the addition, but if anyone has access to the sources, please verify that they do say what's been stated, or if you can, supply alternatives. Greenman (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The validity of the edit was not queried because it was made by a blocked user. It was reverted on the false premise that the edit was covered by a topic ban on my editing or discussion of articles about WORLD WAR II. Needless to say, the Angolan war had absolutely nothing to do with WORLD WAR II or its aftermath. Communikat (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, "Communicat (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing or commenting on articles about World War II or the Aftermath of World War II". As I have previously stated, I feel that his edit violated the latter part of the ban. I ask again that independent editors confirm the sources Communikat used support his edits, as this has been a problem in the past.   Edward321 (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

text: * Ah, looks like it was already. Never mind then. I guess this is just a support for the validity of the info then. SilverserenC 07:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Doesn't really matter, does it? your edit has been undone arbitrarily, probably by Edward321 as usual, without further discussion  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.162.131.130 (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: CIA support of the apartheid government

message: This is what is written in Wikipedia:
Regional destabilisation
Between 1980 and 1990, the population of southern Africa was profoundly disrupted by the aggression of apartheid South Africa, with 1.5 million dead, 1.5 million expatriated, and 6.1 million displaced within the region.[21] After the fall in 1975 of Portuguese colonial rule in Angola, which was particularly hard-hit, the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had collaborated with apartheid South Africa by providing money, logistical support and arms shipments to counter-revolutionary rebels attempting unsuccessfully to overthrow the new Angolan government headed by the Movement for the Popular Liberation of Angola (MPLA).[22] British government officials allowed the covert recruitment in Britain of mercenaries to support the American and South African-backed rebels.[23] In the eight year period of 1980 to 1988, Angola lost an estimated $1 billion in farm production and suffered over $17 billion in damages to infrastructure, including roads and buildings.[24] The situation for Angola improved, however, after the Cuito Cuanavale of 1988, as an international arms embargo against South Africa had contributed to a loss of their advantage.[25]
The author quotes books - they are Communist opinion pieces, the facts are 100% different:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozambique_civil_war
"The Mozambican Civil War began in 1977, two years after the end of the war of independence. The ruling party, Front for Liberation of Mozambique (FRELIMO) and the national armed forces FAM (Armed Forces of Mozambique), was violently opposed from 1977 by the Rhodesian- and (later) South African-funded Mozambique Resistance Movement (RENAMO). About 1 000 000 people died in fighting and from starvation, five million civilians were displaced[7][8], many were made amputees by landmines, a legacy from the war that continues to plague Mozambique."
Imagine there are colonial governments in Southern Africa. Millions of Soviet Communist rebels invade and overthrow the colonial governments. The destablisation comes from the invasion on the part of the Soviet Union, not on the part of the colonial governments. The Soviet Union planted 50 million IEDs in Angola, Mozambique, Zaire, Zimbabwbe. That is what really happened.
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angolan_Civil_War
"At the same time, it served as a surrogate battleground for the Cold War, due to heavy intervention by major opposing powers such as the Soviet Union and the United States."
The 27-year war can be divided roughly into three periods of major fighting – between 1975 and 1991, 1992 and 1994, and 1998 and 2002 – broken up by fragile periods of peace. By the time the MPLA finally achieved victory in 2002, an estimated 500,000 people had been killed and over one million internally displaced. The war devastated Angola's infrastructure, and dealt severe damage to the nation's public administration, economic enterprises, and religious institutions.[20]
"500,000 people had been killed and over one million internally displaced."
The South African army number 20,000 (1976) in that article - how can 20,000 kill 500,000? Also the author states: "profoundly disrupted by the aggression of apartheid South Africa, with 1.5 million dead". 20,000 white soldiers killing 1.5 million?
The Soviet Union armed millions with AK47s - they infilitrated towns and cities and started killing and terrorizing the civilian population. Angola and Mozambique has 50 million landmines ( IEDs ) - more than Afghanistan and Iraq combined. The destablizers was the USSR. Not the white South Africans. The incomes of the people dropped from $1000 to less than $200 per person. Their economies destroyed by a USSR invasion.
And he now wants to call the South African whites "terrorists". The South African whites invented MRAP:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRAP.
Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP;  /ˈɛmræp/ em-rap) vehicles are a family of armored fighting vehicles used by the United States armed forces. The design was led by the United States Marine Corps. The purpose of the design is surviving Improvised Explosive Device (IED) attacks and ambushes. It was prompted by US deaths in Iraq.[1] The first developments in armored vehicles designed specifically to counter the land mine threat took place during the 1972-1980 Rhodesian Bush War and the technology was subsequently matured in South Africa.[2]
Here is unedited page example from wiki itself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angola
Before independence in 1975, Angola was a breadbasket of southern Africa and a major exporter of bananas, coffee and sisal, but three decades of civil war (1975–2002) destroyed the fertile countryside, leaving it littered with landmines and driving millions into the cities. The country now depends on expensive food imports, mainly from South Africa and Portugal, while more than 90 percent of farming is done at family and subsistence level. Thousands of Angolan small-scale farmers are trapped in poverty.[40]
The civil war in Angola was between the USSR and the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angolan_Civil_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozambique_civil_war
There is not even a mention of white South African soldiers in the Mozambique civil war on that page. 1,000,000 dead. The author wants to place the blame of 1,000,000 dead on the shoulders of white soldiers. The Communists killed millions. The Mozambique flag has an AK47 on it.
The USSR started the Angolan Civil War, the Mozambique Civil War, the wars in the Congo, Zimbabwe, Zambia and millions died because the USSR funded terrorist guerrillas to invade and overthrow the colonial governments of those countries:
The Zimbabwe economy was destroyed, the Mozambique economy was destroyed, the Zambia economy was destroyed, the Angolan economy was destroyed, Zaire economy was destroyed: 
A Communist has edited the History of South Africa page to enhance Communist propaganda.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nasdaq7 (talk • contribs) 10:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: This is politics

message: Article has section on Cross-border raids, but more important full-scale invasion of Angola not mentioned. My edit changing section heading to "Invasion of Angola and cross-border raids" + addition of RS refs reverted by unknown editor/admin without edit history/summary or discussion. 41.162.131.130 (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invasion of Angola? 

message: User Amortias has reverted edits made by me. Below is copy of what I posted a while back on his/her talkpage, together with his/her response.
Pse provide proper rationale when reverting edits, as you've been reverting some of mine at History of SA page. Otherwise you're liable to be accused of vandalism or bad faith editing. Better yet, provide reliable sources to prove such sources exist per WP:Verify.
:Please see the article, I am currently moving through the sections tagged as citation needed and am either inserting appropriate references or removing the sections in question. Amortias (T)(C) 21:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Provide rationale when reverting edits 

message: User Dodger67 above has objected at  WikiProject South Africa talk page] to my recent editing of the History of SA article. He claims I am allegedly "on a mission to rewrite the article according to what (I) alone deem to be 'the truth'. " 
Dodger67 evidently fails to assume good faith as per WP:AGF. So, allow me to clarify: the edits at issue are not "my truth" but are based on reliable and verifiable sources. I understand that is how wikipedia works. I am not responsible for the particular way history has unfolded in SA. If any editor has reliable and verifiable sources that contradict the reliable and verifiable sources I've cited, then they are of course free to contribute such sources. That is also how wikipedia works, in the interests of neutrality and encyclopedic content.
Dodger67 further complains I have not invited anyone else to participate or discuss. So, this is a specific invitation for other interested editors to participate and discuss. There is plenty of room for good-faith improvements to the article, if anyone else has the time and inclination. 41.162.131.130 (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concern about  "truth" 

message: In the hope of possibly regaining GA status, the article has been nominated for collaborative improvement. 41.162.131.130 (talk) 11:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominated for improvement 

message: I was surprised that the HIV/AIDS epidemic and the elections of Thabo Mbeki and Jacob Zuma aren't mentioned in the "Post-apartheid era" section. -- Beland (talk) 22:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. 41.162.131.130 (talk) 11:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-apartheid era section missing major topics 

message: In my opinion, the section has become disproportionately long in comparison to preceding sections. This may possibly result in a chronological blurr of detail that tends to obscure or detract from pivotal historical events which, in their order of significance and occurrence, should properly shape and define the era as such. I might attempt to shorten and improve the section through revision, removing some OR etc. Discussion welcome. 41.162.131.130 (talk) 11:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: in my opinion, on the other hand, the discussion of the 19th century is very incoherent, broken up into too many subsections, and being treated in far too much detail. Some WP:SS work would be needed here. --dab (𒁳) 14:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  What exactly do you find "incoherent" (your word) about the 19th Century section? BTW, the section you're complaining about is not a "discussion" (sic). It is a reliably sourced summary . Discussions are on the talk page; article content is on the article page. I am not responsible for the distasteful manner in which pivotal SA history unfolded in the 19th Century. The section should remain unchanged. 41.162.131.130 (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-apartheid era section too long 

message: User Edward321 has removed an external link to an item titled South Africa and the Politics of Risk South Africa and the Politics of Risk. His edit summary] states: “trimmed link to book that does not meet Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources”. Edward321 is mistaken on two counts:
 
* The item in question is not a “book” but an essay or editorial opinion (op-ed). The reverting editor apparently deleted the link without actually examining the linked item. 
 
* The item is not a “source” but an external link. The relevant guideline is not WP:RS (reliable sources) but the policy rule on external links (WP:EL).
 
Even if the WP:RS guideline were to be (mis)applied, the section guideline within WP:RSwith specific regard to op-eds specifies “Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author,”
 
On the basis of the following justifications, I have reinstated the external link that was removed by Edward321:
 
* The reinstated link is to an op-ed or essay written and researched by South Africa author Stan Winer who has been described as a "Johannesburg journalist with 30 years experience reporting African affairs."Johannesburg journalist with 30 years experience reporting African affairs”, which signifies notability as a specialist.
 
* The op-ed or essay is neutral in that it is critical of both the leftwing and the rightwing of recent South African political history. Although the item is essentially an opinion piece, the text does provide a sufficient number of relevant citations to support the opinion expressed.
 
* The item has direct relevance to the History of South Africa article. The length, perspective and amount of detail in the item are not conducive to inclusion as a reference source in the already bloated apartheid or post-apartheid sections of the article.
 
*The op-ed or essay is published by www.coldtype.net, which is neither a fringe nor a “conspiracy” or a fly-by-night site.  According to its “About” page, Coldtype is an established monthly on-line magazine with editorial oversight. Formerly a tabloid newspaper imprint of the Thomson newspaper group, Coldtype has in been in existence for 13 years in its present online format According to web-presence monitoring sites such as Quantcast, Coldtype.net site receives a significant number of “hits”.
 
I propose the reinstated link be retained pending a compelling explanation from the reverting editor in terms of WP:REVEXP, together with community consensus as to whether or not the link should stay or go. 41.162.131.130 (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome back, Stan/Communicat. I've removed the links per WP:ADV Those wishing further insight into this can examine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World_War_II Habap (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not Stan Winer or Communicat. I don't know what you're talking about or how you arrive at that conclusion. 41.162.131.130 (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Having laboriously read the long and complicated arbitration record you've cited, I now have some understanding of your concern about author Stan Winer. I note from the arbitration record that Winer was banned not for unreliability or lack of intellectual integrity, but for civility or behavioral issues. His banning came after he filed a complaint alleging pro-Western bias at Wikipedia's military history project. I note from the main case talk page that the drafting arbitrator acknowledged there existed "a kernel of truth" in Winer's complaint to the arbitration panel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World_War_II  Interested readers may note from the related Main Case, Workshop and Evidence talk pages linked to the main arbitration page that, for some reason,  this "kernel of truth" was avoided by the arbitration panel. Two arbitrators recused themselves, and the complainant himself withdrew from the case after he was denied an extension of time to reply to all the allegations brought against him. The arbitration decision to ban him was made in his absence. 41.162.131.130 (talk) 12:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

text: I fail to see how the banning of Winer from participation in editing Wikipedia prevents his published work from being cited as a reliable reference source or external link. But, to avoid becoming bogged down in tiresome and unproductive bickering, I shall (with reluctance) concede the reversion. I reiterate that I am not Stan Winer or the banned user Communicat. 41.162.131.130 (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: He also misrepresented sources. He's unreliable. Either way, you ought to be able to find a reliable source to support your text unless Winer is the only person who advocates it. (Hohum @) 20:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are an authority on reliable sources about the history of South Africa, as your comment seems to suggest, perhaps you might consider contributing to the article some of your own reliably sourced content. 41.162.131.130 (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link removed, reinstated 

message: Please try to reduce detail of coverage on this page, and try to transfer content to the WP:SS sub-articles. 
The material on the 19th century is in the worst shape: Look at the amount of material on this page, compared to the state of the History of South Africa (1815–1910) page, where the actual discussion of the 19th century should take place. 
Surely, our aim should be to reduce the 19th-century material on this page into a well-written, coherent summary, and export the content now burdening this page to the main page. --dab (𒁳) 14:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with your assertion that the 19th century section is "burdening" the page. I suggest length and weight given to any historical period must be measured according to the occurrence and significance of historical events taking place in the particular period or epoch. The sub-sections on the Frontier wars, (including the Xhosa wars which are sometimes referred to in the literature as "the 100-year war"), contain a succinct summary of those wars which were important albeit often overlooked events in the formative history of SA. Moreover, the 19th Century section carries no more weight than the subsequent sections dealing with the 20th Century period, which you do not consider to be any burden to the page. 41.162.131.130 (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Re WP:SS Separate to the above, the long Article contains an apparently off-topic section on Historiography (of South Africa). The article topic is History of South Africa, not the different (and academically hotly-debated) Historiography of SA. I suggest therefor that the latter (off-topic) section be removed and re-developed into a separate and comprehensive article. 41.162.131.130 (talk) 12:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:SS]]!

message: I'm removing from this already over-long article the section titled "Historiography" and its sub-section "Liberation historiography", for the following reasons:
* It is off-topic. Historiography is an academic field of theoretical study, not history as such. The article topic is the History of South Africa, not the historiography of SA, which is a large and separate topic that should form a separate but linked article. 
* The sub-section tile "Liberation historiography" is misleading. There is no such generally accepted thing as South African liberation historiography. The term "Liberation historiography" was coined by the American writer John Ernest who demonstrated that African Americans created a body of writing in which the spiritual, the historical, and the political are inextricably connected. It has nothing to do with either the history or the historiography of SA.
* The subject of SA historiography is currently a contentious area of academic endeavour with sharply differing points of view, which are not included in the article section at issue. The section therefore does not conform with WP:NPOV.
Please discuss if necessary. 41.162.131.130 (talk) 14:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historiography vs History 

message: Do we really need to use the Charles Bell painting, which is reproduced in the section 'Dutch at the Cape'?
There are three reasons I propose we use another image instead:
a) It is not a historical image. The Charles Bell painting was made during the 19th century, some two centuries after the events it depicts occurred. This makes its use anachronistic.
 
b) It is not a neutral image. The painting arguably represents a colonialist view of South Africa, and could possibly be regarded as a kind of colonialist propaganda.
c) There are plenty of alternative images of the VOC Cape which were created during the actual company period. Many of these are free of copyright and available online, for example the Rijksmuseum's website. 
14:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charles Bell Painting 

message: This passage seems to slant anti-Waterboer, but I'm not sure how to edit it to make it more neutral. It doesn't help that the relevant sentence is citing a source that I don't have access to right at the moment. (I've nerfed the ref tag here so we don't get a Reference section here on the Talk page.) Might also be a good idea to briefly mention Stafford Parker and the Diggers here. Any ideas how to fix this? 75.134.32.147 (talk) 05:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Griqula people

message: This sentence was at the end of the "Frontier Wars" intro section. It is referenced, so I didn't feel comfortable straight-up deleting it. But it seems like it's hiding behind a quoted authority to call the tribal societies "backward." I've commented out this sentence for now, but it probably needs to be taken care of in a more formal way.
In a not unrelated note, ClueBot has rolled back my edits on the article as suspected vandalism. I'm not feeling up to creating a login, so could some kind and civic-minded soul unroll back my edits? If you decide that these edits are appropriate, of course :) 75.134.32.147 (talk) 06:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Frontier Wars

message: It was alleged that sections of History of South Africa#The First Anglo-Boer War were copied and pasted from this source:  (as captured on 29 November 2010). In particular, the following text appears on that site, the contemporaneous version of the article (26 November 2010) and on the first version of the article to include the copy-paste tag (18 September 2016):
:Long-standing Boer resentment turned into full-blown rebellion in the Transvaal (under British control from 1877), and the first Anglo-Boer War, known to Afrikaners as the "War of Independence", broke out in 1880. The conflict ended almost as soon as it began with a crushing Boer victory at Battle of Majuba Hill February 27, 1881.  The republic regained its independence as the Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek ("South African Republic"), or ZAR.  Paul Kruger, one of the leaders of the uprising, became President of the ZAR in 1883. Meanwhile, the British, who viewed their defeat at Majuba as an aberration, forged ahead with their desire to federate the Southern African colonies and republics. They saw this as the best way to come to terms with the fact of a white Afrikaner majority, as well as to promote their larger strategic interests in the area.
I believe that the source was in fact copying Wikipedia. I hesitate to consider a fringe white-nationalist website a "mainstream" source, so I don't think  is appropriate. Here is my reasoning: the language in question first appeared on Wikipedia in 2005. Notice that the language as first written in Wikipedia contains some minor discrepancies with the language that appears on the site: "known to Afrikaners as" vs. "known by Afrikaners as", for instance. But the site closely matches the language as of the Internet Archive capture.
I think it is far more likely that the writer at the external website copied from Wikipedia around 2010. The alternative, that an editor in 2005 copied text from a website that wouldn't appear on Internet Archive for five years, but edited the language slightly, only to have the language perfectly match the site later, is hard to believe. Wikiacc (¶) 06:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegations of copying and pasting 

message: be more selective in what you include in the See also in sections. That's quite uncharacteristic of Wikipedia articles, and it's also very difficult to read or make sense of. Try to stick to two, three, four, not dozens of suggestions. AWildAppeared (talk) 08:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many See alsos 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on History of South Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110420053808/http://www.africandna.com/ScienPapers%5CHistory_of_Click-Speaking_Populations_of_Africa.pdf to http://www.africandna.com/ScienPapers%5CHistory_of_Click-Speaking_Populations_of_Africa.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140113052634/http://www.wim-sa.org/about-the-san/who-are-the-san to http://www.wim-sa.org/about-the-san/who-are-the-san
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110421002356/http://info.goldavenue.com/Info_site/in_arts/in_civ/in_rush_safrica.html to http://info.goldavenue.com/Info_site/in_arts/in_civ/in_rush_safrica.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304191439/http://sun025.sun.ac.za/portal/page/portal/Arts/Departemente1/geskiedenis/docs/coming_to_terms_with_past_present.pdf to http://sun025.sun.ac.za/portal/page/portal/Arts/Departemente1/geskiedenis/docs/coming_to_terms_with_past_present.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.sajewishreport.co.za/pdf/latest_issue/NJWED00323.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150714001451/http://www.anc.org.za/show.php?id=172 to http://www.anc.org.za/show.php?id=172
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629074215/http://www.anc.org.za/show.php?id=72 to http://www.anc.org.za/show.php?id=72
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070621043856/http://www.villagelife.co.za/NewFiles/15_hromnik.pdf to http://www.villagelife.co.za/NewFiles/15_hromnik.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050414045450/http://www.afrikanerbond.org.za/Dokideal.pdf to http://www.afrikanerbond.org.za/Dokideal.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: QU0TE: Over the next 50 years, 150,000 more indentured Indian servants and labourers arrived, as well as numerous free "passenger Indians," building the base for what would become the largest Indian community outside India. END OF QUOTE
The above statement needs to have some more information. Like from which location in the subcontinent were these slaves from. For there was no single India as such then, other than a lot of mutually unconnected regions and populations in the subcontinent. It is seen mentioned in Native Life in Travancore that many slaves populations of the region did escape from their slavery under the native landlords by shifting to work in English and European plantations. Some of them after did also move to other British colonies. They had been indentured slaves in Travancore. However their move to South Africa might not be as slaves but as liberated slaves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:d403:19c5:c01:f8a7:f34e:5f7f (talk) 14:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slaves from India?  

message: I've reverted the change an anon made to the article that consisted of them changing Boer -> Borean as the individual articles seemed to be about vastly different things. Sakura CarteletTalk 21:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion