Talk:Sharpeville massacre

message: Recently I removed a number of "See Also" links but this was reverted by Nishidani with the comment "If RS provide an analogy between the event and similar events elsewhere, as certainly they do with the Gaza massacre, then these are properly listed in the see also section". I don't see that a WP:RS comparing another event to Sharpeville necessarily makes it appropriate to include the event in this See Also list. There have been hundreds of massacres of protestors by security forces around the world. The list could easily get out of hand if the inclusion criteria are too broad. Zaian (talk) 09:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The obvious compromise is that one removes all of those see also links that are not based on dirtect analogies made in the press. One survives, the Palestinian example. Nishidani (talk) 10:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree _somewhat_. Plenty of them have had similar analogies made (e.g. Marikana) but I don't think an analogy being made is sufficient for inclusion. Zaian (talk) 18:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

text: Why then, in your view, is a documented comparison insufficient to warrant inclusion in a 'see also' section? In short, I grasp your opinion, but you've given no reason for it. Nishidani (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm saying a RS is necessary but not sufficient. Clearly we are not obliged to include something in Wikipedia simply because it appears in a source somewhere - we have to weigh up each case. Is the reference notable - in the case of a comparison between an event and Sharpeville, who made the comparison and in what context? Are there multiple references or is it just one? WP:SEEALSO gives some guidance but it's fairly open to interpretation. Zaian (talk) 09:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "See also" list 

message: , I have reverted your revision based on this comment raising a concern about original research. It may be possible to resolve the WP:OR concerns (e.g. since the research has been reported in other independent sources), but it is not ideal for authors of new research to make fundamental changes to an article in this way. I agree with 's request that you should propose changes to the article on this talk page and for these to be discussed here by independent editors. Zaian (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comment. I agree it is not ideal for an author of new research to make fundamental changes, but given that much of the material on the Sharpeville Massacre page includes information that hasn't been researched since the massacre (under the apartheid government such discussion was part of the banned area of speech, especially in the Sharpeville community), it seemed appropriate in this case, especially since our research has entailed extended work in official documents that have never been accessible until the end of apartheid, and even then no researcher had examined them -- the official documentation of numbers of victims etc. etc. As you note our research has also been published in other reputable places -- The Conversation, Daily Maverick, Sunday Times etc. Our research also enabled us to recreate a neighborhood by neighborhood, minute by minute recreation of what exactly happened on 21 March 1960, and this research was based on a close reading of the 6000 pages of testimonies presented by eyewitnesses, Sharpeville residents and police officers alike, as well as other officials such as senior police officers. This material was microfilmed in the early 1960s but has never been closely examined until we had it digitised by UCLA and made available publicly in a much more reader friendly format. Since our research covers a whole range of relevant aspects of the Sharpeville Massacre -- i.e. the origins of the township back to the 19th century, history of the community up to 20 March 1960, and the aftermath to around 1966 and the UN's declarations -- some advice would be appreciated re how to move forward. All the new details are fully documented -- i.e. extensive endnoting -- in Voices of Sharpeville, so feedback on adequate citations would be appreciated. Thanks. Bill Worger Wworger (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research by Clark and Worger and updated death toll 

message: In 1961, South Africa passed a law retroactive from the date of the Massacre to the passing of the act that protected police/government employees and the government itself from being held responsible for their acts in that period of time. I think this could be incorporated in the article but I don't have a good secondary source for this - if you google it you get a wikipedia page and Encylopedia Britannica. EB incorrectly describes the act as giving broad indemnity to all police actions (when it is clearly meant to protect the Sharpeville massacre). The wikipedia page on this  is somewhat of a stub and doesn't have a lot of sources either. Is there enough to justify including a statement on this page, perhaps in the Response section, "the government passed the Indemnity Act of 1961 to the effect of..."? I've never made a substantial edit before. BishopsHouseofHorrors (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indemnity Act of 1961