Talk:Bantustan

message: Please note: The first paragraph of this entry has been tampered with by a white racist who is as poor in basic writing skills as he is biased. Someone from Wikipedia should clean up that section as soon as possible. Thank you. (--202.156.13.11 (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: Please explain the relationship between American Indian reservations and Bantustans in more detail.  The statement that the correlation is erroneous requires more explanation and a source. --65.44.114.33 (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "...although the parallel is not exact."

message: Where does the -stan come from? Is it just an analogy with Pakistan, Afghanistan,...? -- Error 01:55, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: -stan

message: The article says of the Bantustans "However, none of them received recognition from the outside world".
I've heard accusations that certain nations (including Israel and Taiwan) granted diplomatic recognition to the Bantustans. Does anyone have reliable sources on this matter? Andjam 15:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that Israel and Taiwan had trade relations with at least one of the Bantustans, Bophuthatswana, which was allowed to open a trade office in Tel Aviv - but this didn't constitute diplomatic recognition. -- ChrisO 18:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diplomatic recognition 

message: I'm going to re-revert this. Botswana is often confused with Bophutatswana, and was also historically associated with Lesotho and Swaziland. Please argue here if you feel strongly about it. Thanks Guinnog 00:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's more misleading to include Botswana in the list. It's a neighbouring country, not an enclave. -- ChrisO 00:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Historically it's been just as dependent on SA over the years. Plus the connon confusion above. Guinnog 00:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Botswana 

message: The article from the Spanish wiki is great. Perhaps someone that speaks Spanish well can translate parts of it and expand this one.
:: Hmmm ... Actually, I was the major editor of that article (es:Bantustán). I could try doing what you suggest. Anagnorisis 05:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spanish article

message: User:Jayjg has objected to the statement that outside of SA, the term "has most often been used in relation to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict". Here's a quick way of verifying that. Googling for the term "Bantustan" returns 162,000 results. "Bantustan -"South Africa"" produces 87,800 results. "Bantustan israel OR israeli" produces 73,800 results. "bantustan "south africa" israel OR israeli" produces 31,200 results. Therefore:
* About 50% of all references to "Bantustan" found by Google relate to South Africa
* About 20% of all references to "Bantustan" relate to both South Africa and Israel
* About 40% of all references to "Bantustan" relate to Israel alone.
I think on that basis it's safe to say that the most common use in a non-South African context relates to Israel. Again, you might not agree with this being fair, but as a fact it's easily provable. -- ChrisO 07:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's ignore the fact that Google usage can often be irrelevant to Wikipedia (since Google tends to find mostly unreliable sources), and focus on the more important issue.  What you are saying is that you did some original research, based on some Google searches, and came to the conclusion that the term was "most often" and "frequently" used in relation to Israel.  That's an interesting "previously unpublished theory, data, statement, concept, argument, or idea"; it may even be true.  However, it is a classic example of original research, which is forbidden by Wikipedia policy.  Please find some reliable source which makes this claim or argument, as we can't go about verifying this with the footnote "According to some Google searches done by Wikipedia editor ChrisO". Jayjg (talk) 14:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Frequently" seems fair on the basis of the Google argument, which I know isn't perfect. --Guinnog 15:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except for the fact that it is original research. Jayjg (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've missed an important point. The output of a database such as Google (or any other database for that matter) isn't original research on my part. It's not me who's totting up the number of hits - it's Google. Nor is it me who's publishing the number of hits - it's Google again. The only reliable source on the number of hits in Google's database is Google itself. And of course the information is verifiable, as anyone can do a Google search using the same queries. WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NOR are thus amply met. -- ChrisO 18:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you have missed the point.  You've used a dubious tool to do some research, and based on that research come up with a previously unpublished idea, that the term "bantustan" is used "most often" in relation to Israel.  That is precisely what WP:NOR prohibits. Please find a reliable source which has published this idea. Jayjg (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Chris, it's definitely OR to say "most often" and "frequently," because without a source, it's a Wikipedia editor's opinion based on looking at one search engine. You would need to find an authoritative source who actually made that claim, and then quote him or her. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll accept your point on "most often", for the sake of agreement - I don't think it's worth splitting hairs over it. However, I do think we need to note - somewhere, somehow - that the comparison has often been made. Leaving the "often" out implies that the term has been used equally often with regard to Canada, Yugoslavia, Hawaii etc. which doesn't appear to be the case. As it happens, I should be able to do a Lexis-Nexis check tomorrow to get some firmer data and hopefully some authoritative quotes. -- ChrisO 20:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again "Often" would be OR since you have not provided an actual source that states the comparison "has often been made", you may say it is common sense because of the google search, but that would be almost as bad as me suggesting it is common sense that it is not because I have never heard anyone say it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I said I would try to find an authoritative quote. -- ChrisO 20:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So now we have several instances of non-SA, non-Israeli mentions of bantustan supported by one reference each, compared to 73,000 mentions wrt Israel, but only two of those are referenced here.  I think we have policies about not giving equal weight to beliefs of large numbers  vs one or two people. Obviously the intent is to insinuate that Israel is just like Canada in this respect. So I will delete all the non-Israel ones unless someone can show that they sufficiently numerically significant to satisfy the "appropriate weight" rule. Fourtildas 06:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Most often"

message: (comment from banned editor remove)
:You always have the option of abiding by Wikipedia policies, including WP:NPA, which you have violated several times in the comment above. Pecher Talk 14:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments from banned editor  

message: Is Bantustan the correct and official term. I'm getting the impression that this is kind of loaded language by ANC propagandists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.25.255.246 (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely not. It is a pejorative term used by critics of Apartheid. The official term was "Homeland". I was wondering why this term is used as the article's title. Does WP policy allow pejoratives to be used as "official" titles of articles? Would changing the title of the main article on, for example, Canada to "Canuckistan" be acceptable? Roger (talk) 14:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well not all of the "bantustans" were for Bantu peoples anyway; consider Bushmanland and Namaland.A Werewolf (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes, I wondered about that myself.  So is it appropriate to use the term Bantustan for the Namibian homelands, since some of these people were not Bantus but e.g. Khoikhoi? PatGallacher (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

text:  The usage for anything else than a propaganda reference is NOT encyclopedic. The term "Bantustan" is also racially demeaning and in all inappropriate. Homeland is the officially term and should be the heading. That "bantustan" was used in propaganda can of course be included. --105.8.5.32 (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct official Term? 

message: I have never seen two maps of South Africa's bantustans that agree with each other. One might add a bubble of territory, while another might delete that. The first might show the Maputaland between Swaziland and Mozambique as part of KwaZulu, while the second could show it as part of KaNgwane. This is particularly troublesome in light of the fact that the borders of these places probably changed many times during their existence. Does anyone have any definitive answers to this problem?
206.116.221.68 (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that the best choice would be the situation as it existed between 2 February 1990 and 27 April 1994. On the first date the abolition of apartheid was anounced, on the second the homelands ceased to exist. Between these dates there were no changes to the boundaries of the territories. Then we try to find or create a map for that period. Roger (talk) 14:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An accurate map? 

message: The section on international recognition was removed from the article on South Africa under apartheid. It should either be removed from both articles or restored. I thought there might be some expert opinion here on the matter. Please weigh in on the discussion there. futurebird (talk) 15:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: International recognition section

message: The article is clearly written by someone with the standard "apartheid was the worst thing ever" POV, as evinced by statements like "But this goal was not achieved. Only about 55% of South Africa's population lived in the Bantustans; the remainder lived in South Africa proper, many in townships, shanty-towns and slums on the outskirts of South African cities."
55% of South Africa's population which would have been 100% black would mean that 75% of black South Africans lived in the Bantustans- shouldn't this be noted, and therefore the policy of Apartheid noted as having nearly succeeded in establishing the black South Africans in their own polities?
"South Africa's black population was subjected to a massive programme of forced relocation." How convenient there is no citation, nor is there mention of the fact that the vast majority of those people had lived in South Africa proper for maybe a generation or two since the entire black population of South Africa was heavily concentrated in the former Bantu reservations for most of the early 20th century
"The government made clear that its ultimate aim was the total removal of the black population from South Africa." If the majority of Bantus already lived in the Bantustans, and most were "removed" from South Africa by expanding the Bantustans to include black majority areas outside the existing reservations then "removal" seems like the wrong word to use and is clearly used as part of another smear on the government of the Apartheid era.
Certainly we are under an obligation not to lionize a specific government, but Wikipedia is supposed to maintain a scholarly air and avoid demonization of a specific government as well. Even more so when the demonization is both painfully obvious and is based on twisting words "55% of the population" which would translate to 75% or so of blacks is one very obvious example of twisting things around.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.72.141 (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV is not here

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bantustan. 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/20121203213119/http://autocww2.colorado.edu/~blackmon/E64ContentFiles/AfricanHistory/Bantustans.html to http://autocww2.colorado.edu/~blackmon/E64ContentFiles/AfricanHistory/Bantustans.html
*Added  tag to http://about-south-africa.com/html/bantustan.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It is flabbergasting that there isn't a SINGLE FUCKING MENTION on this page that the apartheid system was imported directly by Britain from Canada. Just swap "Indian reserve" for "Bantustan" and you're there! 70.48.112.199 (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The *actual* Canada connection... 

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) 17:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: I'm concerned that large portions of this article fail to comply with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy and/or contain insufficient sourcing/verification.  In particular, the "Life in the Bantunstans" and "Later Developments" make some pretty significant claims and don't seem to have much in the way of citations to back them up.  I am adding some tags to the page to flag these issues and I hope someone with knowledge of these topics can improve the article.
DocFreeman24 (talk) 07:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point of View Issues and Lack of Sources