Talk:Apartheid/Archive 4

message: As there seems to be no ongoing meaningful discussion here, I'm unprotecting. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (Copy of email sent) Your unprotecting of apartheid has unleashed the same user who keeps on adding and re-adding his POV to the article, against concensus.  Since the 3RR doesn't seem to be enforced anymore, can you please protect the article again after it has been reverted to what is the community concensus? Dewet 14:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the email.  The gist of my reply is that at least the article can now be edited (which wasn't the case while it was protected).  I don't normally block for 3RR but this chap is going absolutely bonkers, so I'm giving him a final warning now and will block if he reverts again.  --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Anon (or is it AmYisrael now?), when you could have made a constructive effort to make a case for your changes, you instead chose to tire everyone out with your constant bickering.  You don't have any standing with which you will convince me of your good intent now, and I'm sure that a number of the other editors here share my view. Dewet 21:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotecting

message: According to many observers, the South African Jewish Community had become by the end of the First World War, the wealthiest Jewish community in the world on a per capita basis. Nor was the "size" of the Jewish minority, as Rabbi Dr. Andre Ungar observed, a true reflection of the position of the Jews in South African life: "it would be a grievous mistake to underestimate the significance of the Jewish minority.  Even purely numerically speaking, under the absurd rules of South African arithmetic, the size of the Jewish population constitutes a factor necessary to reckon with...in the two main cities, Johannesburg and Cape Town, the Jews constitute one-tenth of the citizens "that count": the Whites." "The Abdication of a Community" Africa South, III (January-March 1959), pp. 29-30AmYisrael 00:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Jews as part of White Ruling Class in South Africa

message: Slimvirgin's decision to protect the article again would normally be good, I think, but I sense that the situation is now much calmer than it has been recently.  I want to give you all a chance to work this out without edit warring, and that means trusting you all to make the right decisions without Big Brother looking over your shoulder.  For that reason I took the unusual step of reversing Slimvirgin's protection of this article.  I do not take Amyisrael's last revert as evidence of bad faith--his stated reason seems to suggest a willingness to discuss.  However if the edit war resume to any great extent then protection would again be in order.  I hope we don't have to do that because it makes dialog much more difficult. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 11 editors have tried to explain to AmYisrael and his various sockpuppets and IPs why his proposed inclusion is misleading, with no apparent effect.  I like your optimism, but I don't share it. Jayjg (talk) 21:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, trivia is usually true, but still doesn't belong in the article.  Until you can convince the 11 other editors that the information is significant, it won't stay. Jayjg (talk) 20:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not a pessimist, I'm a well-informed optimist. What? :) El_C 23:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: An optimist says this is the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist agrees. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:16, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of an unusual unprotect

message: I am proposing chopping up these two articles and making three articles out of them: an article about history before apartheid, an article about apartheid and the history of South Africa during the apartheid era, and an article about the history of South Africa after the end of apartheid. This would entail merging the apartheid material from the two articles, so this article would be drastically transformed. Please discuss this on Talk:History of South Africa, not here, since we need to have a single place to discuss it, and this talk page currently appears to be dysfunctional due to the revert war.--Bcrowell 21:46, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rearranging [[History of South Africa]] and [[Apartheid]] articles

message: Looking back on the history, the following editors have opposed the unilateral attempts of our multiple IP/sockpuppet editor to include the POV-pushing trivia: User:Anilocra, User:Dewet, User:El C, User:Humus sapiens, User:Impi, User:Jayjg, User:Jpgordon, User:PrinceMarko, User:SlimVirgin, User:Tony Sidaway, User:Weyes  That makes 11, if I have that correct, please let me know if I've added one incorrectly or missed one. Jayjg (talk) 20:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, your "Ad hominem attacks" and "team-reverts" using anonymous IPs and sockpuppets have not suceeded in destabilizing this article.  More importantly, you keep ignoring the issue; it's not about whether or not its true, or whether this is a "paper" encyclopedia, but whether or not it's relevant.  This is an encyclopedia article, not a giant trivia dump. Jayjg (talk) 21:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You still don't get it; just because something is true doesn't mean it deserves to be mentioned in an encyclopedia article.  Bill Clinton wears size 13 shoes, the largest of any American President, but it's not in the Bill Clinton article.  You know why?  Because even though it's true, it's still trivia.  Trivia is not history. Jayjg (talk) 15:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who has reverted or opposed our anon POVer so far? 

message: I've protected the page on the last version by Jayjg because of the reverts, and possibly a 3RR violation, by an anon IP and a new user account. When any of the regular editors wants to start editing again, let me know and I'll unlock it. If I'm not around, ask any other admin, or post a request to Wikipedia:Requests for protection. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 20:46, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, we can see that Jayjg has violated the 3R Rule.  Have a great day,69.221.63.132 21:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL!  Show me the diffs. Jayjg (talk) 21:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protected

message: "South Africa was settled initially by the Dutch, Germans and French from the 17th century onwards. English, other European settlers, and Diaspora Jews followed in the 19th century.  As was typically the case in the African colonies, the European settlers dominated the indigenous population through military, political, and economic control of the land and wealth."   This statement is true, and it therefore should not be deleted.
:You still don't get it; just because something is true doesn't mean it deserves to be mentioned in an encyclopedia article.  Bill Clinton wears size 13 shoes, the largest of any American President, but it's not in the Bill Clinton article.  You know why?  Because even though it's true, it's still trivia.  Trivia is not history. Jayjg (talk) 15:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement is Accurate

message: I would first like to explain that the anonymous editor solicited my attention on my talk page, because I am listed at m:Association_of_Inclusionist_Wikipedians. Second, I would like to commend both Jayg and the anonymous editor for not descending into total absurdity as they debate their points, using references and making cogent arguments.
About the argument: I am not qualified to say whether the inclusion of references to Jewish settlers who did not oppose apartheid is strictly relevent; it certainly seems superfluous. It may be factually true, and is ostensibly providing more information, but this does not qualify it for inclusion into an article about apartheid. This does not explicitly exclude it from the article, but so often on wikipedia are there claims of pro-Jewish propaganda that I am inclined to think the anonymous editor is being disingenuous and, as Jayg said, "pushing a POV." However, a quick glance at Jayg's edit history and talk page reveals that he/she edits many a page related to Judaism, perhaps provoking the anonymous editor's suspicions.
The argument itself is not one of inclusionism versus deletionism, or trivia versus history, it is about maintaining both neutrality and usefulness. If we were to include every ethnicity and religion of settlers of South Africa, the article would be staggeringly overblown, and make retreiving useful information a nightmare. To say that South Africa was simply settled would again be useless. To include relevant information about the background of settlers is to acheive usefulness, but to include disingenuous information or exclude relevant information is to unbalance the neutrality of the article. Because this is such a fine line, no one editor should tread it alone. Hence we have talk pages and community consensus.
In this particular case, Jayg was appointed an administrator because he tends to make reasonable decisions, according to the WP community (or cabal, as some would have it). Also, other editors have supported him in this argument, and so do I. Therefore, the community decision is to exclude the information about Jewish settlers on this page. This edit war should never have gone on this long, and I hope that the anonymous editor will let the community decide and focus his/her efforts on other, more productive projects on WP. 
So my recommendation to both Jayg and the anonymous editor is to take a break from this page and let those not so personally involved make educated decisions about neutrality. I once again commend both of you for your hard work and patience, and your dedication to your causes. But remind yourselves that editing should be fun, not pain. Wikipedia is outrageously fun, and edit wars are lame. If this continues, it may end up on WP:LAME, and nobody wants that. Two words, after all, should not be that important to either party. Sorry for the length. I hope this helps. - Matthew Cieplak (talk) (edits) 05:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Matthew, thank you.  I thank you for your level-headed approach to this.  However, this has been exactly what I've been trying to convey in my previous reasonings here — albeit not so eloquently, maybe — but which seems to have just fallen on deaf ears.  You can take a look at the history of this page — the amount of arguments here must be spanning over 200k so far, and shows no sign of abating.  It boggles the mind how such a silly thing can be so vehemently fought for.  I support your reasoning 100%. Dewet 05:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unofficial arbitration. 

message: As a late addition, I see that this war has now been taken to the South Africa article as well.  Our anon editor is not displaying good intentions by clearly violating not only Wikipedia procedures, but trampling the community and its concensus.  I suspect that for this reason alone, he will be opposed at every change he/she makes, simply because of this hard-headed attitude he/she is presenting. Dewet 06:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This must be stopped, it is even overflowing into the Johannesburg article (see 62.49.18.152 edits) --Jcw69 13:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 69.217.123.174, please tell us whether you are the same person who did the edit to the Johannesburg article from IP address 62.49.18.152, at 15:51, 21 Jun 2005. That edit, inserting text about "Jewhannesburg," is clearly anti-semitic. Also, please tell us whether you are the same person who did the edit to the South Africa article from 84.159.235.142, at 12:23, 22 Jun 2005, which was a clear case of vandalism, inserting "fuck you" into the article.--Bcrowell 15:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Africa being dragged into this as well now 

message: Someone is posting and making random edits in a negative fashion to try to sway the discussion away from the facts and matter at hand.  Please do not fall for for edit/hate hoaxes.  Can they be traced directly to any of the Deletionists from this discussion, that might have logged off and posted using an IP address?  I'd like to know, if at all possible.  What is the IP address associated with Jayjg?  An Admninstrator might look.  Thanks.69.217.123.174 15:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance) to ask for advice about how to handle the situation. 69.217.123.174, if you want to protect yourself against having other people make bad edits in an attempt to discredit you, then the obvious solution would be to create an account and start using it for all your edits. --Bcrowell 15:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: It's not reasonable for you to expect other people to try to judge based on IP addresses whether a particular edit was done by you or not. You've used lots of IP addresses over the course of this dispute, presumably because your ISP assigns them dynamically. Other people aren't going to try to guess what degree of similarity indicates that they're really you.--Bcrowell 16:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Please do not make personal attacks. We're discussing issues, not personalities. --Bcrowell 17:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I have not attacked you personally. Regarding the edit to the History of South Africa article, it's not reasonable for you to expect other people to determine which anonymous edits are yours based on the contents of the edits. If you used an account, then you would have an edit history, and you would start to build a reputation in the wikipedia community; people would know which edits were yours, and they would be able to form a realistic picture of where you were coming from. Again, if you're upset that other people's edits are being imputed to you, the solution is easy: get an account.--Bcrowell 17:14, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Bcrowell didn't attack you, he asked if the editor was you.  You know, similar to the way you insinuated it was me.  It seems to me that if you don't want people to "make accusations", you shouldn't be doing the same yourself. Jayjg (talk) 18:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoax Edits 

message: PS  Regarding edits on Wikipedia, Bcrowell, paraphrasing your words, you are implying that one must have 1) a user account, 2) a reputation, 3) be a part of the Wikipedia community (however defined), and 4) have established a realistic picture of oneself to others, and 5) be easily identifiable as to "where one is coming from". I am sorry but that is pure BS.  An editor does not need the 5 items listed above.  The focus is the edit itself, not ad hominem nonsense.  It's a shame that my two-word edit, factually correct and true, for some has been perceived unworthy not based on its own merits, but based on self-righteous ad hominem bias such as requiring an editor have a made-up user account name, etc.
As you may have forgotten: Wikipedia is open for anyone to edit, you don't need a user account, etc. etc.  Kindly reread what I had to post for Jpgordon a couple of times already. []
* "Wikipedia is the the free-content encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit. Wikipedia is a WikiWiki, which means that anyone can easily edit any unprotected article and have those changes posted immediately to that page. EVERYONE can edit pages in Wikipedia — even this page! Just click the edit this page link at the top of any page (except for protected pages) if you think it needs any improvement or new information."
* "You don't need anything special; you don't even need to be logged in. We (on Wikipedia) don't individually try to "own" the additions we make to Wikipedia. We are working together on statements of what is known (what constitutes free human knowledge) about various subjects. Each of us individually benefits from this arrangement. It is difficult to single-handedly write the perfect article, but it becomes easier when working together. That in fact has been our repeated experience on Wikipedia."
* Systemic bias  "Wikipedia coverage is heavily biased by the sorts of people who want to contribute to it. This seems to be a perfectly legitimate concern. Certainly, Wikipedia coverage is patchy. It's easy to find examples of a really long article on one subject, whereas another, equally important subject, has a very short article. Sometimes this is just the result of a single enthusiastic contributor. Other times it is due to systemic bias."
* Editability   "Wikipedia articles are extremely easy to edit. ANYONE can click the "edit" link and edit an article. Peer review per se is not necessary and is actually a bit of a pain to deal with. We prefer (in most cases) that people just go in and make changes they deem necessary. This is very efficient; our efforts seem more constructive than those on similar projects (not to mention any names). Wikipedia is open content, released under the GNU Free Documentation License. Knowing this encourages people to contribute; they know it's a public project that everyone can use."    Cheers!!  69.217.123.174 18:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ad hominem bias

message: the list is: Dutch, Germans, French, English, Diaspora Jews, and other European Settlers? How can any of these groups be listed with others removed without claiming bias? They were all considered "White" and profited under the apartheid system. That's being factual, unbiased, and inclusive, right?  69.221.60.181 21:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Inclusion Issue--The List:  Dutch, Germans, French, English, Jews, and European Settlers

message: Looking back on the history, the following editors have opposed the unilateral attempts of our multiple IP/sockpuppet editor to include the POV-pushing trivia: User:Anilocra, User:Dewet, User:Dystopos, User:El C, User:Humus sapiens, User:Impi, User:Jayjg, User:Jpgordon, User:Matthewcieplak, User:PrinceMarko, User:SlimVirgin, User:Tony Sidaway, Tuf-Kat, User:Weyes, User:WhatDoesKoshDoAllDay,   That makes 15, if I have that correct, please let me know if I've added one incorrectly or missed one. Jayjg (talk) 21:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I didn't see an answer there; please respond. Thx. Jayjg (talk) 22:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Pretty low, actually, but I have banned all of your sockpuppets. I haven't blocked your User:JeremiahP account yet, since you haven't used that one for edit warring.  Why don't you use that account to comment on this page, rather than all these anonymous IPs?  Since you have had this account for a couple of weeks now, wouldn't it make sense to use it? Jayjg (talk) 21:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Use your User:JeremiahP account please in the future, thanks. Jayjg (talk) 21:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who has reverted or opposed our anon POVer so far? 

message: BACK TO THE ISSUE AT HAND
Are the French and Germans trivial?  Should they be deleted?  I do not think deletions ought to be the prevailing policy.  What is the point of Wikipedia if it sticks to traditional orthodoxy and does not progress?  Wikipedia has room to include: "French, Germans, European Settlers, and diaspora Jews" as notable groups that settled in S. Africa.  The inclusion does not blame the French or the Germans or the Jews for Apartheid, so let's not see spam with that one again.69.221.60.181 16:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Inclusion Issue(2)--The List:  Dutch, Germans, French, English, Jews, and European Settlers

message: Well, its been thoroughly amusing, and I'd like to summarise everything happening up to thus far in closing:
* Anon: You have not proved your point at all.  You have quoted references like the Jewish Virtual Museum and expect us to take that at face value.  You bandy around the same tired phrases such as "revisionist", "deletionist", "ad hominem" (do you even understand what that means?), as well as your claims of everyone in the world ganging up against you.  When I responded to you nearly a month ago, I asked you to cite credible references and act civil;  the burder of proof lies on your shoulders, but you have done neither:  you have repeatedly used sockpuppets, violated the 3RR, and acted disruptive in general.  You have no indication of acting in good faith, which makes me and the other editors here view everything you say in a negative way.  Accept the fact that you will continue to have an uphill struggle here simply because you refuse to play by the rules.
* Jpgordon, Jayjg, and others: You have debated this matter valiantly, but I wish to leave you with a bit of advice in the form of the image to the right.
This is absolutely the last time I have chimed in on this increasingly silly matter.  Dewet 19:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dewet, I couldn't have said it better myself.--Bcrowell 16:05, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  STOP THE MADNESS! 

message: *"South African German" -- 699
*"South African French -- 726
*"South African Jewish" -- 9,090  (Trivial?)
This section is about Google hits, so please no ad hominem attacks (Wikipedia:No personal attacks), they will not be responded to.69.221.60.181 19:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read the archives of discussion on this particular article, you'll see that most of the discussion is about the Jews. Is there any factual base for this? Not really. But unfortunately (for WP), there is a noisy fringe, eager to use it as a soapbox and push their pathetic POV, which in this case happens to be blame the Jews. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh this is absolutely pathetic. Dewet is completely correct, you're a waste of time, Anon. When the disputed portion of this page was written, it was decided to include the four MAJOR European immigrant groups. Every single piece of literature you read on South Africa's White population is unanimous that the vast majority of white South Africans descend from these four European countries/groups. What you are attempting to include is POV because it implies that South Africa's Jews formed a much greater proportion of the white population than they actually did. This is not a matter of inclusionism vs deletionism, this is a matter of historical accuracy, and attempts to avoid misleading statements. We have laid out comprehensive rebuttals to everything you have claimed above, yet you have yet to respond in a meaningful way to any of it, instead lashing out with insults and irrelevent statements. So, until you prove yourself to be an editor in good faith, and work to build consensus instead of attacking everybody who disagrees with your unilateral inclusion, nobody will take you seriously (and for good reason). Also, until you do so, I refuse to argue further for the time being, as consensus has already been established and it is CLEARLY against you. I see no need to continue wasting my time. Impi 16:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  GOOGLE HITS 

message: Google Hits (6-25-2005)  for settler communities:
 *"south african jewish"    9,130
 *"south african english"  15,500
 *"south african french"      720
 *"south african huguenot"     17
 *"south african german"      691
 *"south african dutch"       656
 *"south african irish"       864
 *"south african portuguese"  201
Clearly, the South African Jewish settler community is not trivial.  Therefore that argument is POV.
* Please sign your comments. Also, google hits do not indicate the relative influence or importance of the community, but the amount of attention they receive on the internet. It is especially suspect as there is a large number of anti-semetic sites who would tend to inflate the relative prominence of Jewish people in any historical setting of discrimination, and there is a much smaller level of animosity towards these other particular groups of Europeans. These sites' brazen opinions render them essentially useless as sources of factual information, as they make no claims of neutrality. Consequently, the google hit argument does not prove that the Jewish settler community was any more influential than any other community. Just to clarify, I am not accusing you of Anti-semitism. However, you have not provided any neutral sources which demonstrate that the South African Jewish settler community was influential enough in sustaining Apartheid to warrant its specific inclusion in the article. To include it without such evidence implies wrongly that it is documented and in WP for a reason, and the the Jewish community had a more significant, sustenant influence than any other ethnic group which goes unmentioned. - Matthew Cieplak (talk) (edits) 22:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summing up non-triviality test 

message: Question: In 50 words, more or less, what do you object to, in the article in its present protected state?
Answers:
*It's protected, I think protected articles are contrary to wikipedian principles. Pedant 21:09, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
*The article, frankly, is of very low quality in its present state, and needlessly duplicates History of South Africa, which has a much better treatment. An effort has been underway to spin off the relevant part of the history article (which is overly long) into this article, but has been stalled because of the revert war and protection. I don't think any purpose is being served by having the article protected right now. There has been plenty of time for discussion on the talk page, and the discussion has been unproductive for the reasons given in Dewet's "don't feed the trolls" post above. If there was any hope that this extremely long revert war was going to go away once people had a chance to calm down, I think that hope has vanished. I think the article should either be unprotected, or, better yet, be marked for a vfd, since it's redundant, dysfunctional, and not up to the same level of quality as History of South Africa.--Bcrowell 21:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving on -- POLL