Talk:Apartheid

I've removed "European Jews" as 18th century settlers of South Africa. No reason to give them special mention, any more than we distinguish between Protestant Germans and Catholic Germans when we mention the German settlement. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 05:17, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

--The Jews themselves view their settlement in S. Africa as distinct from the Dutch, English, etc. See Jewish Virtual Library (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vjw/South_Africa.html)

Located on the tip of the African continent, South Africa is famous for its diamond and gold mines. Cape Town, South Africa’s first city, was founded in 1652 by the Dutch to provide fresh produce and meats to the members of the Dutch East India Company, who were traveling between Europe and the Orient. In 1806, the colony switched hands and became part of the British Empire. Discoveries of gold and diamonds changed South Africa from an agricultural society to modern metropolis.

Jews have been a part of South Africa’s development from the very beginning. Portuguese Jewish cartographers and scientists contributed to Vasco Da Gama’s discovery of the Cape of Good Hope in 1497. A number of non-professing Jews were among the first settlers of Cape Town in 1652, despite restrictions against the immigration of non-Christians.

Religious freedom was granted by the Dutch colony in 1803 and guaranteed by the British in 1806. Among the first British settlers to come to Cape Town were 20 Jews. The first South African Jewish congregation was founded in 1841 in one of the homes of the new British settlers. Eight years later, the first synagogue, Tikvat Israel ("Hope of Israel" - referring to the Cape of Good Hope) was established in Cape Town and is still standing today.

Jews prospered during the apartheid era and were more educated than their white counterparts. More than 50 percent of the Jews were matriculated, compared to the average 23% in the total white population. Ten percent of the Jewish community had university degrees, compared to only 4% of the total white population. Jews were disproportionately represented in the commercial and financial sectors of society. The Jewish population peaked in the early 1970's reaching nearly 119,000 people. [1] (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vjw/South_Africa.html#Apartheid%20Regime)

While Jews were present in the earliest settlement, their presence was not particularly significant in the early stages. They were tiny minorities for most of that time; they only really immigrated in significant numbers in the 20th century, and even then they never exceeded 3% of the European population of South Africa. One could also claim that Brazil and the United States were founded by Jews, based on tiny numbers of Jews (mostly marrano and Sephardi) that settled in those countries in the 17th and 18th centuries, but this would be a misleading view of their numbers, impact, and significance. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:02, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

The math is pretty clear. Even at their peak numbers -- 119,000 -- that represents around 2% of the European population of the time. They barely show up as a blip, demographically. So what if they were more educated etc.? Now, if the anon is trying to make a point that Jews were complicit in apartheid in South Africa, feel free to present evidence for that. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 15:41, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

- Jpgprdon: That's revisionist history. The Jews and Jewish employers were a part of the apartheid apparatus: "Jewish/Israeli involvement in the apartheid era was mixed; as a whole the South African Jewish community did not speak out against the apartheid system.."

In fact, the one place Jews were particularly prominent was in the anti-apartheid movement (e.g. Helen Suzman, Joe Slovo, Ronnie Kasrils, Albie Sachs), so it would be much easier to make the opposite argument. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:13, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, there and the awesomely abusive diamond industry... --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 17:17, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Christians, in that case; they all converted to Anglicanism in the 30s. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:00, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

- Jayjg: There were many people of all races involved in anti-apartheid activities, not just the small group of Jews that you mentioned. This does not however diminish the fact that European Jews actively participated in the Apartheid regime as Whites, politically and economically, same as the "English", "Dutch", "Germans", etc. that are mentioned. Jayjg, one must be truthful and look at the issue from the perspective of the Blacks who considered the Jews as White, and a part of the Apartheid regime. Please do not continue deletions. 69.216.245.115

Why should we single out Jews for special mention when speaking of European immigrants anyway? To me that sounds rather biased, almost as if your intention is to overemphasize the role of Jewish South Africans in perpetrating Apartheid, which is rather unnecessary considering the fact that they formed such a miniscule proportion of the White population. Also, I see nothing in Jayjg's comment that even looks remotely like minimising the role of other races in the Anti-Apartheid Movement. In contrast, all I see is a point (a valid one, might I add) that there were many prominent Jews in that movement. For instance, from the same source you got your quote from, comes the following: "An example of individual Jewish involvement in anti-apartheid movement is the arrest of 17 members of the African National Congress, in 1963, for anti-apartheid activities, all five whites arrested were Jewish." This is in contrast to your own comment, where you claim that they "were a part of the apartheid apparatus" (so was virtually anybody living in SA at the time, technically), while seemingly completely ignoring the fact that a decent portion of the community was involved in Anti-Apartheid activities. While it's true that as a whole, the Jewish community did not speak out against Apartheid (since when has the South African Jewish community, or any other ethnic community for that matter, had one voice on any issue?), in 1985 the South African Jewish Board of Deputies (without a doubt a very important organisation) passed a resolution rejecting Apartheid. So it's not quite true to insinuate that the community as a whole was quiet. Impi 18:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Nobody is singling out anybody. It's being more accurate and inclusive. It is the Jews themselves that saw themselves as distinct from the English, Dutch, Germans, etc. Would it be more accurate to say Lithuanian Jews? like the South African Jews do amongst themselves? In being inclusive and factual, it does not overemphasize anything, that is only your interpretation. 119,000 people is not "miniscule". It sounds like you are being anti-semitic in diminishing the accomplishments and contributions of Jewish people to South African history. S. Africa's Jewish community has always been one that Jewish people have taken pride in. There were many White people involved in anti-apartheid activities on a worldwide basis. The emigration of Jews out of South Africa is directly and statistically correlated to the decline of the apartheid regime of which many were a part of. Let's not make a special exception here. History is history and "Jews" were involved in apartheid right alongside the "Dutch", "English", and "Germans".69.216.245.115

The sentence you quoted was from a website whose subject was, quite specifically, the history of Jews in South Africa, so the distinction of which you speak would obviously be valid on such a page. It is, however, not valid here. Regardless of the achievements of South Africa's Jewish population, which has occurred on a scale dwarfing their relatively small population size, the fact remains that as a percentage of the White population they are too statistically insignificant to be afforded such a prominent place in the article. After all, you might as well start to write a demographics article about South Africa then, breaking down in detail every type of immigrant group that established themselves in South Africa. I would suggest it would look rather farcical to have the article distinguish between Protestant and Catholic Germans, and do the same for the Dutch and the others. Quite simply, the opening paragraph for the section on Apartheid's history only lists the MAIN White immigrant groups to South Africa, for it is their descendants who naturally formed the majority of South Africa's White population. We don't mention the Irish, Italian, Belgian or Portuguese immigrants for this reason. Therefore there is no reason to specifically mention European Jews in that intro paragraph.

I also find it ironic that you accuse me of apparent anti-semitism, and yet you are the one who automatically assumes that those Jews who have emigrated from South Africa post-1994 have done so "because of the decline of the apartheid regime of which many were a part of". On the contrary, there are numerous logical reasons for any South African Jew to leave South Africa, including a significantly increased violent crime rate. So I now have to question your motives, as your automatic assumption that Jewish emigration is motivated, at least in part, by racism, and your continued effort to attempt to list the South African Jews as major perpetrators of Apartheid, absence proper evidence to the contrary, do not seem to be the hallmarks of a neutral editor.

Oh, and please sign your posts from now on by typing ~~~~ at the end of your posts, as this helps readers distinguish between the comments of different editors as well as creating a time record so as to avoid confusion. Impi 20:43, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Your points are all quite valid. In addition, I might point out that South African Jews were not just "involved in anti-apartheid movement", but were prominent leaders of it, often at considerable personal risk to themselves. I'm also interested in understanding our anonymous editors claim that "from the perspective of the Blacks" Jews were considered "a part of the Apartheid regime." Does he have evidence of that? Is he speaking for South African blacks? Based on the long and varying history of edits by this editor on this subject, it all seems like an attempt to distort and even reverse the historical record. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:00, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I might also point out the large number of Whites worldwide that contributed to the "anti-apartheid" movement. Remember Bono? And what about the Blacks themselves? Gee. Jayjg: To me you sound rather biased, almost as if your intention is to overemphasize the role of Jews in ending apartheid, but of having no part in it. We all know that is not.69.216.245.115

Sorry, what does your response have to do with my post? South African Jews were not just "involved in anti-apartheid movement", but were prominent leaders of it, often at considerable personal risk to themselves. Where is your evidence that "from the perspective of the Blacks" Jews were considered "a part of the Apartheid regime." Does you have evidence of that? Are you speaking for South African blacks? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:27, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I might point out that unlike yourself, Jayjg has made no specific edits to the page regarding Jews. All his comments have been on the discussion page only, and made in response to allegations by you. Impi 20:43, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

- Look, it is not inaccurate to say: "South Africa was settled by the Dutch, Germans and French from the 17th century onwards. European Jews and the English followed in the 19th century. As was typically the case in the African colonies, the European settlers dominated the indigenous population through military and political control and the control of land and wealth."

What bias are you trying to hide? South Africa had and contiues to have a "Jewish" community just like the "English", "Dutch", French" and "Germans". Why is this fact of history objectionable to you? There are thousands of sources that prove this true. Why do you object to this inclusion as outlined in the one sentence above?

Because you are trying to insert trivia for the purpose of promoting a POV; your edits and comments make this quite clear. And your proposed text is inaccurate trivia at that. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:27, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

- - - - That's your opinion Jayjg. Your edits and comments make it clear you promote a deletionist POV. I see from your user page that you have already been accused of bias before on Wikipedia.

It is not inaccurate to say: "South Africa was settled by the Dutch, Germans and French from the 17th century onwards. European Jews and the English followed in the 19th century. As was typically the case in the African colonies, the European settlers dominated the indigenous population through military and political control and the control of land and wealth." That is NPOV, and historical fact. Simple as that.69.216.246.88 21:39, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I see you refused to reply to my statement. Quite simply, the intro lists the MAIN European immigrant groups that formed the White population of South Africa. Including the reference to European Jews is POV because it makes it seem that they had a disproportionate role in dominating the indigenous population. Including such a small group as the Jews in the intro would only make sense if one then included ALL white immigrant groups, such as the Italian, Irish, Polish, Portuguese etc. As you can see, it would quickly become unworkable, which is why, in the interests of accuracy and neutrality, we should only list the main groups, which are German, French, Dutch and English settlers. Doing otherwise would be the imposition of POV and inaccurate Impi 22:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Anon editor, you are being overbearing now. Trying to highlight Jews, a relative minority compared to the major settlers (highlighted by Impi and the other editors here), is simply presenting a skewed image. THAT is the reason why your edits are being reverted, not some evil deletionist strategy. Dewet 22:39, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Gentlemen: Overbearing is better applied to those who would delete and deny the existence and reference of the Jewish community in South African history. It is not anywhere near "unworkable" to include the European Jews, along with the Italian, Irish, Polish, and Portuguese, if you like, in the one sentence in the article. Please.

It is absolutely accurate to say: "South Africa was settled by the Dutch, Germans and French from the 17th century onwards. European Jews and the English followed in the 19th century. As was typically the case in the African colonies, the European settlers dominated the indigenous population through military and political control and the control of land and wealth." That is NPOV, and historical fact. Simple as that. If you want to read something more into these words and simple facts, then that is your POV. 69.216.246.88

It's not "absolutely accurate" at all. It puts the "European Jews" immigration before that of the English, which is historically inaccurate. It also highlights a group which had no significant immigration in the 19th century, and only small amounts of immigration in the 20th century. And you still fail to answer any of the major objections raised to your POV insertions. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:56, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

jayjg: Read the facts before you make inaccurate statements. European Jews immigrated to S. Africa in the 19th Century after diamonds were discovered. The Jews themselves wrote about it in their history of Jews in South Africa. Your deletions are unconvincing. Jews were an integral part of South Africa and its history.

Take your own advice. The groups you mentioned were trivial in comparison to the main immigrations, and your little list missed out all sorts of other important ethnic groups. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Non-Revisionist Jewish History

19th Century

The discovery of diamonds in 1867 in Kimberly attracted Jewish entrepreneurs and businessman from all over the world. (Diaspora Jews) Because of the extensive Jewish trade network, Jews immediately became involved in the diamond and precious stones industry. Two famous Jewish South African entrepreneurs were Barney Barnato and Sammy Marks. Barnato founded the De Beers Consolidated Mines for mining diamond fields.

First Half of the 20th Century

During the Boer War, Jews served on both sides, although the arrival of English Jews helped out the British side. Some Boers harbored prejudices against the Jews, while others felt a kinship toward them. In 1902, the British defeated the Boers and, in 1910, they formed four British South African colonies. The British gave the Jews equal status to the other white citizens, giving British authority legitimacy among Jews.

Following the mining boom, Jews became part of the rapid industrialization of South Africa. They became involved in food processing; clothing, textile and furniture manufacturing; insurance; hotel management; advertising and entertainment. Jews also established supermarkets, department stores and discount store chains.

See Jewish Virtual Library (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vjw/South_Africa.html)

Yes, small numbers of Jews emigrated to South Africa in the 20th century, along with all sorts of other Europeans. So what? Small numbers of Jews emigrated to to almost every country in the world in the 20th century. It has already been pointed out to you that this is a minor footnote in the history of South Africa; you have been trying to emphasize this trivia solely to push a POV. Please stop creating sockpuppets, and instead respect the consensus of the 9 editors (and counting) who have reverted you so far. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Protected due to the revert war. If this can be resolved, or the problematic parties removed from the situation, feel free to unprotect, but if I understand correctly blocking might not be adequate to deal with this one? --Michael Snow 20:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

The editor in question is using dialup IPs, and has gone through at least 5 ip addresses and 5 sockpuppets as well. Blocking just forces him to re-boot. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

- Thank You Michael Snow, you indeed see the revert war that the Revert-Team members use to discourage input from others. How is an indivudual supposed to contribute to Wikipedia against a "gang"? Unfortunatly, jayjg and a few others abuse administration privileges by banning anyone immediately that their "gang" differs with. People will not submit to this intimidation by a biased group. jayjg ought to be banned for complete and utter bias, at least at a minimum from this article henceforth. Read the facts. There were many Jews along with the 1) English, 2) Dutch, 3) French, 4) Germans, and 5) other European settlers (that jayjg has no problems listing) that played an active role in the economic and political history of South Africa. To deny that Jews were active in politics and economics in the history of S. Africa is pure revision. Thank you Michael Snow, but unfortunately you froze the article with the Deletion and Revisionism in place.69.218.25.182 21:09, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

The main immigrants were the Dutch and French, and later the English. I have no problem mentioning Europeans, because there were indeed small numbers of other Europeans. I don't see the point in mentioning the many sub-groups of Europeans, though, as that is trivia. I especially don't approve of mentioning only one particular sub-group of Europeans, purely for the purpose of POV-pushing. As for trying to "contribute" to Wikipedia against a "gang", when 9 separate editors revert your edits, it's time to start realizing that your "contribution" detracts from the article, rather than improving it. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, enough already. You don't "see the point", because you have a POV or a blind spot or something. The contributions of Jews to South Africa are numerous. Jews make up a minority/small percentage of every single country in which they dwell but Israel, but should we not acknowledge their contributions and presence in the histories of the USA? Britain? Canada?, Germany? etc? Jayjg, you are so POV it is laughable. On Wikipedia you want to push a POV that is Jewish-centric when you think it helps your bias, and you want to deny and revise on other occasions like this one.

The Jews were heavily involved in the highly exploitative diamond and mining industries during apartheid, and well as highly active in politics and business. The Jews themselves saw their community as strong and distinct from the Europeans. Fact and History. That's the way it was. Reread history and I have provided you a Jewish source! So please stop the denial and revisionist history. See http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vjw/South_Africa.html Jewish Virtual Library] again:

Apartheid Regime

With the institutionalization of apartheid agenda, anti-Semitism was no longer a major issue. Jewish/Israeli involvement in the apartheid era was mixed; as a whole the South African Jewish community did not speak out against the apartheid system, although a number of small organizations and individuals were involved in anti-apartheid activities. 69.218.25.182 21:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the Jews were involved more than, say, the Chukchis, but that does not not necessarily wins them a place in an encyclopedia. Regarding the JVL quote: first, JVL concentrates on Jews because it is a Jewish Lib, and second, to refute conspiracy theorists and plain antisemites who insist on playing up "the Jewish hand" at every turn of the history, especially tragic ones. Your preoccupation with "the Jews" here tells more about yourself than about the subject. Sorry to note so, but you are not the first one and you are not in a good company. And of course, your motives are noble and moral, yeah right. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 23:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Humus sapiens: You do not have a crystal ball into the minds of others. Do you want me to give you my opinion of you? You have revealed yourself in the denier and revisionist camp. Your Talk page proves your huge preoccupation with the Jews, and it tells more about yourself than about your knowledge of S. African history. Your opinion is thus discredited for bias. Let's stick to the facts and history of S. Africa's economic and political history, which involves Jews every bit as much as the current list of: "Dutch, English, Germans, and French". Facts are facts. Fair is fair. Reread the links and highlighted facts above. Thank you. 69.209.236.191 19:09, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

It's quite amusing that you would accuse others of being "in the denier and revisionist camp", of having a "huge preoccupation with the Jews", and state that their "opinion is thus discredited for bias". Thanks for the laugh. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

You again? Are you back from today's shuffleboard game? Thanks for all your laughs. Jayjg, whoever you are, you (and the "gang" that circumvents Wikipedia's 3R Rules) are the ones preoccupied with Jews and weaving Jewish distortion and revision into Wikipedia, as your Talk page and Wikipedia editing activities confirm. Are you going to deny this also? Denial of Jewish history in S. Africa, as outlined in the link provided, is just not factual and it will not fly, sorry.69.209.236.191 23:55, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Give it up already, anon. You are citing biased sources (the Jewish virtual museum, remember?), you have made your your bias towards the inclusion of Jews at the cost of obfuscating the article quite plain. Wikipedia operates on consensus, which you are not gaining, not through either your edit warring or your arguments. Insulting the users here certainly doesn't give you a moral high ground or make others more amenable. Think about that.

I suggest you come up with a new tactic if you wish to convince others of your opinion. One which isn't aggressive, and one which can be debated and fleshed out to gain a suitable standard for inclusion. Those are, unfortunately, the breaks, especially for articles on such a delicate topics as apartheid. Dewet 06:24, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dewet: I have continually pointed to the facts, and I have been on the receiving side of the insults. "Thanks for all your laughs." The facts are above in bold. The inclusion of the Jewish community to the list of prominent ethnic groups in S. Africa's economic and political history is warranted and backed up by history. The inclusion under discussion involves one sentence in the whole article. This inclusion in no way skews the other facts or history or content of the article in a major way. Think about that. Let's start the debate already. Not one person, you included unfortunately, can provide any reasonable evidence that the Jewish community was not an integral part of S. Africa's economic and political landscape as the inclusion states. Raw numbers and statistical percentages never tell the correct and whole story, and that argument can be dismissed out of hand.69.209.236.191 15:02, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So, to summarise: "Actual facts and figures, such as statistics, do not tell the story as I want it to be told, so we should ignore them. I believe in what I am doing, despite all arguments to the contrary, and anybody opposing me is just part of some POV-pushing gang, a revisionist and a denialist." - Yep, I think that's a close enough approximation. Anon, let me summarise our rebuttal for you: This is the article on Apartheid, not on South Africa. Therefore, any additions, or unwarranted attention given to any group, is inherently POV unless completely justified. The main European groups to move to South Africa were the Dutch, French, German and English, the descendants of these early colonists make up by far the majority of South Africa's white population. The number of European Jews that emigrated to South Africa are relatively small, and in fact are similar to the numbers of Italians, Portuguese, Irish and other groups who emigrated to SA. In order to make your inclusion fair, we would have to list each and every immigrant group that ever moved to SA in such numbers - a proposal that any logical person can see will be both unwieldy and unnecessary. In addition, I have to ask why you must separate European Jews into their own category. Were they not British, French, German, Italian etc? Judging by your proposals on this page, we had best start saying: "European Jews, Protestants, Catholics, Pagans, Atheists, Agnostics etc etc etc and the English followed in the 19th century." - Why can you not grasp how patently ridiculous this is? Impi 17:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Impi: you again? I was hoping for an unbiased, third-party contributor and not another one of your POV buddies. I can see this is going nowhere fast. You continue to avoid and evade the matter at hand: Kindly provide any reasonable evidence that the Jewish community was not an integral part of S. Africa's economic and political landscape as the inclusion states. Let's review the inclusion: "South Africa was settled initially by the Dutch, Germans and French from the 17th century onwards. English, Diaspora Jews and other European settlers followed in the 19th century. As was typically the case in the African colonies, the European settlers dominated the indigenous population through military and political control and the control of land and wealth."

Why cannot you grasp that this is inclusive and accurate? S. Africa was settled by Dutch, Germans, French, English, other Europeans (Irish, Portuguese, Italians) and Diaspora Jews. Is this not a fact? What is your problem? It is not accurate to include Diaspora Jews in with the "Europeans" because history proves they were considered separate and distinct as an ethnic & religious group, it is confirmed by Jewish history and S. African history. Were there not different laws for "Europeans" and Jews in S. African history (answer: Yes), and then later the Jewish community was classified White during apartheid (answer: Yes)?

So: 1) They were seen as separate and distinct groups, so the inclusion is accurate and clear. 2) you cannot whitewash the activity and everyday complicity of the Jewish community during apartheid, right alongside the rest of the list of distinct groups. The Jews were heavily involved in the highly exploitative diamond and mining industries during apartheid, and well as highly active in politics and business. With the institutionalization of apartheid agenda, anti-Semitism was no longer a major issue. Jewish/Israeli involvement in the apartheid era was mixed; as a whole the South African Jewish community did not speak out against the apartheid system. They were complicit in it.69.209.236.29 20:48, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What was the complicity of the Italian, Portugese, Irish, Scottish, etc. in apartheid? Was it greater or lesser than that of the Jews? How did their numbers compare? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's rather amusing to see you accusing other editors of being unbiased, Anon... Oh, and you forgot to sign your comments again. What's the matter? Afraid of being accountable for what you say?

The Jews fall easily under the "other European settlers" definition, just as the other groups do. They were European, and no different to any other European groups. By your logic, we should include other religious and ethnic groups too, for why should we differentiate between Jews, Catholics, Protestants etc?

Your only claim for the Jews being considered "separate and distinct" is a website that deals specifically with Jewish history. Of course that website is going to speak about Jews as separate and distinct, that's their chosen subject matter. Honestly, this is like taking a magazine article written about Rubens Barrichello and using it as proof that Rubens is separate from and distinct to the other F1 drivers...

In fact, for the entire history of South Africa as a country, Jews were subject to the SAME laws as other whites in South Africa. There were no separate laws for Jewish South Africans. Additionally, so what if they were classified as white? So were the Japanese immigrants - should we now add them to the awfully long list you seem to want to include?

This article is not the place to discuss the demographics of South Africa's population. That is all covered under the demographics section of the South Africa article, and it has NO place here.

The Jewish community was no more complicit than any other white group in South Africa, and in fact I'd say Jewish groups did the most of any of the small ethnic groups to try end Apartheid. For its size, the Jewish community produced an extraordinary number of anti-Aparthed groups and activists. Compare this, to say the Portuguese, Irish or Italian communities, who seldom if ever even expressed discomfort with the system.

Anon, your comments are sorely lacking in facts, and everything you have written on this page draws me to the conclusion that your sole motive is not historical accuracy but rather an attempt to pen the blame for a large part of Apartheid on the shoulders of the South African Jewish community, completely out of proportion to their actual involvement.

I'm sorry, but it's now clear that you're not an editor in good faith. Kindly stop wasting our time. Impi 20:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

More lame POV responses from jayjg (who is heavily towards Jewish bias User:Jayjg/Edits) and Impi--Again. Yawn. How predictable. Let us never hear about a sublist of of "Jewish" Nobel Prize winners ever again. From now on they will all be Europeans or Americans, etc. Your deletions are obviously not in good faith and are obviously biased. 69.209.236.29 21:01, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Such tired ad hominems. Firstly Anon, you have been reverted by, amongst others, Weyes, Anilocra and SlimVirgin. In addition, your additions have been opposed on this page by, amongst others Dewet and myself. Are you now going to accuse us all of pro-Jewish bias? I would like to see you try. It's also very amusing, once again, to see you accusing me of bias. It's made my day, really.

Other than that, I have nothing more to say, except to refer you back to my above post. Impi 22:30, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Impi: you again? Yawn. jayjg is obsessed with jewish related issues on Wikipedia User:Jayjg/Edits. SlimVirgin has been accused of the same by others. It is not unusual to find them together operating as a team to avoid Wikipedia's 3 Revert rule. They are discredited. But back to the inclusion at hand......I have yet to have anyone explain why "europeans" and "diaspora jews" should be combined when it's clear that the communities were different and distinct. Let's not even get into the relationship between S. Africa and Israel and S. African Zionists. The "European" settlers and Jewish settlers were distinct groups and you know it.69.217.125.53 20:14, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Having a concentration of edits on one particular section of the 'pedia does not make you automatically biased, anon. In fact, I'd say that's what the majority of editors do here. After all, if an editor makes most of his edits to American fighter aircraft, because that is his area of expertise, does it now make the editor in question "biased" and unfit to edit any other articles to do with aircraft? Of course not.

Besides, your ad hominem attack completely ignored the other editors I mentioned. Are you going to accuse them of bias as well? Get real, it is YOU who is biased, anon, not everybody else.

You have yet to respond to any of the points raised in my previous post, so I have nothing more to say to you. If you're just going to respond by repeating the same old discredited lines, please stop wasting our time and go and harass somebody else. Impi 21:54, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks, you should know. Impi you have provided no back-up for your deletion. None whatsoever. Kindly tell us all why the Jewish community should be combined with European settlers, when there is ample evidence that the communites were very distinct and separate? Please answer the question.

"The discovery of diamonds in 1867 in Kimberly attracted Jewish entrepreneurs and businessman from all over the world. (Diaspora Jews) Because of the extensive Jewish trade network, Jews immediately became involved in the diamond and precious stones industry. Two famous Jewish South African entrepreneurs were Barney Barnato and Sammy Marks. Barnato founded the De Beers Consolidated Mines for mining diamond fields."

In 1902, the British defeated the Boers and, in 1910, they formed four British South African colonies. The British gave the Jews equal status to the other white citizens.

Apartheid Regime

Haha, you have accused virtually every editor here of blatant Pro-Jewish bias, and in fact your last five or so comments regarding Jayjg and SlimVirgin have been nothing but ad hominem attacks. Yet now you complain that you're the victim of same? Get real, you haven't received half of what you've dished out. For the record, I have replied to your points in at least one post above, but you seem fond of ignoring such replies.

I also note you refer to the matter under discussion as "your deletion", implying that this is something I alone am pushing. This is incorrect. What is under discussion is an addition to a previously stable article that YOU and you alone have proposed, an addition which is opposed by at least five other editors. In short, consensus is not on your side, and your attempts to make it seem that we're the ones against consensus is laughable.

The only source you have quoted is the Jewish Virtual Library, a website dedicated to the history of Jews. As such, of course they speak of Jews as a distinct entity - that is their subject matter. This does not however mean that Jews at the time were distinct and separate. For example, there are a number of articles written about, say, Afrikaners in the Union Defence Force during World War II. These articles focus on Afrikaners, which may make it appear that they were a distinct and separate entity within the UDF, but such an impression is misleading as in the UDF itself there was no distinction made between English and Afrikaans South Africans. The same applies to the current situation: The Jewish Virtual Library speaks of Jews as a separate and distinct entity because the Jews of SA are their chosen subject matter in this article, but in South Africa at the time Jews were treated no differently under the law to any other White groups.

So what if the diamond and gold mines attracted many Jews? They attracted many, many more immigrants from other ethnic and religious backgrounds as well. This article will not mention them, becuase, as mentioned before, it is focusing on the history of South African Jews, not on the overall history of South Africa.

Your source also mentions that Jews were given equal legal status in 1910. Well, here's a history lesson for you: Prior to 1902, there were four separate countries within the region that would one day become South Africa. These were the British colonies of Natal and the Cape, and the independent Boer republics of the Transvaal and Orange Free State. Within the latter two states, only Boers were allowed to be citizens and thus have the rights of citizens (like voting). So ALL non-Boer Whites, whether they were Jewish or Irish or whatever, were discriminated against. Now, in 1910 the Union of South Africa was formed under an Afrikaner PM. This new state consisted of four provinces (Natal, Transvaal, the Cape, the Orange Free State), and enshrined equal rights under the law to ALL Whites. It was not as if it was suddenly decided that Jews had lesser rights and therefore needed to be made equal - the Jews always shared the same rights as non-Boer Whites and thus were elevated to full legal equality at the same time the Irish, Russian, English, American etc immigrants were.

Finally, we speak about the comment that: "as a whole the South African Jewish community did not speak out against the apartheid system". My answer to this is: So what. Not a single ethnic or religious group in South Africa was unanimous in its condemnation of Apartheid, not even any of the Black South African groups (after all, Black South Africans joined the SADF and were deployed to the SWA-Angola border, and some Black leaders from all the groups collaborated with the Apartheid government to run the Homelands). So when you tell me that the Jewish community as a whole did not speak out against Apartheid, I ask with incredulity whether you actually consider that to be damning evidence...

In fact, considering its size, the South African Jewish community probably spoke out against Apartheid more than any other of the White groups in South Africa. For example, a large proportion of the White anti-Apartheid campaigners were Jewish (Helen Suzman, Ronnie Kasrils, Ruth First, Joe Slovo, Arthur Chaskalson and Harry Bloom are just a few that come to mind). In addition, the South African Jewish Board of Deputies issued a declaration condemning Apartheid in 1985, which is something none of the other minority White groups (such as the Portuguese and Italians) did.

Really, there's nothing more to debate here. You insist on using a source that focuses on one ethnic group as evidence for the wider history of SA, which is quite patently absurd, and furthermore you continue to modify the article in contravention of the consensus - which is clearly against you. Kindly expend your efforts elsewhere, as it is clear that your POV addition to this article is not accepted by the majority of editors involved. Impi 23:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Impi, I think you are still missing the point: Clarity. Here's the list in the article that you so "vehemently" object to:
"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."

That's it. So......in other words if the term "European settlers" stays in, then someone might not otherwise know that S. Africa had an important, thriving Jewish community also. To list the Jewish community alongside the other groups is being factual and inclusive, and it's adding clarity to the article. How can you not see that? You have to look at the statement/change itself. Since when is adding minor clarity (2 words) to an article a massive rewrite or throwing it off NPOV? It is not. It adds simple, concise and accurate clarity and you know it. Read the sentence again. I believe you are reading far too much into it. The Jewish community existed, separate and distinct from the Dutch, Germans, French, English and other Europeans. You know it. How is that so objectionable? It's being clear. A Jewish community did exist and does exist, separate and distinct, and that's all the 2 word Inclusion states.AmYisrael 00:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jewish settlers in south africa had to profess their allegiance to Christianity. However, after 1803, they were free to express their religion. Numbers have the jews at around 100,000 in the 70 and 80's population of s. africa. Apartied policies could not have been influenced by such a small population of people. To make such allegations without substantial proof is borderline criminal. Your anti-semitic issues are prevelant. Here is a short list of aparteid leaders, please tell me which are jewish: President PW Botha, J.B.M. Hertzog, DF Malan, J.G. Strijdom, H.F. Verwoerd, B.J. Vorster.

In contrast, historically, the afrikaaners were german sympathizers post ww2. One with an intelligent understanding of geopolitics could easily see the anglo-saxon(german) racial bias, ie: nazi type ideology. Pro christian, pro white. To say jews were outright leaders of aparteid would contradict history. My personal opinion, you are trying to tie in racial prejudice of the aparteid regime to the current Israeli political status, very devious. --PrinceMarko 14:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your personal opinion is dead wrong. How dare you. The Inclusion states no such thing, and nothing even close to it. You have a strong personal bias and it shows. You do not have a crystal ball into the minds of others. Kindly refrain from ad hominem illogic and your personal opinion, and stick to the Inclusion at hand, which is not false and does not discuss current Israeli politics in any way, shape or form. The inclusion is about who settled South Africa. Diaspora Jews were one of those groups. That a simple fact. It really is interesting to see Deletionists deny that simple fact, a two-word inclusion. Amazing. AmYisrael 15:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unprotecting

As there seems to be no ongoing meaningful discussion here, I'm unprotecting. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(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)

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)

Until the deletionist can justify that action, the inclusion should remain in place as it is accurate. Deletionist: Kindly tell us all why the Jewish community should be combined with European settlers, when there is ample evidence that the communites were very distinct and separate? Thank you.

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)

Dewet: Likewise. I see that nobody can or will justify the deletion campaign other than based on ad hominem attacks. Let's stick to the facts, not ad hominem attacks. So again: Facts have been put forward to justify the Inclusion, no facts have been put forward to justify the Deletions.AmYisrael 21:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps none that satisfy you. However, the consensus here (and remember, consensus quite often means "everybody but you") is satisfied that your addition is improper. That's how it works here. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 00:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

More ad hominem nonsense. Jpgordon stick to the facts and kindly stop personal attacks. The consensus is based on ad hominem illogic as there is no support put forth to support the Deletions, just personal attacks.

There is no ad hominem whatsoever in my statement, nor anything that any reasonable mind could construe as a personal attack -- merely a reiteration of the consensus aspect of Wikipedia; it doesn't matter how strongly you hold your opinion, or even, for that matter, if your opinion is wrong or right. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 00:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that the person commenting on the Jewish diaspora in South Africa at the time of apartied has a bias against them. Historically, the jews in south africa have been very very few. To insinuate that they were major players in Apartied is juvenile.

"Persons of Jewish descent found their way to the Cape from the earliest beginnings of white settlement. However, they could not be professing Jews before the beginning of the 19th century because the Dutch East India Company's rules required that all who were in its service at the Cape must profess the Reformed Christian religion. Only after freedom of religion was introduced at the Cape under the Batavian republic in 1803 was it possible for anyone who openly professed his/her adherence to the Jewish faith to live in the country.

From that time onwards a small trickle of individual Jews, for the most part from England and Germany, began to arrive. Some remained permanently, while others later returned to their home countries. There were among them colourful and adventurous personalities.

In 1841, seventeen Jews organised the first Hebrew Congregation in Cape Town. They named it Tikvat Israel Congregation (the Hope of Israel). By the end of the 1860s, several hundred Jews were living in South Africa. They played a significant part in cultural and civic life and added materially to the country's economic progress. Some had settled in remote places. A number lost their identity as Jews."

Only around 100,000 jews were in South Africa during the 70's and 80's. Such numbers cannot even begin to influence a society enmasse, especially on social/political issues. PrinceMarko

That is your opinion, that Mr. Chaim Weizmann and Jan Smuts would have most vehemently disagreed with. Still, you have not provided a factual basis for the Deletion. The Inclusion is factual and accurate, so in Wikipedia, it should remain. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia limited in size. Facts should remain undeleted.AmYisrael 14:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jews as part of White Ruling Class in South Africa

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. 29-30

AmYisrael 00:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So write about that in an article on the history and demographics of South Africa. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 00:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please reread the Inclusion that you so oppose. It is in the context of exactly what you state.AmYisrael 00:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) "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." FACT. AmYisrael 00:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Dutch, Germans and French from the 17th century onwards. English, other European settlers, and Diaspora Jews made up the White ruling class in South Africa. Are you denying this?
- I'll assume, then, for the sake of discussion, that you are a completely new user entering this discussion, and that you haven't read any of the rest of this talk page, in which various of us have gone into great detail as to what we are objecting to, and why. The various anonymous contributors, having made the exact same arguments that you are making, were responded to. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 01:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

jpgordon, provide your reasoning for Deletions. Two words added to the article provide clarity that would not otherwise exist. Other European settlers and Diaspora Jews should not be combined. Why should they? Be an inclusionist. Wikipedia should not be changed if it means knowledge will be lost (unnecessary deletions). The subject at hand (deletion) on this article reduces the clarity and diminishes facts. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, it is not limited in size. Unless you can provide any basis for the Deletionism, it will not stand. There is nothing objectionable about the facts: "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." That statement is TRUE. Provide any basis for saying it is untrue, before you Delete.AmYisrael 14:04, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nope. Wikipedia is about consensus. I'll say it again, since you've not understood the previous five or ten times it's been said here. Wikipedia is about consensus. Shall I say it again? Wikipedia is about consensus. By the way, Wikipedia is about consensus. If consensus is that your wording stands, it will stand. If consensus is otherwise, it will not stand. That is simply how the process works around here; if you don't like it, I suggest you start your own Wiki with your own rules. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 14:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- Nope, Wikipedia is not about "consensus". Fact and Truth are most important.

jpgordon, Let's recap the following, since you have misunderstood Wikipedia:

"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."

Now, are you trying to tell me that a group of Deletionists, that have not proven the Inclusion untrue.....makes the Inclusion False? The Inclusion is fact and it is true, and it should not be removed due to bias. Until the Inclusion is proven false, it should remain. Wikipedia is about seeking the facts, not protecting consensual or systemic bias. Reread again jpgordon. Unless the Inclusion is false, which it is not, it should remain. Using the rationale of the Deletionists, we might as well remove the French from the list, and also the Germans, and "other European settlers". This is not a good idea, as it deletes fact and history. The Diaspora Jewish community is significantly distinct from the others on the list, and it ought not be deleted.AmYisrael 14:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Two Word Inclusion being Deleted

Deletionists are disputing the following statement: "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." This statement is true, and it therefore should not be deleted.69.217.125.53 15:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What were the religions of the other settlers? -Willmcw 20:01, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

You are twisting the facts. Your changes are being opposed simply because they unneccessarily highlight a relative minority compared to those already listed, which has been stated numerous times on this discussion page. It is trivia, which has already been covered under the other nationalities, and you fail to present credible evidence otherwise. You have now multiple times violated Wikipedia policy, demonstrating your ill intent by trying to evade blocks by cycling your IP address, and creating new user(s) to try and force your changes through. You simply fall back on tired old accusations, making no-one here take you seriously because of your childishness. This whole page — look at the length of it! — has been dedicated to this silliness you are perpetuating. As some other contributors have suggested: if you do not like the rules here, you should rather find another project that will be more sympathetic to your tactics; ignoring the rules (which you have clearly shown your contempt for) will just cause you to be penalised under them. This is why your changes are just blanked reverted now: no-one listens to you anymore, since you aren't here to debate but to steamroller. Dewet 20:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since when is making a factual, two-word inclusion twisting the facts? Remove the French from the list if you want to be a Deletionist. It's not a good idea to be a deletionist in Wikipedia, which is not a paper encyclopedia limited in size. The inclusion is factual and not a "twist". Wikipeida is open for anyone to edit. As the inclusion is fact, it should remain. Feel free to add to Wikipedia also, if your inclusion is correct, it's good.69.222.253.40 17:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"What were the religions of the other settlers? -Willmcw 20:01, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)" You could find out and tell us......But the subject matter at hand (the list) is based on ethnic groups not religion.69.222.253.40 17:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So far 11 editors have disagreed with you, none have agreed with you. How many will you need to disagree with you before you recognize the strong consensus on this? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have been asked on my talk page to comment on this dispute from an "inclusionist" perspective. I'm afraid I don't have much to offer since I don't view the dispute as hinging on deletionism. My opinion (which is clearly not an expert opinion) is that unless Jewish settlers created institutions that made a particular impact on the practice of apartheid, that their presence as early white settlers could be adequately noted in the Colonisation section of the History of South Africa. As a side note, it appears that apartheid itself takes up a large proportion of that article and more of it could be merged into this article. Redundant blocks of information are particularly hard to maintain in a wiki. Dystopos 20:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Me too, I was spammed with inappropriate inclusionist rhetoric. I have warned the other "inclusionists" that this is just another edit war. — PhilHibbs | talk 08:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but then what should we do with the list: Dutch, Germans, French, English, other European Settlers, Diaspora Jews? How can any of these groups be listed and with others removed without claiming bias? They were all considered "White" and profitted under the apartheid system. That's being factual, unbiased, and inclusive, right?69.221.60.181 21:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The two relevant groups are the Dutch and the English. The rest, Germans, French and Diaspora Jews, are all "other European settlers". Tomer ^TALK 21:17, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Explanation of an unusual unprotect

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)

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)

Let's delete the French as trivial too, how about that jayjg? The Jewish community in S. Africa is not, and never has been, "trivial". Plus, the Inclusion is fact and it is true, so it should remain. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia limited in size. The article is not destablizied by a two-word inclusion that is 100% factual. If you have a problem with your interpretation of any given fact, then that reveals your own personal bias at work. Facts are facts, and we must leave the interpretation of facts up to the individual reader. Unless you can prove the Inclusion false, which you have not done and cannot do, the Inclusion will stay.69.221.63.132 19:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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)

Well if he really is beyond hope the solution would not lie in stopping the eleven editors, and everybody else, from editing the article, along with the guy who disagrees with them. This is a Wiki, you have to be an insane optimist to even consider editing here. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:22, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not a pessimist, I'm a well-informed optimist. What? :) El_C 23:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

An optimist says this is the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist agrees. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 03:16, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rearranging History of South Africa and Apartheid articles

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)

Who has reverted or opposed our anon POVer so far?

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)

- Ad hominem attacks and team-reverts via a "buddy-system" do not make the 2-word Inclusion false or make it true that the article is "destabilized". They are not impressive tactics either, as they smack of censorship. How can a two-word Inclusion destabilize the whole article? It doesn't. Furthermore, there is not person who can come forward and claim the Inclusion is false. Who will? and if you do, please state why. State your case. The 2-word inclusion is fact, so in Wikipedia which is not a paper encyclopedia limited in size, it should remain. Let's have the discussion, not more whining and ad hominem attacks. Cheers!69.221.63.132 21:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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)

So jayjg thinks the Jews and the South African Jewish community are a "trivia dump". That's your opinion that Chaim Weizmann and Jan Smuts would have disagreed with. I see jayjg that you are still not claiming the Inclusion is false. What you may think is trivial, is not trivial to others. As the inclusion is accurate, it should remain. The Inlcusion is not a "trivial dump" and you know it. It's history. Sorry.69.221.63.132 21:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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)

Page protected

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)

LOL! Show me the diffs. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, you have reverted this article many times. You support deletions of fact. That about sums it up. Cheers!69.221.63.132 22:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Show us the diffs. More than 3 reverts in any 24 hour period on any one article (reverting vandalism excluded.) I'll block him myself if you find one; I'm sure he'd do the same for me. Besides, he could probably use a day off. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 01:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nobody wants to focus on the Inclusion at hand, it's all about ad hominem illogic and a Revert team acting in a group ("he could use a day off?"). Subjectively labelling a Revert "vandalism" does not make it an excuse to violate the 3R rule. Great little trick though. Let's discuss the Inclusion at hand, not editors or their editing tricks.69.209.230.73 15:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Everyone has indeed focussed on the inclusion, and pointed out to you again and again that it is trivia that is not-notable. However, you keep ignoring that, and instead use ad hominem illogic about revert teams, other editors POVs, "it's true therefore it must be in there" etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, it is not illogic to discuss your Revert Team violations to circumvent Wikipedia rules. The actions are clear for anyone to see.69.209.230.73 16:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statement is Accurate

"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.

Wikpedia is not a paper encyclopedia limited in size. Kindly reread some of Wikipedia's ideas and rules. Wikipedia is about factual inclusion, not deletion. The statement is not trivia. The 2-Word inclusion is fact. It does not destabilize the entire article. Nice try.69.209.230.73 15:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

HISTORY, not trivia:

19th Century

Apartheid Regime

"Jewish/Israeli involvement in the apartheid era was mixed; as a whole the South African Jewish community did not speak out against the apartheid system, although a number of small organizations and individuals were involved in anti-apartheid activities."

Jews as part of White Ruling Class in South Africa

"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. 29-30"69.209.230.73 15:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Who'd have thought a factual 2-Word inclusion would cause so much trouble? The question to ask is why some editors want to delete, revise and deny simple facts?

Actually, the question is why one person would want to insert trivia in order to promote a POV they've been pushing for months, against the better judgement of 11 other editors? Your agenda in trying to promote this is clear, and has been from the start, but that still doesn't make it worth noting in this overview article. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The statement is not trivial and you know it. Go call more of your revert buddies. Jayjg, I think you are being extremely dishonest. The Inclusion is true, you cannot and do not dispute it. So you resort to calling it "trivial" as your last resort? It is not trivia, as the above information clearly shows. Wikipedia is Inclusionary, you should not be Deleting facts. My agenda has been to contribute factually to Wikipedia, and not let propgandists and Deletionists skew the facts. The Inclusion is correct. That's my agenda, facts. What's yours? 69.209.230.73 16:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I know it's trivial, and it has been called trivial, or non-noteworthy, since you started inserting it. Well, first you inserted false information, then when that was reverted you kept refining it until you finally had it down to something true, but still trivial. You keep pretending the issue is about whether or not it is "true", or claiming some non-existent policies such as "Wikipedia is Inclusionary, you should not be Deleting facts." Your agenda is to promote the POV that Jews are responsible for Apartheid, along with a little bit of David Irving defending/ADL bashing. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Cheers. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's not trivial and you know it. You have deleted factual information to suit your POV. And yes, Wikipedia is not your soapbox for volumes of Jewish propaganda, but you aren't fooling anyone, who are you kidding: User:Jayjg/Edits User_talk:Jayjg The inclusion is FACT. Really jayjg, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. Cheers!! The Inclusion is fact.

HISTORY, not trivia:

19th Century

Apartheid Regime

Jews as part of White Ruling Class in South Africa

"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. 29-30"69.209.230.73 15:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)69.217.207.73 21:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I haven't inserted any Jewish propaganda into this article, I (along with many other editors) have just rejected your many attempts to use trivia to push a POV. As for your other claims, you're just repeating yourself; you have yet to convince even one other editor that you are correct on this, and there are at least 11 who disagree with you. That should tell you something. Now why don't you go add Bill Clinton's shoe size to the article on him? Remember, it's size 13. That's HISTORY! Jayjg ^(talk) 01:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unofficial arbitration.

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)

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)

Let's all delete the "French" and the "Germans" too as superfluous. Is there support for that? Also, see the significant last sentence regarding the Diaspora Jewish community: [[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew#Diaspora_.28outside_of_Israel.29)] 69.217.123.174 15:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- You're probably right, "French" and "Germans" are superfluous to this article. A better place to detail ethnic breakdowns in all their complexity is History of South Africa#Colonisation. Dystopos 22:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, let's, as I said earlier. A note about the last sentence of [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew#Diaspora_.28outside_of_Israel.29): even without the context, it is clear that the ZA Jewish community is significant in terms of world Jewish populations, not in terms of the ZA immigrant communities. Tomer ^TALK 23:23, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

South Africa being dragged into this as well now

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)

I agree WhatDoesKoshDoAllDay 06:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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) The Johannesburg edit is not related, it seems suspicious that it is brought up here. However the stable version of that article does in fact list the Jewish Community as "significant". That makes two references within Wikipedia to that. Another: [[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew#Diaspora_.28outside_of_Israel.29)]. 69.217.123.174 15:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

let's get this straight: There were no Diaspora Jews that moved to South Africa? That is just wrong, and it smacks of Revisionism. Is Wikipedia just going to reproduce old encyclopedia orthodoxy, or is its mission to progress and improve facts and knowledge?69.217.123.174 14:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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)

No, that post is likely a "hoax", that someone posted to discredit and sway the discussion. They are not linked at all, unless someone is trying to make it seem that way which seems obvious by the reaction.69.217.123.174 15:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hoax Edits

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)

Y'know, "deletionist" does not mean "someone who disagrees with your edits", and every time you use it, you make yourself look uninformed. I do encourage anyone with the power to do so to investigate the anonymous contributor's claims. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 16:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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)

The IP addresses are totally different. The vandalism has nothing to do with me or this particular discussion, unless it is being faked as an attempt to generate emotional responses. 69.217.123.174 16:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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)

BTW, there has been a bogus edit on the History of South Africa article, which may indicate that this is spilling over into that article as well.--Bcrowell 16:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BTW, you are being dishonest to this discussion. The only person who thinks this is "spilling over" is you. [[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_South_Africa&diff=15633027&oldid=15633000)] How can somebody's edit about Evolution have anything to do with discussing the fact that Diaspora Jews settled in S. Africa, right alonside the Dutch, the French, the Germans, the English, and other European Settlers? 69.217.123.174 16:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

Yes, let's overlook your hastily made accusations and personal attacks against User 69.217.123.174 that were incorrect.69.217.123.174 17:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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)

If you cannot determine authorship of an edit, then don't make accusations. That's simple too. That vandalism doesn't reflect on me, it reflects poorly on the hoax editors or the vandals whoever they may be. 69.217.123.174 17:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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)

Jayjg, were you the vandal or not?69.217.123.174 18:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Of course not. Are you all the various sockpuppets that have been reverting articles, including Azure1, FYI, SlimVirginjayjgJpgordon3Rrules, TeamRevertViolation, AmYisrael, EzraHabonim and Bethshalom? Also, I'm not sure why you continue to focus so strongly on me; many other editors here have both disgreed with you and reverted you as well. Jayjg, how many people have you censored or banned for your personal reasons? Let me make this clear, Jayjg: You will not censor anyone according to your own whims and bias. Never. Wikipedia is open to contributions from all people.69.221.60.181 20:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Regardless, didn't you say it would be a good idea to take a break from this article to "let those not so personally involved make educated decisions about neutrality"? I note that your verifiable contributions to Wikipedia so far include:

editing the Apartheid and South Africa articles to imply Jews are responsible for Apartheid
- Wrong. The 2-Word inclusion states that Diaspora Jews settled in the 19th Century. Reread the Inclusion.69.221.60.181

describing Kahanism as "Jewish supremicist"
- The group is already listed on the Supremacism page [[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacism)], and the group is Supremacist. Did you delete it?69.221.60.181 20:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

adding the names of two Jews to the List of Jewish Criminals
- Mark Swartz was found guilty this week.69.221.60.181 20:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Deleting links critical of David Irving
- That's not true. I combined redundant links and cleaned up the page. Nice try on the spin though.69.221.60.181 20:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Removing the word "approved" from the Israeli West Bank barrier article from a map showing the route approved by the Israeli government and Supreme Court.
- The approval is in dispute and has been called "illegal".69.221.60.181 21:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Insisted that Carlo Levi be described as "Jewish-Italian" rather than "Italian-Jewish".
Just like African-American, Jewish-American, Swiss-Italian, etc. You have it wrong, once again.69.221.60.181 22:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Jewish-related posts: User:Jayjg/Edits User_talk:Jayjg

To many people that would suggest that you are not able to be neutral about the subject of Jews;

Jayjg, your edit history shows inability to be neutral about Jews User:Jayjg/Edits User_talk:Jayjg. So much so, that you want to deny that Diaspora Jews settled in S. Africa in the 19th Century. You are not neutral at all.69.221.60.181 20:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you start following your advice. Move on to Bill Clinton, for example; not only does he wear size 13 shoes, but he has the largest feet of any American president; Abraham Lincoln also wore size 13 shoes, but his feet weren't as wide. An "inclusionist" like yourself knows that these facts must be documented on Wikipedia; the project is suffering deeply for every second the information is not prominently displayed in the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now, you're just being ridiculous. The Inclusion is not trivial in the fashion you describe above. Your analogies are way off the mark.69.221.60.181 20:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, your ad hominem attacks are nothing more than evasion from the subject edit at hand. "Diaspora Jews settled in South Africa in the 19th Century." That's all it said, and it's hardly trivial. Now kindly take your smoke and mirrors, personal attacks, and move on.69.221.60.181 20:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ad hominem bias

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. [[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Apartheid#Jews_as_part_of_White_Ruling_Class_in_South_Africa)]

"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)

- Anyone can edit, yes. And anyone can re-edit. People are encouraged to edit. This does not mean that every edit gains the approval of the community. And disputes are resolved, preferably, by consensus; failing that, by mediation or arbitration. It's clear to everyone here, except perhaps you, that the consensus does not agree with the edits you wish to make; though you've been trying quite hard for almost two months now, you have not made a dent in the consensus -- and you are not likely to, not even by repeating the same arguments -- no more than I seem to be able to get you to understand the nature of, the need for, and the rule of consensus at Wikipedia. You might be well advised to move on; if you need to pursue this, you should bring up a request for arbitration. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 19:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Censorship based on ad hominem illogic, and based against perceived bias against an editor (and not focused on the edit itself) is wrong and you know it. Jpgordon: Reread for the 4th time:

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.

A small group consensus as of 6-22-2005 does not mean the article is set in stone forever or that the 2-Word Inclusion you personally dislike is wrong. Wikipedia is open for editing. It's not about censorship. If an edit is factual and made in good faith, you ought not censor it. What really disappointing about your activity is the collusion and communication you employ with a small group to circumvent the open input process and basically censor that which your bias dislikes.69.221.60.181 19:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) 19:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All I can say about this is that you're wrong. It doesn't take any sort of collusion and communication for many people to come to the same conclusion. Nobody came to me and said "some anonymous editor is repeatedly making edits against consensus"; all it takes is several people who have the same article on their watchlists. If there's anything ad hominem about the argumentation here, it's your allegations of collusion and malfeasance; besides consensus, another principle of Wikipedia is assume good faith, which everyone else here is doing (which is why we're not treating your behaviour as vandalism or trolling). It doesn't take any back-channel conversations. And, yes, anyone can click the edit link and edit an article; in the same way you independently want to put in your change, a large number of other editors don't want it in. Your cries of "censorship" are mistaken (though hardly novel); this is called "editing", the very definition of which implies cutting unwanted material. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 00:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Inclusion Issue--The List: Dutch, Germans, French, English, Jews, and European Settlers

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)

You forgot Persian, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Danish, Polish and Russian. Your insistence on including miniscule groups just so you can blame Apartheid on Jews is biased, non-factual, and hyperinclusive in order to push a POV. Tomer ^TALK 21:44, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Include them if you like, but I believe they are covered by "other European Settlers". The inclusion is not "blame Jews for Apartheid". Nice try, but the Inclusion states Diaspora Jews settled in S. Africa in the 19th Century. That's it. Your paranoia POV is astounding. Read the words and please comprehend what they actually state, not what you "think" they might mean if you don't read them correctly. Are we blaming the French for apartheid by saying they were settlers? Also, the Jewish community in S. Africa was significant, there are plenty of references that have been provided substantiating it. Kindly read the Inclusion, do rely on ad hominem attacks accusing me of POV. The words are what they are, the facts are what they are also. 69.221.60.181 22:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My strongly held POV is that there is an excessive unjustified and unjustifiable effort by a single anonymous editor to include "Diaspora Jews" in a list of immigrants as somehow distinct from "other European Settlers". It would appear that pretty much everyone else but you agrees with me. Incidentally, please stop capitalizing "diaspora" and "settlers"; neither are proper nouns. Tomer ^TALK 23:29, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Who has reverted or opposed our anon POVer so far?

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)

- I haven't made any statements opposing such attempts. I offered an outsider opinion that History of South Africa#Colonisation would be a more appropriate place to do an ethnic or cultural breakdown of settlers unless there are particular aspects of apartheid that would make it useful to distinguish between settler groups. I'm opining solely about content. Look to WP policies for questions about user behavior. Dystopos 22:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- - Thank You Dystopos for pointing out Jayjg's gross oversimplifications and misstatements. He isn't fooling anyone with ad hominem attacks, in lieu of discussing the subject Inclusion at hand. He can ban all the user names he wants, but it really just smacks of censorship. The Inclusion really boils down to this: Is it trivial or not? If not, then since it's accurate and fact, it ought not be deleted. It is not trivia. Clinton's shoe size is "trivia", but saying that Diaspora Jews settled in S. Africa is not "trivial", it's factual history and we all know it. If another person says that the Inclusion blames Apartheid on the Jews, well that's just so far off-base, it doesn't deserve a response. The Inclusion does not state that.69.221.60.181 23:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - If no more than two words can be said about it, it probably is trivial, at least concerning apartheid. It may not be trivial concerning the Colonisation of South Africa or the geography of the diaspora. Ultimately, I recommend merging the history section of this article into the History of South Africa and merging most of the apartheid section of that article into this one. To go to such lengths to debate "THE INCLUSION" is ridiculous. To make personal attacks is against WP policy (Wikipedia:No personal attacks). Happy editing, I'm unwatching now. Dystopos 23:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and you obviously never answered the question: Are you all the various sockpuppets that have been reverting articles, including Azure1, FYI, SlimVirginjayjgJpgordon3Rrules, TeamRevertViolation, AmYisrael, EzraHabonim and Bethshalom? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Spamming talk pages will not convince anyone you are right. Tuf-Kat 22:30, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, you will not censor anyone based on your personal whims and bias. Are you going to "ban" again and again and again?69.221.60.181 22:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see an answer there; please respond. Thx. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are you going to continue to censor others on Wikipedia?69.221.60.181 23:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Apartheid"

Talk:Apartheid

Jewish settlement

Non-Revisionist Jewish History

Unprotecting

Jews as part of White Ruling Class in South Africa

Two Word Inclusion being Deleted

Explanation of an unusual unprotect

Rearranging History of South Africa and Apartheid articles

Who has reverted or opposed our anon POVer so far?

Page protected

Statement is Accurate

Unofficial arbitration.

South Africa being dragged into this as well now

Hoax Edits

Ad hominem bias

Inclusion Issue--The List: Dutch, Germans, French, English, Jews, and European Settlers

Who has reverted or opposed our anon POVer so far?

Navigation

Search

Toolbox

Personal tools