Talk:Apartheid/Archive 5

1239:

with the editor in question as to the relevance of the specific information said editor repeatedly insists needs to be inserted into the article for "accuracy" and "inclusivity". Since discussion has not resolved the issue in the form of either side convincing the other, I propose this vote so that we can, all of us, vote to demonstrate consensus (or lack thereof) and move forward for at least two months to more productive activity than bashing each other over the heads with the same, by now, tired discussion points. I say, for now at least, let's vote and have done with it for 2 months and move on. WHICHEVER "SIDE" WINS, I say that UNLIMITED daily reverts, WP policy notwithstanding, in favor of the winning position be permitted for the specified period, and that any questions by admins whose "help" is sought to block those reverting to uphold this decision, be referred to this vote and discussion, and that such admins take both seriously. This argument has consumed FAR more time and effort than should be necessary to resolve such disputes. Should this vote be characterized as an attempt to squelch a POV, let me be perfectly clear: THIS VOTE IS DESIGNED TO SQUELCH, FOR THE SPECIFIED PERIOD, THE "LOSING" POV.

2050:

version should be expanded to include, as KG catalogues "Greek, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, Lebanese, Polish, German and Swiss,... Russian, Croatian, Serb and Czech" not to speak of fat Europeans and non Europeans, thin ones, gays, lesbians, people who weren't sure one way or the other, ones who came wearing funny hats, bald men, bearded women etc. ad infinitum. Not to do so would be anti-Czech, homophobic, and fat-people-hating. In the absence of the anonymous editor providing us with a superior version including all such groups of equal prominence with the diaspora Jews (why should Jews emigrating from Palestine/Israel be left out?) I feel that there is no choice but to sadly use version 2 for the moment. He should probably make up his own very long article on the subject, as he clearly has the time and interest to do so.--

512:) as well, eventhough thus far he has not done anything that demonstrates that he's not a useful editor (except possibly for voting in favor of this troll). Nevertheless, at this point, I think anyone who has read the voluminous discussion perpetrated by this single individual, who flagrantly violates wikipedia polices without even the merest semblance of disgression, meanwhile crying foul whenever he thinks he can get away with accusing anyone and everyone else of having violated said policies, will agree that such stringencies on eligible votership are not surprising, nor entirely unreasonable, all due apologies to valuable editors who do not fit said criteria. 2300:, I have learned what the term is. What is unusual is the constant idiosyncratic views on Knowledge that are apparent when the same few POV editors revert and censor others over and over, they have the exact same editing style and POV, they protect articles from NPOV and improvement, and they communicate to avoid the 3 revert rule. That's dishonesty. That's also what I have learned about some editors and administrators on Knowledge. No names or personal attacks, I think all can see it clearly. 31: 2591:

certain sentence for 60 days. The need to eliminate the duplication is something that has been discussed extensively already (in the FA discussion, and on talk pages), and my impression is that a strong consensus has already been reached on it. I think it might have just fallen off of the radar because of the revert war here (and the revert war was also the reason why Pall, Maveric149, and I have been delaying carrying it out).--

419:"Knowledge is the the free-content encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit. Knowledge 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 Knowledge — 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." 1310:

the Vaal Triangle), included but not Vereeniging alone! Just compare the changes that user:152.163.100.203 on 17 June 2005 has been made on his/her own previous edit to the population levels of the two cities – cut it almost by halve! Ridiculous, where did these statistics came from? Is that the whole population of the two cities, or only a certain group? Who checked it?

804:. I think two months is fine. The period should be relatively short. The whole problem here is that the article has become locked in stone. If I wanted an article I couldn't edit, I'd use a print encyclopedia. The article needs to be improved extensively, and we don't want a straightjacket that prevents major changes a long way into the future.-- 2574:, although frankly I think the analogies are mostly nonsense. IMO the best case to be made is in the Southern U.S. before the civil rights movement, and even there it's pretty weak --- it wasn't a tiny white majority in power, and blacks were U.S. citizens. I don't see the status quo as a valid option; the duplication between 1949:--Nonsense? It is your opinion that is nonsense, that's just a rehash of eariler arguments long dead, and it has been rebutted by other South Africans involved in the Discussion. I do appreciate that you actually know something about South Africa as compared to many others heavily involved in the reverts, in particlular 2590:

article, but I see that as a separate issue from the need to eliminate the duplication, which I think should be obvious. The reason I asked if we needed a formal vote, and waited 24 hours, was simply that this would go against the letter, although not the spirit, of the vote, which says to preserve a

731:

If what you say were true, none of the votes on the Knowledge, especially Votes for Deletion, would be valid. Fact is, most decisions on articles on Knowledge are taken through finding consensus, whether this be between 3 editors or three hundred. What these votes are is a measure of what the editors

427:

We (on Knowledge) don't individually try to "own" the additions we make to Knowledge. 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

2348:

The anon's complaints about the voting qualifications are irrelevant. According to the criteria proposed by Tomer, the vote is 11 to 1 (since JohanL doesn't meet the criteria). But even if the criteria were relaxed, the vote would still be 11 to 3 (assuming the anon would have cast one vote). So the

2155:

Repetition does not strengthen your sievish case. You are one voice, you have spoken, and you are in the distinct minority. The above vote is to determine consensus, or the lack thereof, a forum in which you have but one voice. So far, it looks like your shrill voice will not be heeded. Besides,

1738:

coming around to to the defense of the defamation of the "French" and the "Germans", after all this time? Or was he overly concerned with his POV and obsession, being only concerned about his "Jews"? Thanks for taking the time to produce some proposed text that attempts equality and fairness, that

1635:

But none of this is necessary. SA was colonized primarily by German, Dutch, French, and later English settlers; that probably describes 95%-99% of the voluntary immigrants (I'm excepting the Indian indentured servants, mostly because I don't know the numbers). I think that's a pretty clean cut for a

1249:

YES, THIS VOTE IS DESIGNED TO SQUELCH, and censor the facts of the settlement of South Africa, especially in the 19th and 20th centuries. Knowledge is not limited in size. The improved text (two words) improves the accuracy of the article, and takes into account the concerns of all editors, except

521:

Thanks for the compliment! Maybe I haven't done much to demonstrate my usefulness, but I don't think we need an expert to see that discrimination and sensoring is at work on this page. Furthermore, I wonder who is "increasingly verbally abusive" now? (See Section 4 below, and count the votes against

2079:

A distinction needs to be made between the early German settlers who were a small but significant contribution to the ancestry of the Afrikaners and the present German minority (consisting partly of Germans from Nambia) who like the Jews are a statistically insignificant minority. Similarly between

1551:

dishonestly demands be on the list, were much less significant as political or economic entities during the 20th Century in South Africa. This the Googletest proves with flying colors. After all this time, nobody has addressed the inequities of the text as it relates to "the list" until now, even

2108:

There are numerous minority immigrants from all over the world who cannot sensibly be referred to as "settling", they immigrated to existing establish places. The Jewish community is significant only in the context of the subject the Jewish Diaspora as a whole, as far as South Africa goes they are

2049:

I think Kuratowski's Ghost's and 69.217.200.164's latest posts contain the germ of a solution. Surely there can be no other motivation for this anonymous editor's addition than a feeling that if his version is not used, that a certain group will feel left out and discriminated against. Thus, his

2003:

Where's the attack? Kuratowski's Ghost is Jewish, as are you, as is Jayjg, Tomer, SlimVirigin, Humus Sapiens, and maybe I've missed a few more. So what? How is that an attack? You guys are great at caring about and focusing on Jewish issues on Knowledge. However, I'm glad you finally see that

1972:

set the stage for a unique, relevant and notable 20th Century Jewish community. Please reread the text actually being discussed, it does not place blame. The Jewish community in South Africa during the 20th Century was notable and it was considered white, and it deserves mention. Please provide

1743:

editors might agree with besides just what Jewish editors focus upon. The hysteria about listing the Jews, must apply also to the French and Germans, under your line of reasoning. I personally think that more inclusive and more factual information is better, but if you try to delete, at least be

1309:

and I cannot agree with some of the figures mentioned, i.e. the population of Bloemfontein compared to Vereeniging! Never ever can the population of Vereeniging be almost the same, even more than Bloemfontein! Maybe with all the surrounding towns of Vanderbijlpark, Sasolburg & Meyerton (called

1238:

This immobile discussion has gone on long enough. My sense is that there is a single anonymous (and rather cantankerous) editor who is attempting to insert a specific (albeit unspecified) POV into the article, and that EVERY OTHER EDITOR WHO'S PAYING ATTENTION TO THE DISPUTE IN QUESTION disagrees

1152:

I say neither proposal works. Singling out Jews is anti-semitic drivel. But singling out Europeans when South Africa has minority communities from all over the world including Indians, Malays, Chinese, Koreans, Nigerians, Moroccons etc etc etc besides European minorities is unecessary bias againts

1930:

I've only just discovered this Diaspora Jews colonizing SA nonsense, this is one is a no brainer there are only about 70 000 - 80 000 Jews in SA, maybe as much as 120 000 in the mid 20th century before many left because they didn't want to be part of Apartheid. Why single out Jews when there were

1160:

I agree. The best proposal that I've seen here is the one that says "start from 1948". Forget the early colonists, apartheid was not their creation. The "scientific racism" fallacy is a creature of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The whole argument about who was or wasn't a settler is

2291:

OK, I've reviewed those pages, but where is the mention that a vote can be "restricted" in such a fashion? Please show me. Your concerns about sockpuppetry cannot trump an open, free vote and restrict it to a small like-minded group. The vote is clearly undemocratic and against policy unless

1604:

We're talking a one-sentence introduction to the history of the colonization of South Africa as it pertains to apartheid, not a detailed discussion of the history of the demographics of South Africa. (I notice nobody has mentioned the Indian population, by the way, which was, I believe, far more

1184:

As the originator of this vote, and a rather vocal participant in the latter stages of the discussion on this issue, my vote is obviously (to anyone who has read the relevant foregoing discussion), in favor of Jayjg's proposal, which I have no doubt, is based in some small part on my many cogent

2412:

article, it looks very good (only thing I found questionable was the date of 500 CE instead of the more usual 1000 CE for the Bantu reaching SA but I suppose its different opinions about dating iron implements.) We don't really need the history and images duplicated in this article which should

1560:

and the political implications and issues that resulted during the apartheid era. Irrelevant? Maybe to some with a history of POV. The improved text is accurate, fair and inclusive. The amount of denial and POV by a few problematic editors, lasting over 2 months, in the face of mountains of

437:

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). Knowledge is open content, released under the GNU Free Documentation License. Knowing this

1605:

numerous than the Jewish population -- something like 2.5% of the population currently, versus 0.14%.) If it can be shown that the Jewish immigration was fundamental to the foundation of apartheid (as was, for example, the Dutch), then the Jewish population bears mention in this context. --

2379:

was nominated twice for FA, and narrowly missed the second time around. Because it went through that process, it's in extremely good shape, and doesn't need a lot of work right now. If an article has to be paralyzed by the anon, it might as well be the one that doesn't need a lot of work.

1615:

What is not clear to me is (as golfers would say) "who makes the cut?" (what's the number and who decides). How big a proportion of the colonists do you have to have to be listed or not listed? You say that language is not relevant, but it is a lot more evident than original nationality

505:

This does not discriminate against anonymous editors, it discriminates against anonymous editors whose grasp of the fundamental policies that make the Knowledge run smoothly is in legitimate doubt. It is, perhaps, poorly worded, however, in expressing that, since this wording eliminates

2134:

Let me further point out that not all the small minorities in SA are European, there are Lebanese, Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Thai, Moroccans, Nigerians, Cubans ... Moreover within the Jewish minority not all are "Diaspora Jews" but also Israeli Jews who came to escape daily terrorism.

1429:)"...that's concise, NPOV, and informative. If people care from which country these immigrants came, they can go look. Since the majority came from Nederland and England, it would probably be imprecise to exclude mention of them specifically, but it still wouldn't be inaccurate. 1483:

That's just a re-hash of the same trivia in an attempt to make is more palatable, and it's original research to boot. Do you know what the prevalence of language spoken by immigrants to South Africa was? Even if you did, why on earth would it be relevant to and article about

456:

Your opinion will be given the most weight if you are logged in with an account that already existed when the nomination was made. Anonymous and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their votes may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad

1344:

and many more. In fact, there are several Jews in leading positions in the politics of SA at this present moment; therefore I agree with user 69.219.53.138 that they are worth mentioning in this article. Without that, the article will be incomplete and inaccurate!

1640:" -- and maybe we should. Did apartheid per se (as opposed to the much more common minority European domination of aboriginal peoples) exist prior to its post-WWII codification? Maybe this would work better, under "History of apartheid in South Africa" 1361:

article, not this one. That there are Jews in leading positions in the current government of ZA is probably irrelevant all around, unless such things are considered sufficiently noteworthy in ZA that their prominence should be noted, not here, but in

1470:"South Africa was colonised by European settlers from the 17th century onwards. The early settlers spoke Dutch and German, later settlers followed in the 19th and 20th centuries, speaking English, French, Yiddish, Russian and other European languages" 1332:! Anyway the Jews, however a small percentage of the South African white population, have made major contributions to the development of South-Africa, politically but especially economically, and virtually in all facets of life. To mention a few, 1803:

Your so-called "diaspora Jews" ARE EUROPEANS. It's obvious that that is your major confusion here; you somehow think that people that lived in Europe for well over a thousand years before they then emigrated to South Africa are not Europeans.

2063:]. If there is a reason to address Czech or homophobic people than you have to justify it as relevant and notable, something that's already been done for the 20th Century Jewish Community. I see you likewise have not done any reading about 1568:

This is not a new proposal, it's a reiteration of the same intellectually vacuous arguments that the anon has been repeating for months, and that have already been rejected by a clear consensus of the editors who are interested in this

1546:

Thank you. Jayjg is still here pushing his POV, that has already been disproven. The Jewish community was considered white, and it was a relevant and notable community in the 20th Century. The 17th Century Germans and French, that

736:

believe is the best option. Clearly, all the editors who have been involved in this article over the past month or so are against your inclusion, which means consensus has been reached against you. This is the way Knowledge works.

1348:

How is such a miniscule group, even if they are presently in leading positions of power, or have made significant contributions to the development of ZA, sufficiently relevant to warrant prominent mention in a discussion of

1153:

Europeans. Trying to justify singling out European minorities on the grounds that they are part of the so-called "white" group is to perputuate the rubbish racial classification scheme that was cornerstone of Apartheid.

487:

says this proposal is acceptable, then forget it. Work to provide an improved text, please do not allow censorship or ad hominem illogic. Strive for the facts, consistency, no denial, etc. Work to provide an improved

1467:

This will be taken by some people as ducking the issue I know but, looked at from the PoV of the people whose land was taken by force of arms, it is rather irrelevant from which European tribe they came. So how about:

1636:

short introduction to the history. "Intellectual rigor" is fine where appropriate; intellectual rigor does not mean mentioning every possible fact every place it can be mentioned. We could, of course, just say "See

2360:. I would actually favor a title more like History of South Africa in the Apartheid Era, for two reasons: (1) apartheid didn't start suddenly, like turning on a light switch, and (2) if the idea is to split up 1216:

Just a clarification: the comment above beginning with "The Anon's posts are cogent..." came from ip 69.219.53.138, the same as the rest of the string of anonymous edits. In other words, it's the anon praising

709:

A vote by a small group of individuals, those determining the so-called rules, is undemocratic. There needs to be an explanatory section regarding a small-group of that operates as a Revert Team to censor.

2371:

article, which would be the only article that would actually be covering the colonial period. However, if an article has to be afflicted with a revert war, I think it's better for that article to be

1931:

significant Greek, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, Lebanese, Polish, German and Swiss minorities who came around the same time and these days even bigger Russian, Croatian, Serb and Czech communities.

1751:

The most simple and accurate text, that places no blame, that addresses ideas of all concerned, including noting "smaller" populations, and does not omit notable and relevant information, remains:

2143:

You have further proved the point, that the text needs work, and should be more inclusive, not less. The googletest provides the best litmus test, unless someone can suggest otherwise? We should

1620:

factor that was really "fundamental to the foundation of apartheid" was (a) skin colour and (b) a belief in racial supremacy. All the rest is mere drapery. So, to be intellectually rigorous, you

2505:

I have no objections, as long as what you do is just blank this page and turn it into a redirect. I shouldn't want to lose the Talk, since much of it has finally culminated with this proposal.

2391:

I concur. There is precedent for undoing the full effect of the vote, by opening a new vote on when to start the discussion of Apartheid. If the discussion begins with the first apartheid-like

1977:

numbers for any other group you want to highlight. If they are notable, they too should be mentioned. There are only a few editors that want to delete, and we all know why they have that bias.

1456:

Clarification: this comment was not signed, and appears to be by the same anon. (When I first read this, I thought that this paragraph and the one after it, by Red King, were both by the anon.)--

1893:, 5) the National Party and South African Zionsts, 6) the mining companies' labor practises, et al. Not once. I don't think he has contributed to the discussion other than just complaining. 1663:, a large number of laws were enacted, codifying the dominance of white people over other races. That election was won despite the National Party having lost the popular vote because of 834:

Wikpipedia is not a paper encyclopedia limited in size. The "white origins" included diaspora Jews. Anything that says otherwise is untrue, and cannot ever be considered authoritative.

2495:, please make them within the next 24 hours, and if necessary, we'll have a follow-up vote. If no objections turn up within that time frame, I'll go ahead and eliminate this article.-- 1717:

I agree, avoidance of the sentence causing the problems is a good idea. The "As was typically the case in " sentence between these two might be kept, as it doesn't seem contentious.--

460:

Please vote only once. If there is evidence that someone is using sock puppets (multiple accounts belonging to the same person) to vote more than once, those votes will not be counted.

2250:

Can someone kindly reference the section that would approve of limiting participation in such a "closed" fashion? This is not anything close to resembling an open collaboration:

2356:, which is a very high-quality article, but too long. Pall, Maveric149, and I have already discussed spinning off the apartheid-era history, and Maveric149's work so far is at 2383:

In any case, I think the vote has had the desired effect of proving that there is an overwhelming consensus against inserting the anon's agenda into *any* of these articles.--

1328:

OK, that’s a different case and must be treated seperately, but you claimed that the Jews should be mentioned on said article. Where? I cannot find any mentioning of Jews in

2586:; 95% of that article is short definitions of a long list of terms applied to individuals (e.g., "feminazi") rather than forms of givernment. I think I'll make a separate 2016:" merit some discussion too. People were starting to wonder whether you were trying to blame them for apartheid, without any facts, knowledge or footnotes to back it up. 2519: 1628:

include every category that anybody wants included. Though why anybody would want to to accept guilt by association with such an abominable perspective is beyond me. --

2260:

If someone could link a Knowledge reference that this type of limited and arbitrary set-up is acceptable, it would be appreciated. Is this Knowledge Iran? Thanks.

699:. I think we need this explanatory section for the benefit of people who haven't been following the voluminous debate. Might want to expand the list of sockpuppets.-- 546:

and deceitful tracking that is dishonest. Some POV adminstrators will rollback anything without discussion based on a user name and ad hominem illogic, if they have

304:

This vote shall not consider anonymous IP addresses, nor registered wikipedians with fewer than 500 edits not directly related to this issue prior to June 30, 2005:

200:

The purpose of which is to determine the inclusion or exclusion of specific "significant groups" in the makeup of ZA's White population as outlined in the article:

2280:, and it's not a casual issue; it's blitheringly easy to stack a vote by logging in from a dozen different IP addresses, or by creating a new Knowledge account. -- 2255:

This vote shall not consider anonymous IP addresses, nor registered wikipedians with fewer than 500 edits not directly related to this issue prior to June 30, 2005

477:

This vote shall not consider anonymous IP addresses, nor registered wikipedians with fewer than 500 edits not directly related to this issue prior to June 30, 2005

1413:

that's not particularly important to the discussion of Apartheid, is not POV, it's "sticking to the subject". To say that because an ethnic group is included in

2660:; it dilutes the quality and seriousness of the article, and plays into exactly the kind of gamesmanship and Stalinesque rewriting of history that have crippled 2582:

has been under discussion for a long time, and needs to be fixed. I would be happy to put the analogies section somewhere else, but I don't think it belongs at

1584:

I have addressed the issues raised, just one time. It's just that, unlike you, I don't crapflood the talk page by repeating the same arguments over and over.--

115:

I propose that we conduct a vote which shall last 5 days (beginning at 08:00:00 UTC, Sunday July 3, 2005. Votes closing 08:00:00 UTC, Friday, July 8, 2005):

2657: 2641: 2571: 2492: 2481: 2473: 2457: 2449: 1964:"Ancient history, in particular Jewish history." He says: "I am a non-theistic Jew..." You know the facts, the Jewish community was considered White, and 2364:

into smaller parts, then the article needs to cover more than just apartheid itself (although apartheid was, of course, the central issue in that period).

1576:

That's the same empty rhetoric you've been using for months. Empty. It adds nothing, it contributes nothing. Address the issues raised, just one time.

2098:"South Africa was settled initially by the Dutch, Germans and French from the 17th century onwards. The English followed in the 19th and 20th centuries." 1421:

is not "consistent", it's "repetitive". I don't care if you say "European immigrants arrived in great numbers between the 17th and mid-20th century. (

2080:

the French Hugenots who came as refugees and were a significant part of the ancestors of the Afrikaners and the current insignificant French minority.

1698:

I second that proposal. It cuts to the chase. The article doesn't need another copy of the history of SA before we can get to what really matters. --

2101:

That omits information from the reader about the existence of the Jewish community which is relevant and notable. Why are you trying to censor facts?

1262:

that addesses your concerns about relative populations or whatever, but don't delete facts. Improve Knowledge, please don't censor it based on POV.

445:

Actually, the precedent is fairly well-established, especially in Votes for Deletion. Here's the following text from the Votes for Deletion info page:

2522:

with a brief note about the controversy, so people will still be able to find this article. If you like, we can even archive the recent vote there.--

2024:

Wow. All you guys are Jews too? Cool! b"H for the antisemites out there who never fail to let me know who I should be rooting for! Yippie! :-p

1992:

Good grief. Weren't you the editor complaining vehemently about "ad hominem" attacks? You've just provided an absolutely classic example thereof. --

1449:

that addesses your concerns about relative populations or whatever, but don't delete facts. Improve Knowledge, please don't censor it based on POV.

672:

I put this forward as an alternative -- but I'm not sure we need this section at all, since the rest of the survey makes clear what it's about. --

522:

that statement!). I can clearly see why "anon" prefer to stay anonymous. Anyway, you got my vote now and I don't want to argue with you any more.

2109:

one of numerous insignificant minorities. If any group needs to be mentioned it is the Indians and Malays who have a significant presence in SA.

550:

that user. It's disgraceful, and it will be reported henceforth. I think plenty of editors and administrators have revealed just who they are.

542:

would you kindly stop using the term troll already? That's a stupid term, and "it takes one to know one". A reason to stay "anonymous" is the

2167:

I see you too condone censorship and abuse by administrators. Censorship and systemic bias could undue the open process of this enclyclopedia.

2088:

Yes, that makes part sense. But the Jews are not insignificant in 19th and 20th Century South African history, they are notable and relevant.

1539:

Oh, what happened to the "French"? The diaspora Jews settled in South Africa. Reread the text. It does not say blame the Jews, which is the

1524:

The Dutch, the Germans, and the English were the very heart of the history of apartheid in South Africa. So-called "diaspora Jews" were not. --

2422:

BTW this piece of trash who keeps trying to add anti-semitic fantasies about Jews colonizing SA is not worth arguing with, I say ban his IP.

2433: 2352:

I agree with Red King and others, who suggest that the best thing to do would be to start from 1948 anyway. This article is redundant with

2328:

Right. I was looking at VfD and then looked at VfU and saw the language in VfU and therefore put VfD here instead. Cranial flatulation. --

1616:(Dutch/Afrikaans speakers being more hardline; only the Afrikaaner "Dutch" Reformed Church searched for a Biblical basis for racism). The 332:; I'm not quite comfortable with the 500 edit limit, but given the fondness for puppetry here, I'm not sure where I'd set the limit. -- 1280:

The problem is not the inclusion of Jews into a list of immigrants to ZA. The problem is that such a list belongs in a discussion of

1953:

who has contributed absolutely nothing of substance to the subject. However I am concerned about you having too much POV and bias:

1517:. Drop the dutch, the german, the english and then you have a reasonable basis to drop the diaspora jews. Otherwise you don't. -- 1314: 1552:

after many requests. So thank you for contributing and not joining a kangaroo court. Not one person has addressed the history of

1445:

Any text that omits the diaspora Jews as settlers is false and intellectually dishonest, as the Googletest proves. Please work to

1258:

Any text that omits the diaspora Jews as settlers is false and intellectually dishonest, as the Googletest proves. Please work to

2395:, the discussion of where the Europeans came from will be completely mootified, as it will no longer be included in the article. 2518:

A talk page can exist even when there's no article to go with it at all, so there's no reason it has to go away. I put a note at

2308: 2269: 1254:"just because they don't like it". It's not about being on a losing side. It's about honesty, accuracy, and historical fact. 428:

the perfect article, but it becomes easier when working together. That in fact has been our repeated experience on Knowledge."

2316: 1652: 2312: 2273: 1424: 1414: 1354: 1329: 1306: 1281: 1824:

Please stop feeding the trolls. It is a complete waste of time for you two to keep repeating yourseves like kids going

2674: 2649: 2645: 2587: 1273:

I'm sorry for throwing a spanner into the works! - I totally agree with the last statement of the anonymous editor.

433:

Editability "Knowledge articles are extremely easy to edit. ANYONE can click the "edit" link and edit an article.

1853:

etc ad nauseam. Just ignore it, everybody else has. If you can't add something new and constructive, be quiet. --

1200:

The Anon's posts are cogent, well-researched, footnoted, justified, and proven correct (see Rebuttal Summary) to a

38: 1489: 2423: 2357: 2216: 2136: 2110: 2081: 1978: 1957: 1932: 1363: 1154: 97: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 2156:

you're supposed to be sitting on timeout. Time to reset the timer until 9:34AM CDT Thursday, it looks like.

345:

I don't think any of the proper editors involved in this discussion have fewer than 500 edits on the 'pedia.

2579: 2469: 2465: 2409: 2376: 2372: 2368: 2361: 2353: 1637: 1379:], and evaluate themselves in terms of their attitude in connection with i.e. anonymity, subjectivity, etc. 2148: 2126: 2102: 2089: 2072: 2043: 2017: 1985: 1919: 1745: 1667:

voting districts overrepresenting the rural, farming areas that depended on cheap unskilled black labour.

1597: 1577: 1562: 1543:

issue you care about, not facts, not truth, not historical accuracy, nothing else but your biased POV.

1402: 654: 489: 252: 2583: 2552: 2301: 2297: 2277: 2261: 2228: 2168: 1894: 1263: 835: 710: 551: 367: 2535:

I have some misgivings about this. Rightly or wrongly, the word "apartheid" has a more general usage.

1086:

Aye - immigration of Jews is irrelevant in this case. Europeans went there is all that is necessary.

2215:

They forgot to mention anonymous anti-semitic edits of SA related articles on wikipedia though :D

2681: 2608: 2559: 2551:

I almost agree, but I would propose adding a disambig to the top of the new article directing to

2539: 2509: 2399: 2332: 2323: 2284: 2239: 2160: 2028: 1996: 1808: 1735: 1682: 1609: 1528: 1433: 1390: 1370: 1321: 1292: 1243: 1211: 1193: 1059: 1027: 795: 783: 691: 676: 658: 589: 577: 516: 336: 314: 222: 210: 137: 125: 2367:

Of course, the effect of all this might just be to divert the anon into revert-warring over the

1501:

It's an attempt to try again from a different perspective. Yes, your counter-argument is valid

2349:

only issue is whether the vote was 78% in favor or 92%. Either way, there's a clear consensus.

2204: 1678:

Seems to me this would have been perhaps the best edit, independent of this entire brouhaha. --

1596:

editors can agree with? that is fair and accurate and doesn't omit information to a reader?

2307:

Sockpuppet votes are discounted everywhere, but what Jpgordon was referring to in addition to

1890: 1337: 2648:. I don't think it's a good idea to dump the kind of argumentative, partisan stuff that's in 2644:, where the first thing they'll see is the disambiguation notice at the top, which links to 2210: 2292:

someone can show us the policy that states otherwise. The vote as set up is illegitimate.

1548: 2440: 1943: 1910: 1496: 1134: 1102: 1089: 875: 826: 408: 358: 292: 243: 188: 158: 2491:

If there are any objections to eliminating this article and making it into a redirect to

2456:

As discussed above under "interpretation of vote; starting from 1948," I've created the

438:

encourages people to contribute; they know it's a public project that everyone can use."

2223:

What does that have to do with the discussion, or this section's topic? Please do use

2185: 2118: 2068: 1969: 1882: 1557: 1333: 1036: 662: 47: 17: 2678: 2665: 2605: 2592: 2556: 2536: 2523: 2506: 2496: 2485: 2396: 2384: 2329: 2320: 2281: 2236: 2157: 2039: 2025: 1993: 1874: 1854: 1805: 1732: 1699: 1679: 1664: 1629: 1606: 1585: 1570: 1525: 1518: 1473: 1457: 1430: 1387: 1367: 1318: 1289: 1240: 1218: 1208: 1190: 1166: 1056: 1046: 1024: 805: 792: 780: 700: 688: 673: 609: 586: 574: 539: 513: 333: 323: 311: 219: 207: 134: 122: 1772: 957: 912: 472: 1877:

has never addressed the issues of 1) the "French" and "Germans" being listed, 2)

435:

Peer review per se is not necessary and is actually a bit of a pain to deal with.

2413:

indeed focus on the history of introduction of discrimanatoy laws and Apartheid.

2051: 1886: 1718: 1515:"South Africa was colonised by European settlers from the 17th century onwards." 1380: 1341: 1274: 1111: 1003: 994: 853: 844: 753: 719: 637: 628: 523: 507: 484: 395: 376: 270: 261: 166: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2684: 2668: 2611: 2595: 2542: 2526: 2499: 2442: 2437: 2058: 1974: 1950: 1940: 1907: 1493: 1130: 1120: 1099: 1069: 871: 862: 823: 650: 599: 567:

as opposed to that by the vandalistic and increasingly verbally abusive anon:

564: 404: 385: 355: 288: 279: 240: 184: 175: 155: 2117:

That is demonstrably not true. There was a special relationship between the

2661: 2637: 2633: 2575: 2477: 2461: 2189: 2064: 2013: 1965: 1878: 1873:, as in the all the reports about "Anti-Semitism", not "anti-Europeanism". 1553: 1418: 1410: 1285: 1079: 814: 770: 738: 619: 475:

himself could not vote according to the rules this little group has set up:

346: 231: 146: 2319:, where the rules regarding sockpuppetry are spelled out quite clearly. 2181: 2122: 1780: 1656: 965: 920: 2034:

Calling someone who is a Jew, Jewish, is not an attack. However, using

1561:

information and thoroughly researched and footnoted data, is staggering.

2652:

into another article that's on a more objective historical topic, like

2009: 1870: 1776: 1764: 961: 949: 916: 904: 471:

That's false. This is a kangaroo court with no standing. Even Bishop

2570:

I've preserved all the apartheid analogies in a section at the end of

425:"You don't need anything special; you don't even need to be logged in. 2653: 2629: 2601: 2005: 1768: 953: 908: 653:

as opposed to that by the anonymous editor most recently editing as

366:, that is censorship at work. Are you Jimbo Wales? Thankfully not. 1760: 1386:

OK, so vote for the anon's formulation. Help us form consensus. --

945: 900: 2432:

Not easy to do, as he's used a dozen userid and 3 dozen IPs: see

2268:

Well, the two most obvious, and perhaps the most important, are

2224: 2177: 2035: 1866: 1784: 1660: 1509:

the colonists' original nationalities are irrelevant and so the

924: 25: 1982:

Can you provide us an alternative text that all can agree on?

769:

determine the wording of the "white origins" sections of the

2640:

becomes a redirect, clicking on that will just take them to

2276:. The purpose, in both cases (as well as here) is to avoid 2203:

I googled for "Muslim racist South Africa" and found this:

1401:

The two should be consistent, not inconsistent, that's POV.

511:

haHA! censorship at work! how convenient</sarcasm: -->

2125:, that far outweighs the ridiculous comparison to Malays. 2600:

Perhaps the non-SA usage might be best mentioned in the

1651:

In the years following the victory of the South African

1185:

previous posts on this subject. For more, please see "

773:

article for a period to last NOT LESS THAN TWO MONTHS:

322:. Sock puppets have already been used in this debate.-- 1015:(by Jayjg) (votes MUST be signed by valid WP editors): 986:(by Anon) (votes MUST be signed by valid WP editors): 394:

Please do not discriminate against anonymous editors

1901:

How is the Discussion History archived and accessed?

1592:--Why don't you try taking a stab at some text that 649:

The subject of this vote is the wording proposed by

598:

Agree in principle, but uncessary characterisation.

563:

The subject of this vote is the wording proposed by

1353:? That the Jewish immigrants are not mentioned in 1207:Only to the satisfaction of the Anon in question. 2227:and Knowledge has a policy of no personal attacks. 2145:stick to tests that are commonly used on Knowledge 1377:I would advise all editors to have a good look at 2520:Talk:History of South Africa in the Apartheid era 2042:, Knowledge has a policy of no personal attacks. 968:settlers followed in the 19th and 20th centuries. 1505:the logical conclusion of your position is that 1266:4 July 2005 18:26 (UTC) 4 July 2005 18:12 (UTC) 133:, but clarification re: starting time needed. -- 618:I do however agree with jpgordon's alternative 2205:Anti-Semitism Worldwide 1999/2000 SOUTH AFRICA 1440:NEW PROPOSAL (collaboration for improved text) 2484:. Any objections? Do we need a formal vote?-- 585:. Characterization of anon is unnecessary. -- 8: 2658:History of South Africa in the Apartheid Era 2642:History of South Africa in the Apartheid Era 2572:History of South Africa in the apartheid Era 2493:History of South Africa in the Apartheid Era 2482:History of South Africa in the Apartheid Era 2474:History of South Africa in the Apartheid Era 2458:History of South Africa in the Apartheid Era 2450:History of South Africa in the Apartheid Era 2235:A policy which you would do well to learn. 2196:Relevant and notable information to follow. 1252:totally delete/withhold accurate information 887:The two forwarded proposals are as follows: 1759:"South Africa was settled initially by the 944:"South Africa was settled initially by the 899:"South Africa was settled initially by the 2344:interpretation of vote; starting from 1948 2448:eliminating this article (redirection to 2147:. Does anyone have a problem with that? 1787:followed in the 19th and 20th centuries. 927:followed in the 19th and 20th centuries. 2472:now just refers to the main article at 939:: The version proffered by User:Jayjg: 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 1960:interests include (here we go again): 734:involved with the article in question 657:, as 69.*.*.* generally, and also as 7: 2434:User:Jayjg/Jews did Apartheid editor 608:, for the same reason as jpgordon.-- 2460:article by combining the text from 2176:Relationship between South African 1744:consistent and fair for a change. 1624:either omit all mention of origin 24: 1939:Perhaps you should vote as well. 1315:Talk:Demographics of South Africa 894:: The version proffered by Anon: 2480:should now become a redirect to 2270:Knowledge:Requests for adminship 1885:, 3) the googletest results, 4) 29: 1417:means it should be included in 1186: 2675:Apartheid outside South Africa 2650:Apartheid Outside South Africa 2646:Apartheid Outside South Africa 2588:Apartheid Outside South Africa 2317:Knowledge:Votes for undeletion 2038:that cannot be backed-up is. 1488:? It might have a place in a 1147:Comments in favor of neither: 1: 1447:come up with an improved text 1260:come up with an improved text 1179:Comments in favor of either: 2632:is currently just a link to 2274:Knowledge:Votes for deletion 1425:Demographics of South Africa 1415:Demographics of South Africa 1409:Not mentioning something in 1355:Demographics of South Africa 1330:Demographics of South Africa 1307:Demographics of South Africa 1282:Demographics of South Africa 964:and other smaller groups of 2464:with the relevant parts of 2408:I wasn't even aware of the 2211:Antisemitism Worldwide 2004 791:, though it's too short. -- 106:Proposal for moving forward 2725: 2561:17:52, July 10, 2005 (UTC) 2511:14:45, July 10, 2005 (UTC) 2113:6 July 2005 12:25 (UTC) 1906:See links at top of page. 1779:, other smaller groups of 1233:Miscellaneous commentary: 1161:essentially irrelevant to 919:, other smaller groups of 2685:20:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC) 2677:reference. Never mind! -- 2673:Actually, I'd missed the 2669:20:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC) 2612:19:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC) 2596:18:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC) 2543:17:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC) 2527:15:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC) 2443:18:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC) 2358:Talk:History_of_apartheid 2325:July 8, 2005 17:36 (UTC) 1490:Languages of South Africa 518:July 6, 2005 07:49 (UTC) 510:'s vote (<sarcasm: --> 251:see Googletest results. 2500:20:51, 9 July 2005 (UTC) 2488:9 July 2005 17:57 (UTC) 2401:July 8, 2005 22:22 (UTC) 2387:8 July 2005 22:10 (UTC) 2304:8 July 2005 16:29 (UTC) 2264:8 July 2005 15:17 (UTC) 2241:July 8, 2005 17:32 (UTC) 2231:8 July 2005 14:46 (UTC) 2162:July 6, 2005 15:19 (UTC) 2151:6 July 2005 14:34 (UTC) 2105:6 July 2005 14:34 (UTC) 2092:6 July 2005 14:34 (UTC) 2075:6 July 2005 14:34 (UTC) 2054:6 July 2005 10:09 (UTC) 2046:6 July 2005 14:38 (UTC) 2030:July 6, 2005 07:51 (UTC) 2020:6 July 2005 05:05 (UTC) 1988:6 July 2005 04:26 (UTC) 1935:6 July 2005 02:25 (UTC) 1922:5 July 2005 18:55 (UTC) 1897:8 July 2005 15:12 (UTC) 1748:6 July 2005 04:37 (UTC) 1632:5 July 2005 23:04 (UTC) 1612:5 July 2005 19:47 (UTC) 1600:5 July 2005 17:28 (UTC) 1580:5 July 2005 17:19 (UTC) 1573:5 July 2005 17:16 (UTC) 1565:5 July 2005 17:12 (UTC) 1498:5 July 2005 15:09 (UTC) 1476:5 July 2005 14:49 (UTC). 1435:July 5, 2005 18:09 (UTC) 1405:5 July 2005 14:04 (UTC) 1383:5 July 2005 15:14 (UTC) 1372:July 5, 2005 18:09 (UTC) 1364:Politics of South Africa 1323:July 5, 2005 18:09 (UTC) 1294:July 4, 2005 21:03 (UTC) 1277:4 July 2005 20:41 (UTC) 1245:July 3, 2005 08:01 (UTC) 1213:July 4, 2005 18:33 (UTC) 1195:July 3, 2005 08:12 (UTC) 1187:miscellaneous commentary 1039:July 3, 2005 15:32 (UTC) 1029:July 3, 2005 07:50 (UTC) 785:July 3, 2005 07:50 (UTC) 693:July 3, 2005 19:31 (UTC) 579:July 3, 2005 07:50 (UTC) 316:July 3, 2005 07:50 (UTC) 212:July 3, 2005 07:50 (UTC) 127:July 3, 2005 07:50 (UTC) 2664:for months at a time.-- 2580:History of South Africa 2470:History of South Africa 2466:History of South Africa 2426:9 July 2005 01:48 (UTC) 2410:History of South Africa 2377:History of South Africa 2373:History of South Africa 2369:History of South Africa 2362:History of South Africa 2354:History of South Africa 2335:9 July 2005 01:13 (UTC) 2287:8 July 2005 15:45 (UTC) 2219:6 July 2005 15:17 (UTC) 2171:8 July 2005 14:44 (UTC) 2139:6 July 2005 12:53 (UTC) 2129:6 July 2005 14:34 (UTC) 2084:6 July 2005 10:57 (UTC) 1999:6 July 2005 04:55 (UTC) 1945:6 July 2005 02:46 (UTC) 1912:5 July 2005 17:53 (UTC) 1865:No, that's wrong. The 1857:6 July 2005 22:49 (UTC) 1811:6 July 2005 21:36 (UTC) 1721:6 July 2005 11:00 (UTC) 1702:6 July 2005 10:21 (UTC) 1685:6 July 2005 00:01 (UTC) 1638:History of South Africa 1588:5 July 2005 17:24 (UTC) 1531:5 July 2005 17:13 (UTC) 1521:5 July 2005 16:45 (UTC) 1460:5 July 2005 17:16 (UTC) 1393:5 July 2005 15:38 (UTC) 1221:4 July 2005 18:40 (UTC) 1169:6 July 2005 16:42 (UTC) 1157:6 July 2005 15:59 (UTC) 1137:6 July 2005 15:48 (UTC) 1123:6 July 2005 10:35 (UTC) 1114:6 July 2005 10:09 (UTC) 1104:3 July 2005 20:42 (UTC) 1092:6 July 2005 07:37 (UTC) 1082:3 July 2005 19:15 (UTC) 1072:3 July 2005 17:47 (UTC) 1062:3 July 2005 16:10 (UTC) 1049:3 July 2005 15:40 (UTC) 1006:6 July 2005 07:19 (UTC) 997:6 July 2005 05:43 (UTC) 878:6 July 2005 15:47 (UTC) 865:6 July 2005 10:35 (UTC) 856:6 July 2005 07:19 (UTC) 847:6 July 2005 05:43 (UTC) 838:4 July 2005 17:52 (UTC) 828:3 July 2005 20:42 (UTC) 817:3 July 2005 19:15 (UTC) 808:3 July 2005 17:06 (UTC) 798:3 July 2005 16:10 (UTC) 756:6 July 2005 05:43 (UTC) 741:4 July 2005 18:52 (UTC) 722:6 July 2005 07:19 (UTC) 713:4 July 2005 18:03 (UTC) 703:3 July 2005 21:08 (UTC) 679:3 July 2005 18:41 (UTC) 640:6 July 2005 07:19 (UTC) 631:6 July 2005 05:43 (UTC) 622:3 July 2005 19:15 (UTC) 612:3 July 2005 17:03 (UTC) 602:6 July 2005 10:35 (UTC) 592:3 July 2005 16:10 (UTC) 554:8 July 2005 15:00 (UTC) 526:6 July 2005 09:27 (UTC) 492:5 July 2005 14:21 (UTC) 411:6 July 2005 15:44 (UTC) 398:6 July 2005 07:19 (UTC) 388:6 July 2005 10:35 (UTC) 379:6 July 2005 05:43 (UTC) 370:4 July 2005 17:48 (UTC) 364:ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE 360:3 July 2005 20:42 (UTC) 349:3 July 2005 19:15 (UTC) 339:3 July 2005 16:10 (UTC) 326:3 July 2005 15:53 (UTC) 295:6 July 2005 15:43 (UTC) 282:6 July 2005 10:35 (UTC) 273:6 July 2005 07:19 (UTC) 264:6 July 2005 05:43 (UTC) 255:5 July 2005 14:29 (UTC) 245:3 July 2005 20:42 (UTC) 234:3 July 2005 19:15 (UTC) 225:3 July 2005 16:10 (UTC) 191:6 July 2005 15:43 (UTC) 178:6 July 2005 10:35 (UTC) 169:6 July 2005 05:43 (UTC) 160:3 July 2005 20:41 (UTC) 149:3 July 2005 19:15 (UTC) 140:3 July 2005 16:10 (UTC) 1783:settlers and diaspora 1671: 1670: 1305:I had a quick look at 923:settlers and diaspora 1648: 1647: 1513:NPOV opening para is 645:Section 4 alternative 42:of past discussions. 1357:is a shortcoming of 2209:More recent report 1250:those that want to 655:User:69.209.210.198 544:administrator abuse 2628:The SA section in 2584:Political epithets 2553:Political epithets 2468:. That portion of 2424:Kuratowski's Ghost 2217:Kuratowski's Ghost 2137:Kuratowski's Ghost 2111:Kuratowski's Ghost 2082:Kuratowski's Ghost 1979:Kuratowski's Ghost 1958:Kuratowski's Ghost 1933:Kuratowski's Ghost 1155:Kuratowski's Ghost 2555:to handle that. 1926:Diaspora Jews???? 1891:Harry Oppenheimer 1338:Harry Oppenheimer 977:Section 7 (VOTES) 506:consideration of 103: 102: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 2716: 2095:How about just: 765:This vote shall 415:Please reread: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 2724: 2723: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2454: 2346: 2248: 2194: 1928: 1903: 1655:in the general 1442: 1230: 1176: 1144: 979: 885: 767:authoritatively 763: 647: 561: 302: 198: 113: 108: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2722: 2720: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2705: 2696: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2692: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2688: 2687: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2615: 2614: 2565: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2546: 2545: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2513: 2512: 2453: 2446: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2403: 2402: 2345: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2336: 2289: 2288: 2247: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2221: 2220: 2213: 2207: 2199: 2193: 2186:National Party 2174: 2173: 2172: 2164: 2163: 2149:69.217.200.164 2141: 2140: 2131: 2130: 2127:69.217.200.164 2119:National Party 2103:69.217.200.164 2090:69.217.200.164 2086: 2085: 2073:69.217.200.164 2069:Chaim Weizmann 2044:69.217.200.164 2032: 2031: 2018:69.217.200.164 2001: 2000: 1986:69.217.200.164 1970:Chaim Weizmann 1962: 1961: 1947: 1946: 1927: 1924: 1920:69.209.239.161 1914: 1913: 1902: 1899: 1883:Chaim Weizmann 1863: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1795: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1746:69.217.200.164 1729: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1653:National Party 1646: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1598:69.209.239.161 1590: 1589: 1578:69.209.239.161 1563:69.209.239.161 1558:Chaim Weizmann 1537: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1522: 1478: 1477: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1451: 1450: 1441: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1403:69.209.239.161 1399: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1334:Barney Barnato 1326: 1325: 1324: 1313:Take it up at 1300: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1268: 1267: 1247: 1246: 1229: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1214: 1197: 1196: 1175: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1158: 1143: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1124: 1115: 1105: 1093: 1083: 1073: 1063: 1050: 1040: 1030: 1017: 1016: 1008: 1007: 998: 988: 987: 978: 975: 974: 973: 972: 971: 933: 932: 931: 930: 884: 881: 880: 879: 866: 857: 848: 839: 829: 818: 809: 799: 786: 762: 759: 758: 757: 747: 746: 745: 744: 743: 742: 724: 723: 714: 704: 694: 681: 680: 663:User:AmYisrael 646: 643: 642: 641: 632: 623: 613: 603: 593: 580: 560: 557: 556: 555: 536: 535: 534: 533: 532: 531: 530: 529: 528: 527: 496: 495: 494: 493: 490:69.209.239.161 466: 465: 464: 463: 462: 461: 458: 449: 448: 447: 446: 440: 439: 430: 429: 421: 420: 413: 412: 399: 389: 380: 371: 361: 350: 340: 327: 317: 301: 298: 297: 296: 283: 274: 265: 256: 253:69.209.239.161 246: 235: 226: 213: 197: 194: 193: 192: 179: 170: 161: 150: 141: 128: 112: 109: 107: 104: 101: 100: 95: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 18:Talk:Apartheid 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2721: 2704: 2703: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2686: 2683: 2680: 2676: 2672: 2671: 2670: 2667: 2663: 2659: 2655: 2651: 2647: 2643: 2639: 2635: 2631: 2627: 2626: 2625: 2624: 2623: 2622: 2621: 2620: 2613: 2610: 2607: 2603: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2594: 2589: 2585: 2581: 2577: 2573: 2569: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2560: 2558: 2554: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2547: 2544: 2541: 2538: 2534: 2533: 2528: 2525: 2521: 2517: 2516: 2515: 2514: 2510: 2508: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2498: 2494: 2489: 2487: 2483: 2479: 2475: 2471: 2467: 2463: 2459: 2451: 2447: 2445: 2444: 2441: 2439: 2435: 2425: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2411: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2400: 2398: 2394: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2386: 2381: 2378: 2375:for a while. 2374: 2370: 2365: 2363: 2359: 2355: 2350: 2343: 2334: 2331: 2327: 2326: 2324: 2322: 2318: 2315:, but rather 2314: 2310: 2306: 2305: 2303: 2302:69.218.25.180 2299: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2286: 2283: 2279: 2275: 2271: 2267: 2266: 2265: 2263: 2262:69.218.25.180 2258: 2257: 2256: 2251: 2245: 2240: 2238: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2230: 2229:69.218.25.180 2226: 2218: 2214: 2212: 2208: 2206: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2197: 2191: 2187: 2183: 2179: 2175: 2170: 2169:69.218.25.180 2166: 2165: 2161: 2159: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2150: 2146: 2138: 2133: 2132: 2128: 2124: 2120: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2112: 2106: 2104: 2099: 2096: 2093: 2091: 2083: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2074: 2070: 2066: 2062: 2060: 2055: 2053: 2047: 2045: 2041: 2037: 2029: 2027: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2019: 2015: 2011: 2007: 1998: 1995: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1987: 1983: 1980: 1976: 1971: 1967: 1959: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1952: 1944: 1942: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1934: 1925: 1923: 1921: 1917: 1911: 1909: 1905: 1904: 1900: 1898: 1896: 1895:69.218.25.180 1892: 1888: 1884: 1880: 1876: 1872: 1868: 1856: 1852: 1849: 1846: 1845: 1841: 1840: 1836: 1833: 1830: 1827: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1810: 1807: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1789: 1788: 1786: 1782: 1778: 1775:onwards. The 1774: 1770: 1766: 1762: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1749: 1747: 1742: 1737: 1734: 1720: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1701: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1684: 1681: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1669: 1668: 1666: 1665:gerrymandered 1662: 1658: 1654: 1639: 1634: 1633: 1631: 1627: 1623: 1619: 1614: 1613: 1611: 1608: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1599: 1595: 1587: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1579: 1574: 1572: 1566: 1564: 1559: 1555: 1550: 1544: 1542: 1530: 1527: 1523: 1520: 1516: 1512: 1508: 1504: 1500: 1499: 1497: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1475: 1471: 1466: 1465: 1459: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1448: 1444: 1443: 1439: 1434: 1432: 1428: 1426: 1420: 1416: 1412: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1404: 1392: 1389: 1385: 1384: 1382: 1378: 1376: 1371: 1369: 1365: 1360: 1356: 1352: 1347: 1346: 1343: 1339: 1335: 1331: 1327: 1322: 1320: 1316: 1312: 1311: 1308: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1293: 1291: 1287: 1283: 1279: 1278: 1276: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1265: 1264:69.219.53.138 1261: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1253: 1244: 1242: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1227: 1220: 1215: 1212: 1210: 1206: 1205: 1203: 1199: 1198: 1194: 1192: 1188: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1173: 1168: 1164: 1159: 1156: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1141: 1136: 1132: 1128: 1125: 1122: 1119: 1116: 1113: 1109: 1106: 1103: 1101: 1097: 1094: 1091: 1087: 1084: 1081: 1077: 1074: 1071: 1067: 1064: 1061: 1058: 1054: 1051: 1048: 1044: 1041: 1038: 1034: 1031: 1028: 1026: 1022: 1019: 1018: 1014: 1010: 1009: 1005: 1002: 999: 996: 993: 990: 989: 985: 981: 980: 976: 970: 969: 967: 963: 960:onwards. The 959: 955: 951: 947: 941: 940: 938: 935: 934: 929: 928: 926: 922: 918: 915:onwards. The 914: 910: 906: 902: 896: 895: 893: 890: 889: 888: 882: 877: 873: 870: 867: 864: 861: 858: 855: 852: 849: 846: 843: 840: 837: 836:69.219.53.138 833: 830: 827: 825: 822: 819: 816: 813: 810: 807: 803: 800: 797: 794: 790: 787: 784: 782: 779: 776: 775: 774: 772: 768: 760: 755: 752: 749: 748: 740: 735: 730: 729: 728: 727: 726: 725: 721: 718: 715: 712: 711:69.219.53.138 708: 705: 702: 698: 695: 692: 690: 686: 683: 682: 678: 675: 671: 668: 667: 666: 664: 660: 656: 652: 644: 639: 636: 633: 630: 627: 624: 621: 617: 614: 611: 607: 604: 601: 597: 594: 591: 588: 584: 581: 578: 576: 573: 570: 569: 568: 566: 558: 553: 552:69.218.25.180 549: 545: 541: 538: 537: 525: 520: 519: 517: 515: 509: 504: 503: 502: 501: 500: 499: 498: 497: 491: 486: 482: 481:Unacceptable. 478: 474: 470: 469: 468: 467: 459: 455: 454: 453: 452: 451: 450: 444: 443: 442: 441: 436: 432: 431: 426: 423: 422: 418: 417: 416: 410: 406: 403: 400: 397: 393: 390: 387: 384: 381: 378: 375: 372: 369: 368:69.219.53.138 365: 362: 359: 357: 354: 351: 348: 344: 341: 338: 335: 331: 328: 325: 321: 318: 315: 313: 310: 307: 306: 305: 299: 294: 290: 287: 284: 281: 278: 275: 272: 269: 266: 263: 260: 257: 254: 250: 247: 244: 242: 239: 236: 233: 230: 227: 224: 221: 217: 214: 211: 209: 206: 203: 202: 201: 195: 190: 186: 183: 180: 177: 174: 171: 168: 165: 162: 159: 157: 154: 151: 148: 145: 142: 139: 136: 132: 129: 126: 124: 121: 118: 117: 116: 110: 105: 99: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 2490: 2455: 2431: 2392: 2382: 2366: 2351: 2347: 2298:sockpuppetry 2290: 2278:sockpuppetry 2259: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2249: 2222: 2198: 2195: 2144: 2142: 2107: 2100: 2097: 2094: 2087: 2056: 2048: 2033: 2002: 1981: 1963: 1948: 1929: 1915: 1864: 1850: 1847: 1843: 1842: 1838: 1837: 1834: 1831: 1828: 1825: 1794: 1773:17th century 1758: 1757: 1750: 1740: 1730: 1650: 1649: 1625: 1621: 1617: 1593: 1591: 1575: 1567: 1545: 1540: 1538: 1514: 1510: 1506: 1502: 1485: 1469: 1446: 1422: 1400: 1358: 1350: 1259: 1251: 1248: 1232: 1231: 1201: 1178: 1177: 1162: 1146: 1145: 1126: 1118:Yes dear god 1117: 1107: 1095: 1085: 1075: 1065: 1052: 1042: 1032: 1020: 1012: 1011:In favor of 1000: 991: 983: 982:In favor of 958:17th century 943: 942: 936: 913:17th century 898: 897: 891: 886: 868: 859: 850: 841: 831: 820: 811: 801: 788: 777: 766: 764: 750: 733: 716: 706: 696: 684: 669: 648: 634: 625: 615: 605: 595: 582: 571: 562: 547: 543: 480: 476: 473:Desmond Tutu 434: 424: 414: 401: 391: 382: 373: 363: 352: 342: 329: 319: 308: 303: 285: 276: 267: 258: 248: 237: 228: 215: 204: 199: 181: 172: 163: 152: 143: 130: 119: 114: 78: 43: 37: 2604:article? -- 2188:during the 2057:Wrong, see 2012:" and the " 1887:Sol Kerzner 1342:Sol Kerzner 1202:far greater 1165:article. -- 1013:PROPOSAL #2 984:PROPOSAL #1 937:PROPOSAL #2 892:PROPOSAL #1 659:User:Novato 485:Jimbo Wales 36:This is an 2476:. I think 2296:Regrading 2059:Googletest 1975:Googletest 1569:article.-- 1228:Section 10 1217:himself.-- 1189:" below. 1090:komencanto 2662:Apartheid 2638:Apartheid 2634:Apartheid 2576:Apartheid 2478:Apartheid 2462:Apartheid 2190:Apartheid 2065:Jan Smuts 2014:Europeans 1966:Jan Smuts 1916:Thanks. 1879:Jan Smuts 1771:from the 1554:Jan Smuts 1492:article. 1486:Apartheid 1419:Apartheid 1411:Apartheid 1351:APARTHEID 1286:Apartheid 1284:, not in 1174:Section 9 1142:Section 8 1129:,please. 1037:Seancdaug 956:from the 911:from the 883:Section 6 771:Apartheid 761:Section 5 559:Section 4 300:Section 3 196:Section 2 111:Section 1 98:Archive 9 90:Archive 7 85:Archive 6 79:Archive 5 73:Archive 4 68:Archive 3 60:Archive 1 2679:jpgordon 2666:Bcrowell 2606:jpgordon 2593:Bcrowell 2537:jpgordon 2524:Bcrowell 2497:Bcrowell 2486:Bcrowell 2385:Bcrowell 2330:jpgordon 2311:was not 2282:jpgordon 2184:and the 2182:Zionists 2123:Zionists 2121:and the 2061:results 1994:jpgordon 1875:jpgordon 1855:Red King 1806:jpgordon 1781:European 1733:jpgordon 1700:Red King 1680:jpgordon 1657:election 1630:Red King 1607:jpgordon 1586:Bcrowell 1571:Bcrowell 1526:jpgordon 1519:Red King 1474:Red King 1458:Bcrowell 1388:jpgordon 1219:Bcrowell 1204:degree. 1167:Red King 1057:jpgordon 1047:Bcrowell 966:European 921:European 851:Disagree 832:Disagree 806:Bcrowell 793:jpgordon 717:Disagree 707:Disagree 701:Bcrowell 674:jpgordon 670:Comment: 635:Disagree 626:Disagree 616:Disagree 610:Bcrowell 606:Disagree 596:Disagree 587:jpgordon 583:Disagree 548:targeted 392:Disagree 334:jpgordon 324:Bcrowell 220:jpgordon 135:jpgordon 2636:. Once 2010:Germans 2008:" and " 1984:Thanks. 1871:Semites 1777:English 1765:Germans 1043:Support 962:English 950:Germans 917:English 905:Germans 751:Abstain 483:Unless 39:archive 2654:Racism 2630:Racism 2602:Racism 2438:Jayjg 2246:Policy 2052:John Z 2006:French 1941:Jayjg 1908:Jayjg 1769:French 1719:John Z 1494:Jayjg 1381:JohanL 1336:, the 1275:JohanL 1112:John Z 1100:Jayjg 1004:JohanL 1001:Concur 995:Molloy 992:Concur 954:French 909:French 869:Concur 860:Concur 854:JohanL 845:Molloy 842:Concur 824:Jayjg 821:Concur 812:Concur 802:Concur 789:Concur 778:Concur 754:Molloy 720:JohanL 638:JohanL 629:Molloy 572:Concur 524:JohanL 508:JohanL 457:faith. 402:Concur 396:JohanL 383:Concur 377:Molloy 374:Concur 356:Jayjg 353:Concur 343:Concur 330:Concur 309:Concur 286:Concur 277:Concur 271:JohanL 268:Concur 262:Molloy 259:Concur 249:Concur 241:Jayjg 238:Concur 229:Concur 216:Concur 205:Concur 182:Concur 173:Concur 167:Molloy 164:Concur 156:Jayjg 153:Concur 144:Concur 131:Concur 120:Concur 2557:Tomer 2507:Tomer 2397:Tomer 2321:Tomer 2237:Tomer 2225:Slurs 2158:Tomer 2040:Tomer 2036:Slurs 2026:Tomer 2004:the " 1951:jayjg 1761:Dutch 1731:--Is 1549:Jayjg 1431:Tomer 1368:Tomer 1319:Tomer 1290:Tomer 1241:Tomer 1209:Tomer 1191:Tomer 1131:dewet 1070:Jcw69 1025:Tomer 946:Dutch 901:Dutch 872:dewet 781:Tomer 697:Agree 689:Tomer 685:Agree 651:Jayjg 575:Tomer 565:Jayjg 540:Tomer 514:Tomer 488:text. 405:dewet 320:Agree 312:Tomer 289:dewet 208:Tomer 185:dewet 123:Tomer 16:< 2682:∇∆∇∆ 2609:∇∆∇∆ 2578:and 2540:∇∆∇∆ 2393:laws 2333:∇∆∇∆ 2285:∇∆∇∆ 2272:and 2178:Jews 2067:and 1997:∇∆∇∆ 1973:the 1968:and 1889:and 1881:and 1869:are 1867:Jews 1851:ISNT 1844:Isnt 1835:Isnt 1829:Isnt 1809:∇∆∇∆ 1785:Jews 1767:and 1736:∇∆∇∆ 1683:∇∆∇∆ 1661:1948 1622:must 1618:only 1610:∇∆∇∆ 1556:and 1541:ONLY 1529:∇∆∇∆ 1511:only 1423:See 1391:∇∆∇∆ 1359:that 1163:this 1121:Páll 1080:Impi 1060:∇∆∇∆ 1055:. -- 1053:Ayup 1045:. -- 1035:. – 952:and 925:Jews 907:and 863:Páll 815:Impi 796:∇∆∇∆ 739:Impi 677:∇∆∇∆ 661:and 620:Impi 600:Páll 590:∇∆∇∆ 386:Páll 347:Impi 337:∇∆∇∆ 280:Páll 232:Impi 223:∇∆∇∆ 176:Páll 147:Impi 138:∇∆∇∆ 2656:or 2313:VfD 2309:RfA 2192:Era 1741:all 1659:of 1594:all 1507:all 1503:but 1366:. 1317:. 1288:. 1127:Yes 1108:Yes 1096:Aye 1076:Aye 1066:YES 1033:Aye 1023:. 1021:Aye 687:. 2436:. 1918:] 1848:IS 1839:Is 1832:Is 1826:Is 1804:-- 1763:, 1626:or 1472:-- 1340:, 1110:-- 1098:. 1088:-- 1078:– 1068:-- 948:, 903:, 665:. 479:. 218:-- 94:→ 64:← 2452:) 2180:/ 2071:. 1427:. 1135:™ 1133:| 876:™ 874:| 409:™ 407:| 293:™ 291:| 189:™ 187:| 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index