Talk:F. W. de Klerk/Archive 1

De Klerk's role
"Today the role of De Klerk has largely been ignored by the ruling ANC and all credit given to so-called 'Heroes of the Struggle.'" I have a problem with this line. a. It is very subjective b. Why should de Klerk be given any credit? his party and he himself was the reason for the problem in the first place. Dankru 12:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Removed. -- Миборовский U 07:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You don't know your history. The ANC are communist thugs. de Klerk and co should have kept power. Look at SA today.


 * Neutral POV, please.

Soetermans 12:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
There is a a need for some NPOV policing here.. perhaps a protection tab??

Noserider 12:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course he should be given credit, he ended apartheid not Nelson Mandela. Mandela is a great man but it was De Klerk who ended apartheid.

11:3:06 I beleive that is more of a figure head like queen Elizibeth and De Klerk is like the prime minister. 66.245.118.3 02:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ancestry
About his name: it is stated that the name De Klerk is derived from French, but De Klerk is a common Dutch name. Is his ancestry truely French? --Soetermans 22:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * His ancestry is indeed French & it has been noted on the public record. All of the people with the De Klerk name in South Africa are descended from Abraham Le Clercq who arrived at the Cape in 1688 during the largest wave of French Huguenot refugees (1687 - 1690) to the region. As was the case with a number of French names: the spelling was changed to reflect a Dutch spelling. Though there were still quite a lot of French names which retained their original spelling. Such as De Villiers / Naudé / Joubert / Vivier / Roux etc.

  Just how history will come to judge Frederik Willem de Klerk is something else. He admits to being nothing more than a product of time and circumstances. His ancestors were French Protestants--Huguenots--who fled to the Netherlands to avoid religious persecution and settled in the South African Cape in 1688.  

From: A Great Political Trek.

At the Huguenot Society of South Africa web page: the following line is listed among the French Huguenot surnames which survive in South Africa showing the transformation from Le Clercq to De Klerk.

Abraham le Clercq (le Clerc, de Clercq, de Klerk), x Magdalena Mouton

From: Huguenot Surnames Which Survive in South Africa.

The line is located between Pierre Labuschagne & Jean le Long. (which is now de Lange).

  The Huguenots who arrived at the Cape of Good Hope at the end of the 17th century, consisted of only a fraction of the large-scale Protestant flight from France after the revocation of the Edict on Nantes in 1685. Nevertheless their numbers were large enough to have a considerable influence and leave a lasting impression on the young settlement at the Cape. As early as 1671 the first Huguenot refugee, Francois Villion (later Viljoen), arrived at the Cape. In 1686 the brothers Guillaume and Francois du Toit arrived. After the main stream of Huguenots arrived during 1688 – 1689, they comprised approximately one sixth of the free burgher population, after which individual arrivals continued sporadically until the termination of the state subsidised emigration in 1707.  

From: The Contribution of the Huguenots in South Africa.

The Boers & Afrikaners are at least 15 % to 24 % French in ethnic origin or composition.

Ron7 17:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

David Latapie (✒ | @) 13:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * de Clerc or De Clerc instead (clerc means cleric). But it may be the same as for de Gaulle whose name is a pervertion of Germanic De Walle.

De Klerk's reasons
"De Klerk is best known for reluctantly[citation needed] agreeing to end apartheid". Since no one has added a citation yet, perhaps this sentence should be revised? My own recollection of events was that FW and his cohorts took advantage of PW's stroke to get him out of power. While PW was in hospital he refused to acknowledge that FW had legitimately taken control of the party. "Reluctantly" is not a phrase that describes to me the period when FW carefully started unhinging apartheid. If he had done so too quickly, the risk of the conservatives retaking control was too great. I think that the events happened as quickly as they could, and we are way better off for this approach. Change was inevitable, and by 1989, politics was ready for multi-racial elections, and FW was helping it along from the inside. -ObseloV 09:21, 15 Feb 2007 (GMT)

i agree. --Severino 09:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

How did F. W. manage to be in a position to dismantle apartheid? I.e. did he become president and leader of his party on the strength of his desire to end apartheid, or did it come as a shock to the National Party? What were F. W.'s motivations for his own removal from office? Was he a reluctant champion of the human rights of black sth africans? Can we learn anything from F. W. de Klerk about the prerequisites - on the oppressors side - for ending oppression? - Jtauber


 * I'm not sure I understand your questions... FW became state president after PW Botha had to step down (partly due to health concerns), as the article states.  He was part of a more liberal movement within the National Party, but I doubt his followers had anything as radical in mind as the abolishing of apartheid.  He received a lot of criticism for this liberal POV, but he finished what he started, partly due to his perseverance, but also because the country would not have survived any other way.  There was a lot of problems in the negotiating phase (just read Nelson Mandela's quotes in wikiquote), but he really did make the most concerted effort by those in power to start change.  His own removal from office was, I'm sure, what he realised would inevitably happen should he open elections to all the country's citizens -- I doubt that it was because of him perceiving himself as a black champion, but rather as the reality of the matter.  (Dewet 09:09, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC))


 * I added a note to the page to say his reasons were unclear. Edward 19:02, 2005 May 2 (UTC)


 * No. Saying that apartheid was to be abolished in 1989 was no radical, shock move. They had absolutely no choice in the matter. South Africa was falling apart due to the major international sanctions, and an increasing body of the white population were turning against apartheid as it was stifling their economies (e.g. not enough skilled blacks to work, or not enough blacks could access location of work etc). 62.254.64.14 20:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * there was a couple of reasons which led de klerk to the abolition of apartheid from 1990 on: the end of the cold war, the sanctions against the country, his realistic view of the things,... --Severino 10:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with the section commenting why FW de Klerk decided to end apartheid.

Article needs to be corrected to reflect that.. a) FW de Klerk taking the reigns of the National Party (NP) was in fact a coup d'état by senior members of the NP effectively ousting PW Botha b) it was not his decision, but one that was made by him and by sernior party members c) the major deciding factor for the NP was the fall of communism, called The Red Danger (Die Rooi Gevaar), ceased to be a threat (the Cold War has ended, the Berlin Wall came down, etc)

The new edits

 * I don't really like the new edits that have been made. Why has the explanation been taken away? I think the explanations were good. Dr.Poison 11:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Ancestry
List of multiracial people:
 * F.W. de Klerk, last Apartheid-era President of South Africa (1989-1994); acknowledges in his autobiography some Indian ancestry that his family had previously kept secret (and which would have legally disqualified him from holding office)

If true, it shoud be mentioned.

While it is indeed true that F W De Klerk has admitted to having an Indian ancestor the fact of the matter is that it would not have "disqualified" him from holding office for the simple fact that it is not uncommon for Afrikaners & Boers to have Indian / Khoi or Malay ancestors. The reason as to why they are not generally viewed as a "mixed race" is because the non White ancestors are fewer in number then say the Griquas for example & somewhat far enough back in the past.

The ethnic composition of the White Afrikaans population has been noted at being about 5 - 7 % non White afterall. Remember: a number of the first White settlers in the region married Indian / Khoi or Malay (or a combination thereof) slaves & a significant number of the mixed race offspring of these unions were absorbed into the White population.

Furthermore these non White ancestors generally date to the 1600s or 1700s therefore Boers & Afrikaners in the 20th century were by & large considered to be White even among those who were aware of their full ancestry or who even had slight non White features.

  Just how history will come to judge Frederik Willem de Klerk is something else. He admits to being nothing more than a product of time and circumstances. His ancestors were French Protestants--Huguenots--who fled to the Netherlands to avoid religious persecution and settled in the South African Cape in 1688. Like many Afrikaners he has a skeleton in the closet--one of his 18th century forebears was the daughter of an Indian slave.  

From: A Great Political Trek.

  With only 19 European women and 100 white free burghers at the Cape in 1677, most 13th generation South Africans with colonial ancestry have at least one slave ancestor from these parts. Though European female numbers increased 30 years later, slave women were often favoured for their beauty, and many became the ancestral mothers (or stammoeders) of generations of families in South Africa.

Angela of Bengal.

Before the first official slave consignments had been sanctioned, Angela of Bengal (or Maaij Ansela) was bought by Jan van Riebeeck, the founder of the Dutch colony, was resold and freed by her master. She then married Arnoldus Willemsz Bason, and became the stammoeder of the Basson family in South Africa.

Through marriages of her children, Maaij (or Mooi, Beautiful) Ansela is also the stammoeder of the Bergh and Van As families. One of her descendants was Voortrekker leader Andries Pretorius, who married Anna Retief, niece of slain trekboer Piet.

In 1692, four of the 34 Cape Town free burghers had ex-slave wives, but according to "Cape Town, Making of a City", compiled by Nigel Worden et al, this mestizo culture was gradually discouraged by the ruling Dutch, although this did not discourage illicit affairs - and illegitimate children borne out of such unions.

As veteran genealogist Hans Heese, himself a white descendant of Krotoa, puts it in his book "Die Herkoms van die Afrikaner 1657-1867", the modern-day white Afrikaner is of 34% Dutch, 33% German, 13% French, 6.9% coloured and 5% British origin - a formidable array of genes for the South African genealogist to contend with.  

From: What's in a (South African) name?

<tt> <ul> The early Cape had a very small number of people who formed the genetic pool for the make up of the future Afrikaners. Fortunately the pool was enlarged and enriched with people who were not from Europe. They were mainly Stammoeders. It is rather ironic that the so called White Afrikaner Race, can claim slaves as part of our ancestors. </ul> </tt>

From: [http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/1266/genetic.htm My Genetic Enrichment. by André van Rensburg.]

The fact of the matter is the F W De Klerk is not unique in having an Indian ancestor -in fact it has been reported that famous & notable Boer & Afrikaner leaders such as Andries Pretorius / Piet Retief -who is also of direct French Huguenot origin- / Paul Kruger / Louis Botha as well as Jan Smuts also have at least one non White ancestor.

Ron7 17:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear, Biological, Chemical Weapons [Weapons of Mass Destruction]
FW is also the only head of state to have voluntarily dismantled a nation's NBC platforms. Grant McKenna 23:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

term in office
de klerks term as president ended on 10 may 1994 (and not on 27 april) and his term as vice president began on the same day. 10 may 1994 was the day when mandela was inaugurated as president (as de klerks successor) and mbeki and de klerk as his vice presidents. 27 april was the beginning of the elections. i have corrected the dates. --Severino 16:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Mandela: The Authorised Biography
I am trying to expand this article, mainly focusing on the differences between this book and other accounts (books and otherwise) of Mandela's life and South Africa throughout this period. Any comments or suggestions are appreciated on the peer review page: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Mandela:_The_Authorised_Biography" BillMasen 17:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

what do you mean by "bloody handover of power"? the violence between inkatha- and anc-followers in the transition years? you have to say that more precisely. also, which responsibility de klerk, according to sampson, has. --Severino 15:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Better?

If you have any thoughts on the article for the book, I'd be glad to hear them. BillMasen 16:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

yes,better. --Severino 16:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism
I think this article sorely lacks criticism of de Klerk (with a NPOV of course). I'll leave it up to someone with more knowledge of the matter than I, but anyone who's interested can take a look here: http://sasa.stanford.edu/Past%20Events/Workshops/DeKlerk-statement2001.html 85.166.243.150

Agreed. I suggest that someone consults the "Apartheid Did Not Die" chapter in John Pilger's book Freedom Next Time. It is full of quotes, references and citations. John Pilger is one of the most renown, independent and impartial political investigative journalists in the UK. This source would extremely enhance this topic and possibly many others. (My appologies if I'm not doing this quite right.) 192.168.1.100 —Preceding unsigned comment added by GagMagog (talk • contribs) 05:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a mistake in the article
There seems to be something wrong in the summary information below the photo. It says: President Nelson Mandela Preceded by Pieter Willem Botha Succeeded by Nelson Mandela Why do we have Nelson Mandela twice? :) 85.217.139.218 19:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

f.w DE klerk
''

Italic text
Italic text''dsnielle bivens here stands that i am gled aparthieid is over

Treason Charges against FW de Klerk
FW de Klerk charged with treason by Kogesa:

FW de Klerk aangekla van Hoogverraad deur Kogesa, die Kommissie van Volks-Geregtelike Ondersoek na Staatkundige Verandering in SA: Op Donderdag, 24 April 2014, is 'n Klagskrif van Hoogverraad teen Frederik Willem de Klerk deur Mnr. Paul Kruger op die FW de Klerk Stigting se kantore in Plattekloof, Kaapstad beteken. Mnr. Dave Stewart van die Stigting het geweier om ontvangs van die dokument te erken; waarna Mnr. Kruger die oorspronklike daarvan by Mnr. Stewart gelaat het met ‘n versoek dat dit aan F.W. de Klerk oorhandig word. Hierdie prosedure behoort voldoende te wees om in 'n hof erken te word as synde 'beteken' op die beskuldigde. 'n Opsomming van die Klagskrif lui as volg:

1. As Staatspresident het FW de Klerk ‘n eed gesweer dat hy, onder andere, die tersaaklike Grondwet (Wet 110 van 1983) sal gehoorsaam en handhaaf.

2. Daardie Grondwet het onder meer die volgende bepaal:

2.1 Die Aanhef en ook Art. 2 daarvan het die oppergesag van die Almagtige God erken.

2.2 Geen ander bevolkingsgroep het oor Blankes heerskappy gevoer nie en Blankes, Kleurlinge en Indiërs het almal hulself regeer betreffende “eie sake” (beide in wetgewende- sowel as uitvoerende- oftewel administratiewe opsig).

2.3 Blankes, Kleurlinge en Indiërs was stemgeregtigde kiesers en elk van hierdie groepe is afsonderlik in een van drie Huise verteenwoordig. Die Parlement het bestaan uit hierdie drie Huise gesamentlik. (In geval van Swartes, kon elke Swart volk sy strewe na volle selfbeskikking verwesenlik kry in daardie gebiede wat hulle tradisioneel bewoon het).

2.4 Wat “algemene sake” betref was die hoogste wetgewende gesag gesetel in die Staatspresident en die Parlement; en die hoogste uitvoerende gesag in die Staatspresident en die Kabinetsministers.

3. Die Nasionale Party se verkiesingsmanifes en beleid in die laaste “Blanke” verkiesing van 6 September 1989het behels dat geen nuwe grondwetlike wetgewing in die 1989-94 Parlementêre termyn aangeneem sal word, alvorens die RESULTAAT van grondwetlike onderhandelinge nie vooraf eers aan die destydse kieserskorps vir hulle goedkeuring voorgelê word nie.

Indien die kieserskorps nie met die uitslag van onderhandelinge tevrede sou wees nie, sou die onderhandelings verder gevoer word en „n nuwe Grondwet deur die Parlement geloods word eers nadat „n meerderheid kiesers die terme van „n nuwe bedeling goedgekeur het. (Hierdie beginsel in bevestig in talle NP Beleidsdokumente asook in etlike Parlementêre toesprake, ).

4. Terselfdertyd het die NP se verkiesingsmandaat, soos uitgespel in sy Beleidstukke daarop gehamer dat „n Grondwetlike bedeling van Swart getalle oorheersing geensins NP beleid is nie; maar eerder “magsdeling”.

5. Tydens die Referendum van 1992 is geen voorstelle vir „n nuwe Grondwet aan die Blanke kieserskorps voorgelê vir goedkeuring nie. Die “Ja”-stem was bloot ‘n goedkeuring vir “voortsetting van die hervormingsproses gerig op ‘n nuwe Grondwet”.

Ten spyte daarvan het die beskuldigde die volgende gedoen:

6. In 1993 het De Klerk – steeds sonder om enige klinklare voorstelle vir ‘n nuwe Grondwet aan sy kieserskorps voor te lê – ‘n nuwe Kieswet deur die Parlement geloods wat stemreg (heeltemal in botsing met die 1983-Grondwet wat toe nog van krag was) aan “elke Suid-Afrikaanse burger” of permanente inwoner toegestaan het en selfs ook aan “voormalige” Suid-Afrikaanse burgers. Volgens Suid-Afrikaanse Appélhof-gesag kan geen Parlement ‘n wet wat strydig met sy eie bestaande Grondwet is, deur die Parlement loods nie (volgens die sogenaamde “Harris”-sake wat in die 1950’s beslis was).

7. Net so het De Klerk ‘n “Uitvoerende Oorgangsraad” ingestel op 7 Desember 1993, wat – weereens totaal in botsing met die Grondwet – maande voor die 1994-verkiesing alreeds seggenskap oor alle Uitvoerende Gesag in Suid-Afrika - insluitende die Kabinet - verkry het op alle terreine byvoorbeeld die Weermag, Polisie, Buitelande Sake, Intelligensiedienste, Finansies, ensovoorts. Sekere lede van hierdie “Uitvoerende Oorgangsraad” (soos Joe Slovo, Mac Maharaj, Ceril Ramaphosa en andere) was op daardie stadium nie eens stemgeregtigde kiesers nie – vergeet nog van verkose. Die Uitvoerende Oorgangsraad het nie net seggenskap oor Staatsdepartemente verkry nie, maar kon ook enige Wetgewing veto – nog voor dit aan die Parlement of elders voorgelê word - wat volgens die Uitvoerende Oorgansraad nie die “demokratiseringsproses” gedien het nie.

8. De Klerk het verdermeer in 1993 ‘n “Oorgangsgrondwet” deur die Parlement geloods wat op 27 April 1994 in werking getree het. Ook hierdie “Oorgangsgrondwet” het heeltemal met die destyds-geldige Grondwet van 1983 gebots en dan nog „n Klousule bevat dat, selfs indien die OVK (“IEC”) nie die ‟94- Verkiesing as “vry en regverdig” sou kon verklaar nie, ‘n nuwe (d.w.s. Swart) Parlement desnieteenstaande ingestel sou kon word op die basis van kieseruitslae wat wel beskikbaar mog wees. De Klerk bevestig dan ook in sy outobiografie dat die ‟94-verkiesingsuitslae so chaoties was dat daar regsgronde was om dit in howe te beveg. Hy het dit nooit gedoen nie; met die gevolg dat die huidige (1996-) Grondwet aangeneem is deur ‘n “Grondwetgewende Vergadering” wat uit valse verkiesingsuitslae saamgestel was.

9. Die definise van Hoogverraad sluit in: “Wederregtelike gedrag deur iemand wat trou verskuldig is aan die Republiek, met die opset om die grondwetlike struktuur van die Republiek te verander”.

10. Die submissie is dat De Klerk (en andere) se gedrag heeltemal voldoen aan alle elemente van hierdie misdryf, te wete hoogverraad. Die Klagskrif teen FW de Klerk is voorgelê aan KOGESA (Die Kommissie van Volks-Geregtelike Ondersoek na Staatkundige Verandering in SA) om in die openbaar aangehoor te word op 31 Mei 2014 te Willie Marais Afrikanersentrum, Neethlingstraat 199, Eloffsdal, Pretoria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.215.48.250 (talk) 01:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

SADF officers dismissed
Date: 19 December, 1992

State President F.W. de Klerk announced that 23 members of the South African Defence Force (SADF), including two generals and four brigadiers, were being forcibly retired or suspended. This followed the findings of a commission of inquiry into illegal or unauthorised activities by the SADF, set up under Lieutenant-General Pierre Steyn. On 18 December General Steyn presented his preliminary findings to President De Klerk and senior members of the government at Tuynhuys in Cape Town. He did not hand the President a report as such but gave a briefing based on contributions from a variety of intelligence sources. The account alleged that these SADF members were part of covert 'third force' campaigns, intended to discredit the African National Congress (ANC). The activities included horrifying allegations of the involvement of SADF elements in train killings; fomenting violence, stockpiling weapons and collaborating with the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP). The information presented by General Steyn was evaluated variously as 'vague', 'strong possibilities', probably true' and 'confirmed'.

While De Klerk refuted the notion that this was official policy of the SADF, he conceded that there were strong indications that some individuals had been involved in actions trying to thwart transition, and in doing so were responsible for unlawful actions and deaths of people. He also said further axing, disciplinary action and possible criminal prosecution could follow, pending the completion of the probe. Some of those involved were later exonerated. The offending units were immediately shut down and intelligence activities were restructured according to De Klerk's orders.Though some of the allegations were referred to the attorney-general and the Goldstone commission, most were never resolved as the report was allegedly largely based on unproven evidence. All the relevant documentation was ultimately given to the TRC, which also appears to have had equally little success in establishing the truth of Steyn's provisional findings. As De Klerk puts it in his autobiography "Although General Steyn succeeded in puncturing the steel-belted culture of the SADF and in exposing some of its inner secrets, the self-sealing properties of the culture were soon activated."

The report was declassified in 2006.

References:

Fraser, R. (1992). Keesing's Records of World Events: Longman: London, p. 39226. Daley S.(1997) ,'Lies and Cover-Up', from The New York Times, 18 January, [online],Available at: www.nytimes.com, [Accessed:27 November 2013]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.228.234.75 (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Phone call from Roelf Meyer to fire Defense Force Generals
During December 1992, Roelf Meyer called President FW de Klerk from the USA and told him “the Clinton administration demanded the immediate dismissal of a number of generals in the South African Defence Force, as it would proof to the ANC he is serious about the CODESA negotiations that threatened to fail.” The reason had to be argued that the generals were engaged in a conspiracy and treason.

On Saturday, December 20, 1992 De Klerk announced he fired 23 of his army generals. In the minutes of a meeting between the Attorney-General of the Witwatersrand's army officers and Judge Pierre Steyn, the Attorney-General acknowledged that no single evidence against any of the generals exists.

De Klerk has not been able to proof that one of them made him ever guilty of any crime, nor that they were involved in a conspiracy or treason — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.215.45.247 (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Legacy
The Legacy section makes a number of assertions that aren't supported by the cites provided. Remember, wikipedia requires verifiability. Additionally, most of the cites are webforum comments and editorals, which verge on original research. For example, the assertion that the crime rate is increasing is 'supported' by links to articles on specific crimes in SA, rather than any respectable article on the increase in crime. This needs to be corrected. Ashmoo 22:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

the whole section is questionable and POV. de klerks main legacy is having ended apartheid (or: enabled to end it) and established democracy in south africa (remember: before, about two thirds of the country's population were not allowed to participate in elections and generally treated as second- or third class citizens, because they were regarded inferior due to their "race").

some claims in the section are simply false no matter if they are based on sources, for example "the total africanisation of the public sector".

--Severino 11:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

i've deleted the assertions based on the source "amren". the following excerpt is from one of the linked articles: "Further examination of the fresh young faces and healthy bodies shows that at least half if not more of the children are blond. An extraordinarily high number have sparkling blue eyes. In fact, standing next to the English-medium class in the same age group, they seem almost like a caricature of the Aryan ideal"

this and much more one can read in this publication. i guess many users dont know who dan roodt is and what he stands for. anyway, this here is wikipedia. --Severino 11:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Arms
Image and blazon should be included. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Nobel Peace Prize
Where is the Nobel Peace Prize symbol above his photo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.193.237.146 (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

9th president?
Was De Klerk really the 9th president? See Talk:Pieter_Willem_Botha for a discussion on the numbering.Greenman (talk) 12:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 08:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Frederik Willem de Klerk → F. W. de Klerk — The South African president is overwhelmingly known by his initials, not his full name. Almost every book written about de Klerk, including his autobiography, uses his initials; a search on google books for "F. W. de Klerk" gets 1,251 hits, compared to 630 hits for "Frederik Willem de Klerk". Much like H. G. Wells, J. K. Rowling, C. S. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien, H. H. Asquith and many others, his full name is simply not the most commonly used form. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. See Naming conventions (people) for the relevant guideline. Andrewa (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, per above. StAnselm (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's an abbreviation, nothing more.--Severino (talk) 08:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean like all of the other people's names listed in the nomination? Or how about the scores of people listed here?  —   AjaxSmack   14:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * from those listed above only in wells' case the abbreviation is more common than the full name i'd say.--Severino (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree. This is so obviously false that I'm not even going to bother providing evidence unless somebody else asks for it. Andrewa (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, it's an abbreviation, and under the article naming policy cited above it's also the correct name for the article. Andrewa (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - certainly the most common form. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Only HG Wells is more well known under his initials? Few people refer to JK Rowling as Joanna Rowling (she doesn't actually have a middle name), try Google. I've /never/ heard CS lewis referred to as Clive Lewis, typing Clive Lewis into Google, the only hit on the first page that is actually CS Lewis is from Wikipedia. Ditto JRR Tolkien. Do you live under a stone, Severino?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.170.72.154 (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No personal attacks please. And remember, the closing admin will look at the arguments, not just count the votes, so I really don't think there's a lot to worry about here. Andrewa (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Does it really matter?  F. W. de Klerk is already a redirect to Frederik Willem de Klerk, so this smacks a bit of moving something just for the sake of moving it.  Skinsmoke (talk) 01:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Enlightened Party (Verkrampte)
There needs to be more info on this subject, but things such as "Most Involved In Apartheid," etc. Are not helpful. I'd appreciate it if someone who has knowledge of the subject could expand on this aspect of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zekeman95 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * the National party had two wings in regard to reforms of apartheid, the verligtes (enlightened) and the verkramptes (conservatives). as far as i know de klerk didn't count as a "verligte" before he became president, he was rather from the conservative wing.--Severino (talk) 09:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistency of capitalization.
Is the "d" in "de Klerk" normally capitalized? The article is inconsistent in this regard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.192.132 (talk) 10:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is typically left in lower case... I will fix it so it is consistently in lower case. Aleksandar Bulovic&#39; (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated POV tag
With two edits, an editor has placed a POV tag on the statement that de Klerk was known for "supporting the transformation of South Africa into a multi-racial democracy". I found this totally baffling; I think it is very easily sourceable that indeed, this is what de Klerk is best known for. But fortunately, the editor was courteous enough to leave a edit summary, which was brief, but at least gives us a clue as to the editor's thinking when tagging. He wrote,


 * is it a democracy?

So I'm guessing that the editor does not think that South Africa passes muster as a democracy. Well, that is a debatable topic, I suppose. But if the editor wants to make that point, I would think he should be tagging this for accuracy of fact, rather than for non-neutral language. I'm going to revert, but am willing to discuss. HuskyHuskie (talk) 00:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on F. W. de Klerk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080704204221/http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/SAfrica/Nuclear/2149_3277.html to http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/SAfrica/Nuclear/2149_3277.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 04:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's working.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:20, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Comprehensive Account
The page probably needs a separate section on his Personal Life, as opposed to just two disconnected paragraphs on the murder of his first wife. The new section should include mention of his second marriage, and problems with his son Willem. I am not the best person to do this, but a lot of info with RS is available in the public domain. The page should also provide more information on his role for many years in supporting apartheid, beyond simply detailing the (many) Ministry positions he held. He was a Minister for Internal Affairs in the 80s for example, and as such was probably (almost inevitably) involved in implementing forced removals, the State of Emergency etc. Less is available in the public domain on this lengthy period of his life, and de Klerk himself doesn't talk about it much, so some digging is needed.

These changes would result in a more balanced and less adulatory page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.180.49.16 (talk) 07:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 one external links on F. W. de Klerk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060506110710/http://www.peacenews.info:80/issues/2442/244220.html to http://www.peacenews.info/issues/2442/244220.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060628170900/http://www.news24.com:80/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_1944991,00.html to http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_1944991,00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070217152909/http://www.news24.com:80/News24/South_Africa/News/0,6119,2-7-1442_1948500,00.html to http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,6119,2-7-1442_1948500,00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070219053623/http://www.news24.com:80/News24/South_Africa/News/0,6119,2-7-1442_1950877,00.html to http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,6119,2-7-1442_1950877,00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151230220911/http://ewn.co.za:80/2015/12/28/EFF-calls-for-De-Klerk-to-be-stripped-off-Nobel-Peace-accolade to http://ewn.co.za/2015/12/28/EFF-calls-for-De-Klerk-to-be-stripped-off-Nobel-Peace-accolade

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Recent additions
I think "Midnightblueowl" did a quite good job with his recent changes. However, I think we should take care that the article doesn't become to detailed and broad. Informations like "De Klerk supported the coalition's economic policies, stating that it 'accepted a broad framework of responsible economic policies'" might be too much for a biographical article here, in my opinion. --Severino (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

"New South Africa"
De Klerk coined (or publicly used) the term New South Africa as a way of promoting his reforms. The phrase is mentioned in the article, but it became very widespread before fading out at some point. It can be covered in more depth in the article Park3r (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Misleading terms
@Greenman please elaborate on your reversal of my edit. I post again my justification:


 * It is not opinionated to say that his government would have rather not done either of these things had they had a choice. To simply state that they dismantled apartheid and introduced universal suffrage, with no context behind either decision, suggests to the reader a false ideological motivation for realizing these. Revert and tag me in talk if you disagree

I must admit I didn't understand the short summary you already typed out. Fasscass (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's right that context is needed when stating something like that, but the context is (hopefully) in the article. To say, his gvt was "forced to dismantle" apartheid, is neither the full truth.--Severino (talk) 10:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * . "forced to dismantle" implies another entity making the decision. Of course there were pressures on them to do so, but the wording you suggest removes all agency. Most historians are of the opinion that the previous president, P. W. Botha would not have carried out the same actions were he still in the position. As Severino says, context should be in the article. Greenman (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You have no crystal ball that shows what Botha would have done - the international sanctions on S.Africa were destroying the country's economy - sooner or later any gov't would have finally given in. Let's just stick to what the RS's state rather than personal opinion.50.111.45.222 (talk) 14:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)