Talk:History of South Africa in the apartheid era/Archive 1

about this article
This article came about because History of South Africa was nominated for FA, and one of the objections was that it was too long, and should be split up into smaller articles. Meanwhile, the Apartheid article largely duplicated the material from History of South Africa, and was embroiled in a crippling revert war. (Briefly, the Apartheid article incorporated some background material on the colonial period, and there was a controversy over whether to include a specific mention of "Diaspora Jews" as one of the colonizing groups. In a formal vote, the inclusion was rejected by a margin of either 11 to 3 or 11 to 1, depending on the criteria for eligibility to vote.) The present article merges the text of Apartheid with the relevant parts of History of South Africa, and the intention is to make Apartheid into a redirect pointing to this article.--Bcrowell 9 July 2005 18:14 (UTC)
 * Well, just on general principles, I oppose this, and would have voted against it had I seen it before the redirect. I have contributed nothing to the articles and know little about the earlier debates (in particular I don't know what Stalinesque rewriting of history you are talking about), so take what I say for what you think it is worth. Apartheid is a concept and deserves its own article, history is not a concept.  Of course apartheid was the big thing in the history of SA during that period, but making a history article on only on apartheid makes it sound like nothing else happened there then, and I feel that some duplication is unavoidable and harmless.  I also don't think that the content of  Apartheid outside South Africa is argumentative or  partisan stuff that dilutes the quality and seriousness of articles on objective historical topics. The analogy with Jim Crow in particular is quite strong, as apartheid was to some degree consciously modelled on Jim Crow, and the idea even of "objective historical topics"  is foreign to my understanding.  I think that trolls should not be taken so seriously, especially when they are doing everybody else the favor of putting themselves in a cage and disrupting only one article under watchful eyes when they could be more subtly wreaking havoc everywhere else. --John Z 22:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, apartheid is a historical phenomenon. It is a modern application of institutionalized (and highly politicized) racism.  Any other use of the term almost always is used as a political club weilded against ideological opponents of any given philosophy, foreign or domestic.  The analogy and possible relationship with Jim Crow laws in the US can be discussed in the present article, as it is germane to the discussion specifically of apartheid, the stratification system used in ZA, not to any other accusation of apartheid as discussed in the related Apartheid outside South Africa article.  As for the troll in question, he disrupted over a dozen different articles using approximately 30 accounts and IPs.  Tomer TALK  23:29, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, international law does not see it solely as a historical phenomenon, so I think regarding it solely that way is clearly not neutral; the article on it should have some content other than being a redirect, a redirect is a category mistake in my opinion. Supporters of apartheid could have seen their critics as wielders of a political club, and criticism of other uses of it as such begs the question of whether those who now so use it are not correct in some sense,  is thus not neutral, and tends to assert that institutionalized (and highly politicized) racism no longer exists. Again, I think taking even unconfined rampaging trolls so seriously is not a good idea. I continue to think that this a cure (if it does indeed cure some trolling problem) which is worse than the disease, especially when there were other proposals which had not really been tried.  --John Z 01:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This reorganization has been planned and discussed for a long time, and it was not intended as a cure for the revert war. The revert war simply made it difficult to carry out the reorganization, since the Apartheid article was protected for long periods, and its talk page was useless for discussing anything but the revert war. The reasons for the reorganization were (1) that when History of South Africa was nominated for FA, many people objected that it was too long; and (2) Apartheid was basically a duplicate of the relevant part of History of South Africa.--Bcrowell 15:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

work needed
In my opinion, this article needs references and inline cites, and it also needs proofreading and tweaking because of its present rough state as a merger of the other two articles.--Bcrowell 9 July 2005 18:14 (UTC)
 * I agree, and given your dedication, I assume you're working on doing exactly that. Tomer TALK  14:46, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * I actually don't have any print sources on apartheid handy. Does anyone else?--Bcrowell 15:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

name of the article
Shouldn't Apartheid be capitalized and Era possibly lowercased? Comments? Tomer TALK 14:46, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * My mistake when I created the article -- sorry! I'd like to fix it, but does anyone understand how MediaWiki handles case sensitivity better than I do? I'm really baffled by it, e.g., sometimes it seems like you can change case in a link and it still works, and other times it doesn't...? Also, what is the style supposed to be for titles of articles? Are they supposed to be in titlecase, or are they supposed to be like section headings in articles, uppercase only for the first word?--Bcrowell 15:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking it should be History of South Africa in the apartheid era. "Apartheid" is consistently lowercase in History of South Africa.  Tomer TALK  22:24, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia style is to use sentence case in article titles, that is, the first word and any proper nouns are capitalized, everything else is lower-case. I agree with Tomer that apartheid should be lower case. If you want to rename it, just go the main article page and click on the "move" tab, and rename it. The only times that won't work are if (1) there's already a non-redirect page there, or (2) there's a redirect page that has at some point in its history been anything other than a redirect here. If that's the case, you have to get an administrator to do a speedy delete on the title you want to move to, so that s/he can then move the page there. --Angr/undefined 22:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, folks, for filling me in on how it's supposed to be capitalized and how to fix it. I've renamed it. The only link I've fixed by hand is the one from History of South Africa, but others should automatically be redirected.--Bcrowell 02:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * One thing you still need to do is fix your double redirects. Apartheid redirects here, but there are things that redirect to Apartheid. You need to fix them so they redirect here directly. Likewise with other things that redirect to redirects. --Angr/undefined 22:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be no way to suggest edits to the external links. I would suggest that you may wish to include the transcripts of Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The Commission is no longer active, although the links to trascripts are still live. Here is the home page: http://www.doj.gov.za/trc/ The actual transcripts three different committees of the TRC -- The Human Rights Violations Committee, The Reparation and Rehabilitation Committee, and the Amnesty Committee -- are found at http://www.doj.gov.za/trc/trccom.htm.

definition of "coloured"
The article uses the term "coloured" a lot, and this particular usage is a weird term used that way only in apartheid-era SA. Can anyone insert an explanation before it's used the first time in the article? I'm a USian. These racial classification systems seem obvious to the people who have grown up in the society, but they're actually very idiosyncratic, e.g., the U.S. has traditionally made a dichotomous distinction between white and black, whereas Brazilians see it as more of a spectrum. Did "coloured" take in Indians? Asians? All Asians, including rich visiting Japanese CEOs? What about the case where a white person and a black person had a mixed-race child (presumably violating a lot of laws)? Was that child considered white, black, or "coloured?"--Bcrowell 15:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * See Coloured for an explanation of the term. I agree a short definition on this page would be helpful too. --Angr/undefined 09:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks, I didn't even know the Coloured article existed. I've added a cross-reference, and a small amount of information cut and pasted from that article.--Bcrowell 14:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I have at my disposal a copy of the official, apartheid era definition of what a coloured person was considered to be. Bearing in mind that it is phrased in such a way that just about anybody could be considered 'coloured', would anyone have a problem if I posted it somewhere in the article?--Xiphon 18:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has a policy against including source materials in bulk, and the article is already fairly long, so I'm not sure it's a good idea to add something that lengthy to it. IMO, what would be helpful would be a footnote giving a reference to back up what the article says. For an example of how to use footnotes and references in a WP article, see the Ku Klux Klan article.--Bcrowell 18:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * That sounds fair enough. However I do feel that the article in its present form fails to fully convey the conglomeration of absurdities that was the apartheid system, including definitional rhetoric. Will do my best with regards to footnotes, in between exam studying!--Xiphon 18:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I love the part about the "pencil test" (more detail!?), and classifying people in the same family as being of different races -- yeesh!--Bcrowell 19:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

The "pencil test" consisted of winding a pencil into the candidates hair and literally seeing if it fell out or not. If it did you were white and if it didn't you weren't. This irrefutable fallback was only used if more 'scientific' approaches to racial classification failed, such as a search of one's family heritage. Only in South Africa!--Xiphon 20:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

A bit short dont you think?
I am a South African, so maybe its just my bias, but perhaps this article should be a little longer, considering what a huge portion of South Africa's ( and southern africa's ) history apartheid was. Bearing in mind that the apartheid goverment was also important to the soviets and the americans, with the uranium and all. If nobody minds I think I will start working on a section on south africans who opposed apartheid. Banes 09:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You're responding to an old version that a vandal replaced the latest version with (see below).--Bcrowell 16:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Wholesale vandalism
On July 28, 64.252.37.117 deleted the whole article, and then an hour later 64.252.33.223 replaced it with what appears to be the text of the old Apartheid article, including the statement about "diaspora Jews." (I assume from the similarity of the IPs that these were the same person.) The part about "diaspora Jews" had led to a long revert war in the Apartheid article, culminating in a vote in which there was a decisive majority for leaving it out. This July 28 edit was nothing but wholesale vandalism. The current version of the article is far more detailed than the old Apartheid article, since it combines the relevant text from the old Apartheid article and the History of South Africa article. The anon tried to undo a huge amount of work on the article, sneak in the part about "diaspora Jews" again, and complete the whole act without so much as an edit summary or a heads-up on the talk page. Despicable.--Bcrowell 16:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * As some of you are probably aware by now, this has been reported at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.  Tomer TALK  04:50, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I am so sick of vandalism, I am glad you fixed it up. I was quite horrified to see such a tiny disjointed article. Thanks for sorting all of this out. That user should be banned.Banes 16:50, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Stop taking the easy road and making personal attacks to justify your positions. Please blame the vandalism on the vandal, when you can accurately pinpoint who the vandal is, do not make assumptions that cannot be backed up. Blame vandalism on the fly-by vandal, not someone who had to battle a ridiculous amount of crazy Jewish bias and overt denial of fact and history for over one month. I notice these same Jewish people are not contributing to the South Africa apartheid article now. It was clear their main concern was not South African history, but Jewish bias. They are not on this article contributing now, and that's not a surprise whatsoever. All over two words, it brought the incredible bias those editors have, right out into the open for all to see. Noboby ever said, "Jews did Apartheid". Leave it to the Jewish-biased editors (of which many showed up to exhibit it) to mischaracterize the issue, in such an absurd and ridiculous way. And now they are on their way, somewhere else to push POV. They never cared about South African history or the apartheid article itself, their actions have proved it. Cheers! Please follow my user contributions. Please help stop censorship and abuse by editors and admins. You'll see who they are, and why they do it. 69.222.254.7 00:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

edits by 219.88.176.157
Anonymous user 219.88.176.157 has made a long series of edits all in one shot. Many of them seemed highly POV to me, oriented toward some kind of claim that whites and blacks were treated equivalently. For instance, the caption to the photo of the segregated beach was altered to state that "Whites were only allowed on the right side of the boundary, and blacks on the left," and a statement was inserted that "Whites required passes in black areas." While this may in fact have been the literal contents of the legal code, it's ridiculous to imply that whites were really restricted de facto in these ways. I've reverted the edit. Highly controversial edits like this really need to be discussed beforehand on the talk page, and, if there's a consensus for them, they then need to be carried out in small, manageable chunks, not as huge sloppy one-shot edits of the whole article.--Bcrowell 03:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

de facto and de jure treatment of whites and blacks?
Although 219.88.176.157's recent massive edit was, IMO, an attempt to mislead people about the true nature of apartheid, he/she does bring up some interesting points. Was it true, for instance, that whites theoretically needed passes to enter black areas? Obviously apartheid was not evenhanded in its treatment of blacks and whites, but if this is true, there should probably be a sentence or two in the section on the legal system to explain what the laws said, and how they were actually implemented. --Bcrowell 14:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

In fact, whites were restricted as blacks were. But whites did not recieve serious punishment for pass infringments and such. This was not a problem anyway as most whites wouldnt want to go to the black beaches, areas, etc. Because the blacks got the trash in almost every case.Banes 16:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Since you're familiar with the facts, do you think you could add an appropriate note to the article somewhere explaining this?--Bcrowell 17:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

It seems that someone has already mentioned the beach issue. The fact that whites requires permits to enter a black township is also mentioned in the article. Still, I will scan the article and try to add to it wherever I can, however, this article is pretty complete as it is. Banes 08:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

attack by demonstrators on Sharpeville Police Station?
Another edit by 219.88.176.157 that may have some value is the statement that "The Sharpville Police Station came under attack from demonstrators." Is this true? If so, what exactly is meant by "attack?" This is an example of how this article really really needs to have some references added by people who have access to good print sources. Until that happens, we're always going to have disputes about factual issues. Similar issue regarding the Soweto riots: "rioters destroyed school buildings, and murdered teachers, both black and white." True?--Bcrowell 14:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * "Attack" has been used too loosely here. All the affidavits indicate that the crowd was not armed in any way, and did not have violent intentions. There were only about 5000 protestors facing the 300 policemen. The SA government naturally rushed to cover up the incident,which resulted in the exaggerated figures one sometimes finds. I am a South African who is studying history,and have been able to tap into some of the multitude of sources that we have available.--Xiphon 15:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the information! It would be wonderful if you could add some footnotes to the article on factual points like this that are likely to be controversial. For an example of how to do footnotes and references in Wikipedia, see Ku Klux Klan.--Bcrowell 16:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You already told him that. :-p  Tomer TALK  20:52, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

In the 80s a number of police stations in Soweto and other townships came under grenade attacks or with limped mines. Most of these attacks was never told to the public. I came across a number of them in the Umkhonto we Sizwe's confessions to the TRC and have recorded them in the Timeline of South African history--Jcw69 09:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Cape Town residents willing to take photo of sign at District Six museum?
The photo of the sign, Image:Apartheid_sign.JPG, has no information on its source, but it's apparently a photo of a sign at the District Six Museum in Cape Town. Would a Cape Town resident be willing to go to the museum and snap a photo of the sign, so that we can be legal here? Images with no licensing information will eventually be automatically deleted from Wikipedia.--Bcrowell 19:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I will try to see to that if I can, sometime in the next coupla weeks. I think we need more photos in this article, so, I will see if I can rustle up any. Perhaps there should be some mention of international reactions to apartheid? Such as the music concerts in Britain on Mandela's birthday and so on. Plus the not too often mentioned, communist infiltration and SADF meddling in Southern Africa. Did you know that soviet spies landed on the transkei coast in the 50's and 60's? Banes 18:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No, but in the US at least, Mandela is widely regarded as a communist agent and a murderous criminal, not for his involvement in protesting apartheid, but because he was, with his lovely wife Winnie, apparently not only a proponent of necklacing, but a participant in a number of necklacings, and the ANC's condemnation of necklacing was therefore considered to be nothing more than political machination. Confirm/Deny?  Tomer TALK  04:46, August 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, you are right, the ANC was and is linked to communism. Many of its' ideals are communist. I am not insulting america here, but, this is the view down here mind you, America was on good terms with the Apartheid government due to the governments ( justified I think ) hatred of the communist scourge.In the late 1980's Reagan withdrew his support for the regime. So far as I know, Winnie was indeed an ugly sort, but, yet again, as far as I know, Nelson Mandela was an advocate of peace. I dont think Mandela ( Nelson ) was involved in necklacing. His terrorist acts which got him jailed where against electricity substations and hurt no-one. But then again, he is regarded here as a hero and maybe those dark secrets didnt get out. I do know however, that in the early 90's, there was a lot of international campaigning to free Mandela. My family used to holiday on the transkei coast and the local africans spoke about strange men with a strange language who used to come from the sea in zodiac boats. Banes 10:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I know around the early 1980s the Transkei goverment had some foreign goverment over to look at building a naval base at Lusikisiki or Port St. Johns. Talk just north of the border was that they were Soviet. Anyway I do know that Israel had miltary advisors in the Transkei Defence Force for a short while.--Jcw69 10:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Ja,that was probably it. Who knows for sure. Banes 11:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Tomer, Mandela was not involved in necklacings. He was in prison at the time they were prevalent. You're also talking nonsense about Mandela being widely regarded as a murderous criminal in the US. The US of course is widely divided, just look at the dislike of their president George W Bush gets. The Republicans in particular during the Cold War gave weapons and support to anyone who claimed to be anti-communist, supporting some of the most murderous and tyrannical regimes around, including the apartheid government. So of course there was propaganda casting the ANC as a communist front (they were allies with the communists against apartheid, but communism was never particularly strong in the organistion, nor supported by Mandela. Just look at how isolated the current SA communist party is, though they're supposedly an alliance partner), and the remnants probably still linger (just as most Americans believed until recently, or perhaps still do, that Iraq was involved in the New York attacks). Even so, there were only 4 US congressmen (this number is from memory), the most extreme right-wingers, who voted against the release of Mandela, (Dick Cheney being one of them). Greenman 12:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Greenman, there are several things I'd like to point out.
 * (1) By "Mandela", I assume you're talking about Nelson. My question about necklacing was meant to say that Nelson was a proponent, Winnie was a participant.  That aside, prevalence has nothing to do with support or participation.  Just because you're not the first murderer doesn't mean you're not a murderer when murder is prevalent.
 * (2) As for my "nonsense", either you don't understand what I'm talking about, or you don't understand what you're talking about. "Widely regarded" has nothing to do with "consensus", it has nothing to do with politics, it has nothing to do with George W. Bush (incidentally, Bill Clinton was much more disliked in the US than George W. Bush).  Aside from the poor sentence structure, the whole argument is a strawman.
 * (3) The statement about "Republicans in particular" supporting régimes that claimed to be anti-Communist is ludicrous. The correct statement would be that "Congressional Democrats in particular were softer in their opposition to Communist régimes than their Republican colleagues".  A few examples of Democrat vs. Republican administration involvement in the Cold War for you:
 * Korean War: US occupies southern Korean peninsula in 1945, following Japanese agreement to "stop fighting", under President Harry S. Truman, a Democrat.  War begins in 1950, while the US President is still hmmm.  Harry S. Truman, a Democrat.
 * Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, US involvement entirely under during the administration of the corrupt womanizer, President John F. Kennedy, a Democrat.
 * Vietnam War: Began in 1957, US troops committed to the fray in March of 1965 by executive order of President Lyndon B. Johnson, a Democrat.
 * By contrast, US funding and fighting Communist régimes under Republican administrations involved:
 * CIA involvement in coups overthrowing leftist-leaning governments in
 * Iran, 1953, under President Dwight D. Eisenhower
 * Guatemala, 1954, under President Dwight D. Eisenhower
 * Chile, 1973, under President Richard M. Nixon
 * Funding, training and supplying what became the Afgan Northern Alliance in Afghanistan (not what became the Taliban, as so many detractors of the US and rewriters of history like to say), during the 1980s, under President Ronald W. Reagan.
 * Iran-Contra scandal, involving sales of weapons to Iran in order to fund the anti-Communists in Nicaragua (1980s), again, under President Ronald W. Reagan, an ardent anti-Communist himself, in fact, the one who called the USSR an "Evil Empire".
 * Just because leading democrats in the political, entertainment and media spheres portrayed Republicans as trigger-happy anti-Communists doesn't mean the portrayal is remotely accurate.
 * Also, the assertion that, in the process, Republicans blindly supported "some of the most murderous and tyrranical régimes around" is offensive and an obvious attempt to either blithely ignore or openly rewrite history. Let's review quickly the most murderous and tyrranical régimes around:  Turkey during the Armenian Genocide, Germany during the Nazi era, USSR during the Stalin era, China during the Mao,Gang of Four/Cultural Revolution/Great Leap Backwards eras, Cambodia during the Pol Pot/Khmer Rouge era, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo during the post-Jugoslavija era, Somalia during the warlord era (continuing today), Sudan since the late 1970s, etc.  While attrocities were certainly committed by régimes supported by the US, none of the above régimes were supported by the US, and all of which are/were worse, at least in terms of the numbers of lives lost, than in ZA during apartheid.  As for the assertion that the ANC isn't communist, I can't speak to that, but the ANC was openly supported by the Kremlin (which did very few things openly).  As for the support the US purportedly lent the apartheid régime in ZA, the US was also the primary opponent of the embargo against ZA specifically because the Blacks suffered because of it far more than the Whites.  Would that the same insight prevailed wrt the embargo against Cuba.
 * What Iraq has to do with the 9/11 attacks is beyond me, and what the relationship to this discussion is as well, but as for that perception in peoples' minds, that was a straw man made up by the US press. The US went to war in Iraq because of intelligence indicating that Saddam had WMDs that he was planning to use against US troops already in the area.  The only possible 9/11 link to Iraq that has ever been made by the government is that Saddam financed a group linked to al-Qaida.  What goes on in the minds of the people, based on their accepting the claptrap that passes as "news" is an entirely different story...which takes us back to where this whole thing began.  Nelson Mandela was widely regarded as a murderous thug in the U.S.. (And the ANC was widely regarded as a front for the Red Army.  First you say that "the US... is widely divided" (which makes no sense, although I'm pretty sure you meant "deeply divided") as a way of denigrating that assertion, but then you turn around and say "Most Americans believed..."  I'm befuddled that you can think that one assertion is invalid while the other is valid.  Perhaps simply because you happen to believe on and not the other?  All I can say is "you're talking nonsense when you say most Americans believe Iraq had something to do with 9/11&mdash;after all, America is 'widely' divided." ...
 * As far as Congressmen voting for the release of Mandela, that was nothing more than a ludicrous self-aggrandizing media stunt, and that you use it as a way to get in a jab at Dick Cheney especially by counting him among "the most extreme right-wingers" (a ludicrous label in and of itself, since US politics have nothing to do with 18th century British Parliament).
 * Anyways, none of what you wrote is remotely related to what I said, and none of it is related to the article. The only reason, in fact, that I responded to your trolling here is because this is where you trolled.  It's been grand, but let's get back to the subject at hand. Tomer TALK  19:33, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

The ANC did have a few communist ideals. But Nelson Mandela was a hero of this country, not a necklacing red, and managed to bring about regime change without killing anybody. Everybody expected a bloodbath in 1994. Quite a few people we know left the country at that time because of this. Anyway we are digressing, this article is about the apartheid regime and not about Mandela's reputation. Banes 17:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite
The removal of targeted ethnic groups and foreign countries: i.e. listing the Germans, French, etc. is balanced and fair. Otherwise you have to include all groups that profited under the apartheid system using black labor, including Jewish businesses.69.222.254.7 00:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you mind?
Any complaints if I were to alter the soweto riots photo caption to mention that the boy in the other student's arms is Hector Petersen. It says in the article that Hector Petersen was the first fatality but not it does not say that the body in the photo is in fact him. Any objections? Banes 19:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Please go ahead. Greenman 19:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I second the go ahead--Xiphon 20:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * If I remember correctly the Hector was the second child killed that day--Jcw69 06:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's right. Confirmed by the Hector Pieterson article as well. The wording on the caption is correct (one of the first). Greenman 08:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I thought "one of the first" was more correct. However, on the Hector Pieterson article discussion page, somebody insists that the name is Peterson, not Pieterson, citing external links. I think that is right, as Pieterson is a more afrikaans name and I have always heard him referred to as Peterson. Shall I change it? Banes 08:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Pieterson seems to be the universal WP spelling. If you can find legitimate/noteworthy sources calling him Peterson, then yes, change it to Peterson, but change everything else that links to Hector Pieterson, so that it points to the right place.   Tomer TALK  09:28, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * If you take time to read Hector Pieterson article you will read about the name dispute and that "..the family insists that the correct spelling is Pieterson.."--Jcw69 14:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, if that is the case now, when I looked at the talk page last there was only someone wining about correct being PEt... and not PIet...If the family insists that Pieterson is the correct spelling, then I am inclined to go along with them. Banes 19:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Front-Line States
There should be mention under the international relations section of the front-line states and SADCC. Other than Namibia, none of these counties have been dealt with adequately. I propose to add a paragraph or two detailing their exploits in the face of SA's "destabilisation policy". Fine by all?--Xiphon 18:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Sounds great!--Bcrowell 19:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Done, but I have left the original piece in case there are any problems. If all goes well, it will have to be incorporated into the additions. In the mean-time, quality control?--Xiphon 20:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Biko as a medical student?
The article states that Biko was a medical student. I dont think this is correct. My research shows he was a 'gardener' (his orginaly employment title) at the university and slowly began to do work in the medical lab. Although throughout the years he did assist with medical experiments in the lab, he was never registered as a medical student and infact never took classes towards a medical degree. Can anyone confirm or deny this? Rian


 * I'd suggest you be bold, but footnote it with your source. Since it's only a side issue, maybe the words "medical student" should just be changed to "lab technician."--Bcrowell 15:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * If that is the case, that he was a lab technician, then I will have to change that on an article I authored in which I referred to Biko as a medical student. As this article used to say. If it is changed, please let me know here. Thanks. Banes 12:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)