Talk:Apartheid/Archive 4

Older discussions about apartheid has been moved to:

Talk:Apartheid/Israel
Talk:Apartheid/Archive1
Talk:Apartheid/Archive2
Talk:Apartheid/Archive3

Jewish settlement

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

--The Jews themselves view their settlement in S. Africa as distinct from the Dutch, English, etc. See Jewish Virtual Library

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

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

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

Jews prospered during the apartheid era and were more educated than their white counterparts. More than 50 percent of the Jews were matriculated, compared to the average 23% in the total white population. Ten percent of the Jewish community had university degrees, compared to only 4% of the total white population. Jews were disproportionately represented in the commercial and financial sectors of society. The Jewish population peaked in the early 1970's reaching nearly 119,000 people. [1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non-Revisionist Jewish History

19th Century

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

First Half of the 20th Century

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

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

See Jewish Virtual Library

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apartheid Regime

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apartheid Regime

With the institutionalization of apartheid agenda, anti-Semitism was no longer a major issue. Jewish/Israeli involvement in the apartheid era was mixed; as a whole the South African Jewish community did not speak out against the apartheid system69.217.125.53 19:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  "South Africa was settled initially by the Dutch, Germans and French from the 17th century onwards. English, other European settlers, and Diaspora Jews followed in the 19th century."

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

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

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

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

Unprotecting

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

(Copy of email sent) Your unprotecting of apartheid has unleashed the same user who keeps on adding and re-adding his POV to the article, against concensus. Since the 3RR doesn't seem to be enforced anymore, can you please protect the article again after it has been reverted to what is the community concensus? Dewet 14:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the email. The gist of my reply is that at least the article can now be edited (which wasn't the case while it was protected). I don't normally block for 3RR but this chap is going absolutely bonkers, so I'm giving him a final warning now and will block if he reverts again. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jews as part of White Ruling Class in South Africa

According to many observers, the South African Jewish Community had become by the end of the First World War, the wealthiest Jewish community in the world on a per capita basis. Nor was the "size" of the Jewish minority, as Rabbi Dr. Andre Ungar observed, a true reflection of the position of the Jews in South African life:

"it would be a grievous mistake to underestimate the significance of the Jewish minority. Even purely numerically speaking, under the absurd rules of South African arithmetic, the size of the Jewish population constitutes a factor necessary to reckon with...in the two main cities, Johannesburg and Cape Town, the Jews constitute one-tenth of the citizens "that count": the Whites." "The Abdication of a Community" Africa South, III (January-March 1959), pp. 29-30

AmYisrael 00:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

• Please reread the Inclusion that you so oppose. It is in the context of exactly what you state.AmYisrael 00:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) "South Africa was settled initially by the Dutch, Germans and French from the 17th century onwards. English, other European settlers, and Diaspora Jews followed in the 19th century." FACT. AmYisrael 00:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

jpgordon, provide your reasoning for Deletions. Two words added to the article provide clarity that would not otherwise exist. Other European settlers and Diaspora Jews should not be combined. Why should they? Be an inclusionist. Wikipedia should not be changed if it means knowledge will be lost (unnecessary deletions). The subject at hand (deletion) on this article reduces the clarity and diminishes facts. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, it is not limited in size. Unless you can provide any basis for the Deletionism, it will not stand. There is nothing objectionable about the facts: "South Africa was settled initially by the Dutch, Germans and French from the 17th century onwards. English, other European settlers, and Diaspora Jews followed in the 19th century." That statement is TRUE. Provide any basis for saying it is untrue, before you Delete.AmYisrael 14:04, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

• "Wikipedia is the the free-content encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit. Wikipedia is a WikiWiki, which means that anyone can easily edit any unprotected article and have those changes posted immediately to that page. EVERYONE can edit pages in Wikipedia — even this page! Just click the edit this page link at the top of any page (except for protected pages) if you think it needs any improvement or new information."

• "You don't need anything special; you don't even need to be logged in. We (on Wikipedia) don't individually try to "own" the additions we make to Wikipedia. We are working together on statements of what is known (what constitutes free human knowledge) about various subjects. Each of us individually benefits from this arrangement. It is difficult to single-handedly write the perfect article, but it becomes easier when working together. That in fact has been our repeated experience on Wikipedia."

• Systemic bias "Wikipedia coverage is heavily biased by the sorts of people who want to contribute to it. This seems to be a perfectly legitimate concern. Certainly, Wikipedia coverage is patchy. It's easy to find examples of a really long article on one subject, whereas another, equally important subject, has a very short article. Sometimes this is just the result of a single enthusiastic contributor. Other times it is due to systemic bias."

• Editability "Wikipedia articles are extremely easy to edit. ANYONE can click the "edit" link and edit an article. Peer review per se is not necessary and is actually a bit of a pain to deal with. We prefer (in most cases) that people just go in and make changes they deem necessary. This is very efficient; our efforts seem more constructive than those on similar projects (not to mention any names). Wikipedia is open content, released under the GNU Free Documentation License. Knowing this encourages people to contribute; they know it's a public project that everyone can use."

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

Two Word Inclusion being Deleted

Deletionists are disputing the following statement: "South Africa was settled initially by the Dutch, Germans and French from the 17th century onwards. English, other European settlers, and Diaspora Jews followed in the 19th century." This statement is true, and it therefore should not be deleted.69.217.125.53 15:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Dystopos wrote: "As a side note, it appears that apartheid itself takes up a large proportion of that article and more of it could be merged into this article." Yes, you're right, and work is under way to do that (see the bottom of Talk:History of South Africa. However, the work is being impeded by the dysfunctional state of this article.--Bcrowell 15:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

I dunno. The apartheid system classified the Jews as White. However, the powers that ran apartheid surely didn't view the Europeans and Jews as the same. Why should we rewrite history?69.221.60.181 17:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Explanation of an unusual unprotect

Slimvirgin's decision to protect the article again would normally be good, I think, but I sense that the situation is now much calmer than it has been recently. I want to give you all a chance to work this out without edit warring, and that means trusting you all to make the right decisions without Big Brother looking over your shoulder. For that reason I took the unusual step of reversing Slimvirgin's protection of this article. I do not take Amyisrael's last revert as evidence of bad faith--his stated reason seems to suggest a willingness to discuss. However if the edit war resume to any great extent then protection would again be in order. I hope we don't have to do that because it makes dialog much more difficult. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

11 editors have tried to explain to AmYisrael and his various sockpuppets and IPs why his proposed inclusion is misleading, with no apparent effect. I like your optimism, but I don't share it. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

Actually, trivia is usually true, but still doesn't belong in the article. Until you can convince the 11 other editors that the information is significant, it won't stay. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

The original "Dutch" settlers of South Africa surely had an ethnic mixture similar to those that founded New Netherland (later greater New York City and the Hudson Valley). There included the Dutch, but there were also many French and Walloon Huguenots, refugees from anti-Protestant persecution, whose religious beliefs were nearly identical to those of the Dutch Reformed Church and were readily asimilated into Dutch culture and economic life. Many of the Germans were soldiers hired by the Dutch settlement organization, and as late as the 17th century the distinction between Dutch and north German was slight. There were English settlers in Holland escaping the religious persecutins between Protestant groups. With a smattering of other Europeans (Scandinavians and more Germans) they settled the Dutch colonies. They themselves all assimilated into the Dutch way of life.

To say that under Dutch rule that the "French did this, the Germans did this, the English did this" becomes absurd. The white settlers of South Africa became a melting pot in their own right, and one can't compartmentalize people by ethnicity after the melting pot starts assimilating people into one common culture. That culture was clearly Dutch even if genealogies indicate that some Afrikaner has little Dutch ancestry. --66.231.38.97 2 July 2005 05:47 (UTC)

That's great insight, thank you. Many editors involved in this discussion don't have a problem blaming "Germans" and "French" at all, that hypocrisy been pointed out before.69.209.210.198 2 July 2005 11:14 (UTC)

Rearranging History of South Africa and Apartheid articles

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

Who has reverted or opposed our anon POVer so far?

Looking back on the history, the following editors have opposed the unilateral attempts of our multiple IP/sockpuppet editor to include the POV-pushing trivia: User:Anilocra, User:Dewet, User:El C, User:Humus sapiens, User:Impi, User:Jayjg, User:Jpgordon, User:PrinceMarko, User:SlimVirgin, User:Tony Sidaway, User:Weyes That makes 11, if I have that correct, please let me know if I've added one incorrectly or missed one. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

You're right, your "Ad hominem attacks" and "team-reverts" using anonymous IPs and sockpuppets have not suceeded in destabilizing this article. More importantly, you keep ignoring the issue; it's not about whether or not its true, or whether this is a "paper" encyclopedia, but whether or not it's relevant. This is an encyclopedia article, not a giant trivia dump. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

You still don't get it; just because something is true doesn't mean it deserves to be mentioned in an encyclopedia article. Bill Clinton wears size 13 shoes, the largest of any American President, but it's not in the Bill Clinton article. You know why? Because even though it's true, it's still trivia. Trivia is not history. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Page protected

I've protected the page on the last version by Jayjg because of the reverts, and possibly a 3RR violation, by an anon IP and a new user account. When any of the regular editors wants to start editing again, let me know and I'll unlock it. If I'm not around, ask any other admin, or post a request to Wikipedia:Requests for protection. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:46, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, we can see that Jayjg has violated the 3R Rule. Have a great day,69.221.63.132 21:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement is Accurate

"South Africa was settled initially by the Dutch, Germans and French from the 17th century onwards. English, other European settlers, and Diaspora Jews followed in the 19th century. As was typically the case in the African colonies, the European settlers dominated the indigenous population through military, political, and economic control of the land and wealth." This statement is true, and it therefore should not be deleted.

You still don't get it; just because something is true doesn't mean it deserves to be mentioned in an encyclopedia article. Bill Clinton wears size 13 shoes, the largest of any American President, but it's not in the Bill Clinton article. You know why? Because even though it's true, it's still trivia. Trivia is not history. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

HISTORY, not trivia:

19th Century

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

Apartheid Regime

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

Jews as part of White Ruling Class in South Africa

"According to many observers, the South African Jewish Community had become by the end of the First World War, the wealthiest Jewish community in the world on a per capita basis. Nor was the "size" of the Jewish minority, as Rabbi Dr. Andre Ungar observed, a true reflection of the position of the Jews in South African life:

"it would be a grievous mistake to underestimate the significance of the Jewish minority. Even purely numerically speaking, under the absurd rules of South African arithmetic, the size of the Jewish population constitutes a factor necessary to reckon with...in the two main cities, Johannesburg and Cape Town, the Jews constitute one-tenth of the citizens "that count": the Whites." "The Abdication of a Community" Africa South, III (January-March 1959), pp. 29-30"69.209.230.73 15:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Who'd have thought a factual 2-Word inclusion would cause so much trouble? The question to ask is why some editors want to delete, revise and deny simple facts?

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

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

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

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

HISTORY, not trivia:

19th Century

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

Apartheid Regime

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

Jews as part of White Ruling Class in South Africa

"According to many observers, the South African Jewish Community had become by the end of the First World War, the wealthiest Jewish community in the world on a per capita basis. Nor was the "size" of the Jewish minority, as Rabbi Dr. Andre Ungar observed, a true reflection of the position of the Jews in South African life:

"it would be a grievous mistake to underestimate the significance of the Jewish minority.

Even purely numerically speaking, under the absurd rules of South African arithmetic, the size of the Jewish population constitutes a factor necessary to reckon with...in the two main cities, Johannesburg and Cape Town, the Jews constitute one-tenth of the citizens "that count": the Whites." "The Abdication of a Community" Africa South, III (January-March 1959), pp. 29-30"69.209.230.73 15:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)69.217.207.73 21:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

Unofficial arbitration.

I would first like to explain that the anonymous editor solicited my attention on my talk page, because I am listed at m:Association_of_Inclusionist_Wikipedians. Second, I would like to commend both Jayg and the anonymous editor for not descending into total absurdity as they debate their points, using references and making cogent arguments.

About the argument: I am not qualified to say whether the inclusion of references to Jewish settlers who did not oppose apartheid is strictly relevent; it certainly seems superfluous. It may be factually true, and is ostensibly providing more information, but this does not qualify it for inclusion into an article about apartheid. This does not explicitly exclude it from the article, but so often on wikipedia are there claims of pro-Jewish propaganda that I am inclined to think the anonymous editor is being disingenuous and, as Jayg said, "pushing a POV." However, a quick glance at Jayg's edit history and talk page reveals that he/she edits many a page related to Judaism, perhaps provoking the anonymous editor's suspicions.

The argument itself is not one of inclusionism versus deletionism, or trivia versus history, it is about maintaining both neutrality and usefulness. If we were to include every ethnicity and religion of settlers of South Africa, the article would be staggeringly overblown, and make retreiving useful information a nightmare. To say that South Africa was simply settled would again be useless. To include relevant information about the background of settlers is to acheive usefulness, but to include disingenuous information or exclude relevant information is to unbalance the neutrality of the article. Because this is such a fine line, no one editor should tread it alone. Hence we have talk pages and community consensus.

In this particular case, Jayg was appointed an administrator because he tends to make reasonable decisions, according to the WP community (or cabal, as some would have it). Also, other editors have supported him in this argument, and so do I. Therefore, the community decision is to exclude the information about Jewish settlers on this page. This edit war should never have gone on this long, and I hope that the anonymous editor will let the community decide and focus his/her efforts on other, more productive projects on WP.

So my recommendation to both Jayg and the anonymous editor is to take a break from this page and let those not so personally involved make educated decisions about neutrality. I once again commend both of you for your hard work and patience, and your dedication to your causes. But remind yourselves that editing should be fun, not pain. Wikipedia is outrageously fun, and edit wars are lame. If this continues, it may end up on WP:LAME, and nobody wants that. Two words, after all, should not be that important to either party. Sorry for the length. I hope this helps. - Matthew Cieplak ^{(talk) (edits)} 05:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Matthew, thank you. I thank you for your level-headed approach to this. However, this has been exactly what I've been trying to convey in my previous reasonings here — albeit not so eloquently, maybe — but which seems to have just fallen on deaf ears. You can take a look at the history of this page — the amount of arguments here must be spanning over 200k so far, and shows no sign of abating. It boggles the mind how such a silly thing can be so vehemently fought for. I support your reasoning 100%. Dewet 05:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Let's all delete the "French" and the "Germans" too as superfluous. Is there support for that? Also, see the significant last sentence regarding the Diaspora Jewish community: [[2]] 69.217.123.174 15:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

South Africa being dragged into this as well now

As a late addition, I see that this war has now been taken to the South Africa article as well. Our anon editor is not displaying good intentions by clearly violating not only Wikipedia procedures, but trampling the community and its concensus. I suspect that for this reason alone, he will be opposed at every change he/she makes, simply because of this hard-headed attitude he/she is presenting. Dewet 06:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This must be stopped, it is even overflowing into the Johannesburg article (see 62.49.18.152 edits) --Jcw69 13:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) The Johannesburg edit is not related, it seems suspicious that it is brought up here. However the stable version of that article does in fact list the Jewish Community as "significant". That makes two references within Wikipedia to that. Another: [[4]]. 69.217.123.174 15:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

69.217.123.174, please tell us whether you are the same person who did the edit to the Johannesburg article from IP address 62.49.18.152, at 15:51, 21 Jun 2005. That edit, inserting text about "Jewhannesburg," is clearly anti-semitic. Also, please tell us whether you are the same person who did the edit to the South Africa article from 84.159.235.142, at 12:23, 22 Jun 2005, which was a clear case of vandalism, inserting "fuck you" into the article.--Bcrowell 15:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

Hoax Edits

Someone is posting and making random edits in a negative fashion to try to sway the discussion away from the facts and matter at hand. Please do not fall for for edit/hate hoaxes. Can they be traced directly to any of the Deletionists from this discussion, that might have logged off and posted using an IP address? I'd like to know, if at all possible. What is the IP address associated with Jayjg? An Admninstrator might look. Thanks.69.217.123.174 15:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

I've posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance) to ask for advice about how to handle the situation. 69.217.123.174, if you want to protect yourself against having other people make bad edits in an attempt to discredit you, then the obvious solution would be to create an account and start using it for all your edits. --Bcrowell 15:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ad hominem bias

PS Regarding edits on Wikipedia, Bcrowell, paraphrasing your words, you are implying that one must have 1) a user account, 2) a reputation, 3) be a part of the Wikipedia community (however defined), and 4) have established a realistic picture of oneself to others, and 5) be easily identifiable as to "where one is coming from". I am sorry but that is pure BS. An editor does not need the 5 items listed above. The focus is the edit itself, not ad hominem nonsense. It's a shame that my two-word edit, factually correct and true, for some has been perceived unworthy not based on its own merits, but based on self-righteous ad hominem bias such as requiring an editor have a made-up user account name, etc.

As you may have forgotten: Wikipedia is open for anyone to edit, you don't need a user account, etc. etc. Kindly reread what I had to post for Jpgordon a couple of times already. [[7]]

• "Wikipedia is the the free-content encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit. Wikipedia is a WikiWiki, which means that anyone can easily edit any unprotected article and have those changes posted immediately to that page. EVERYONE can edit pages in Wikipedia — even this page! Just click the edit this page link at the top of any page (except for protected pages) if you think it needs any improvement or new information."

• "You don't need anything special; you don't even need to be logged in. We (on Wikipedia) don't individually try to "own" the additions we make to Wikipedia. We are working together on statements of what is known (what constitutes free human knowledge) about various subjects. Each of us individually benefits from this arrangement. It is difficult to single-handedly write the perfect article, but it becomes easier when working together. That in fact has been our repeated experience on Wikipedia."

• Systemic bias "Wikipedia coverage is heavily biased by the sorts of people who want to contribute to it. This seems to be a perfectly legitimate concern. Certainly, Wikipedia coverage is patchy. It's easy to find examples of a really long article on one subject, whereas another, equally important subject, has a very short article. Sometimes this is just the result of a single enthusiastic contributor. Other times it is due to systemic bias."

• Editability "Wikipedia articles are extremely easy to edit. ANYONE can click the "edit" link and edit an article. Peer review per se is not necessary and is actually a bit of a pain to deal with. We prefer (in most cases) that people just go in and make changes they deem necessary. This is very efficient; our efforts seem more constructive than those on similar projects (not to mention any names). Wikipedia is open content, released under the GNU Free Documentation License. Knowing this encourages people to contribute; they know it's a public project that everyone can use." Cheers!! 69.217.123.174 18:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

• ANYONE can click the "edit" link and edit an article. Peer review per se is not necessary and is actually a bit of a pain to deal with. We prefer (in most cases) that people just go in and make changes they deem necessary.

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

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

• • Oh, and what is this from your talk page, Jpgordon?: "Our historical revisionist is back at Apartheid. Jayjg (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2005 (UTC)" [[8]][[9]] Who are you trying to BS? Are you still going to deny collusion? You are the revisionist. The inclusion doesn't even come close to stating what you and Jayjg are trying to twist it to say. Nice try. So unimpressive. Jpgordon, using a team to circumvent the 3 Revert Rule only reflects poorly on those that have to practise it.69.221.60.181 17:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I have had Apartheid on my watchlist since about the first week I was here; I didn't need Jayjg to point anything out to me. I started this conflict, anway; what would I need to be alerted to its existence for? There is no "team"; the overwhelming consensus of the many editors who have expressed their opinions here is that my original action (editing out your addition) was correct, justified, and proper. So, yeah, I'll deny "collusion", unless you define "collusion" to mean "independent agreement". PS: Where's your evidence of Jayjg having violated the 3RR? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • • You like starting conflicts? Oh really, nobody would have guessed. No, the evidence is the circumvention of the 3R Rule. The fact is you and Jayjg act as a team, and you know it. It's unimpressive and propagandist. [[10]] The inclusion does not state Jews were responsible for Apartheid, neither does it blame the Germans or the French, which your ultra-biased POV cares nothing about. 69.221.60.181 17:34, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• • 1) Your "strongly held POV" is noted Tomer. how about trying to be NPOV? 2) It is the Deletionists that have produced an excessive and unjustifiable effort to delete a 2-Word inclusion that is Fact. The Diaspora Jews were separate and distinct from other European settlers. Why do say they are the same? That makes absolutely zero sense. However the Europeans did classify the Jews as "White" during the apartheid era. 4) Your disdain and POV comes through loud and clear, but please note the last sentence of the paragraph of Diaspora Jews:[[11]]. Lastly, what you fail to see is that being an editor with a "made-up screen name" is not a prerequisite to contributing to Wikipedia. Besides, we should stick to the subject Inclusion at hand, not ad hominem attacks and spam, therefore if an editor doesn't respond to discussing the Inclusion at hand, it will not be responded to. Let's keep the discussion on topic. Wikipedia does not require a made-up screen-name to contribute:

• "Wikipedia is the the free-content encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit. Wikipedia is a WikiWiki, which means that anyone can easily edit any unprotected article and have those changes posted immediately to that page.

• "You don't need anything special; you don't even need to be logged in. We (on Wikipedia) don't individually try to "own" the additions we make to Wikipedia. We are working together on statements of what is known (what constitutes free human knowledge) about various subjects.

• Editability "Wikipedia articles are extremely easy to edit. ANYONE can click the "edit" link and edit an article. Peer review per se is not necessary and is actually a bit of a pain to deal with. We prefer (in most cases) that people just go in and make changes they deem necessary.69.221.60.181 15:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Who has reverted or opposed our anon POVer so far?

Looking back on the history, the following editors have opposed the unilateral attempts of our multiple IP/sockpuppet editor to include the POV-pushing trivia: User:Anilocra, User:Dewet, User:Dystopos, User:El C, User:Humus sapiens, User:Impi, User:Jayjg, User:Jpgordon, User:Matthewcieplak, User:PrinceMarko, User:SlimVirgin, User:Tony Sidaway, Tuf-Kat, User:Weyes, User:WhatDoesKoshDoAllDay, That makes 15, if I have that correct, please let me know if I've added one incorrectly or missed one. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

• • • Thank You Dystopos for pointing out Jayjg's gross oversimplifications and misstatements. He isn't fooling anyone with ad hominem attacks, in lieu of discussing the subject Inclusion at hand. He can ban all the user names he wants, but it really just smacks of censorship. The Inclusion really boils down to this: Is it trivial or not? If not, then since it's accurate and fact, it ought not be deleted. It is not trivia. Clinton's shoe size is "trivia", but saying that Diaspora Jews settled in S. Africa is not "trivial", it's factual history and we all know it. If another person says that the Inclusion blames Apartheid on the Jews, well that's just so far off-base, it doesn't deserve a response. The Inclusion does not state that.69.221.60.181 23:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • If no more than two words can be said about it, it probably is trivial, at least concerning apartheid. It may not be trivial concerning the Colonisation of South Africa or the geography of the diaspora. Ultimately, I recommend merging the history section of this article into the History of South Africa and merging most of the apartheid section of that article into this one. To go to such lengths to debate "THE INCLUSION" is ridiculous. To make personal attacks is against WP policy (Wikipedia:No personal attacks). Happy editing, I'm unwatching now. 23:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Dystopos we appreciate your input, and your comment against personal attacks on Wikipedia. Regarding the diaspora Jewish community in S. Africa during 19th and 20th Centuries, more can be written about it, than say "the French" for instance. There are volumes of material written about Jan Smuts and Chaim Weizmann and Israel and S. Africa's Jewish community, so it isn't trivial. Alot more can be written about it than about the "Germans" or the "French". How can anyone say the South African Jewish community is trivial? That's just not true. 69.221.60.181 15:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Are you going to continue to censor others on Wikipedia? I'd like to see a list of which Wikipedia admns. has banned the most editors. Can anyone produce such an analysis? I wonder where Jayjg would rank?69.221.60.181 23:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

• • Pretty low? Prove it. You know, Jayjg, nobody is running or trying to fake anything here, nothing except simply trying to stay one step ahead of your censorship. Stick to the discussion at hand, not attacks and censorship. Good day!!69.221.60.181 21:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Use your User:JeremiahP account please in the future, thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No thanks, you go ahead and ban it.69.221.60.181 21:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Inclusion Issue(2)--The List: Dutch, Germans, French, English, Jews, and European Settlers

BACK TO THE ISSUE AT HAND

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

• We've already had this discussion. Please re-read this entire page, starting with the very first non-archived comment on May 2. We don't need to do it again; a consensus has been reached, though you disagree with the conclusion. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On May 2, 2005 there are posts by the Jpgordon/Jayjg POV team [[12]]. That is not a consensus. Dutch, English, Germans, French and diapora Jews are separate and distinct groups. In S. Africa during the apartheid era, Jews were classifed as White alongside the Europeans, however the apartheid rulers did not view them as the same group, you have zero evidence to back that up. Why are you trying to rewrite history? That's the way it was then. You have not proved a case for the Deletion.69.221.60.181 17:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• "BACK TO THE ISSUE AT HAND" implies that the issue is what you've put in the title. That's not the issue. The issue is that Wikipedia works by consensus, and thus far you've done nothing to build consensus, you've merely convincingly demonstrated that you have no desire to work toward consensus, rather, you attack any and everyone who disagrees with your view of "inclusion". Tomer ^TALK 18:43, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

No response Tomer, since you avoid the topic at hand and resort to ad hominem attacks. It's getting old. Deal with the subject of this section.69.221.60.181 19:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

STOP THE MADNESS!

Well, its been thoroughly amusing, and I'd like to summarise everything happening up to thus far in closing:

• Anon: You have not proved your point at all. You have quoted references like the Jewish Virtual Museum and expect us to take that at face value. You bandy around the same tired phrases such as "revisionist", "deletionist", "ad hominem" (do you even understand what that means?), as well as your claims of everyone in the world ganging up against you. When I responded to you nearly a month ago, I asked you to cite credible references and act civil; the burder of proof lies on your shoulders, but you have done neither: you have repeatedly used sockpuppets, violated the 3RR, and acted disruptive in general. You have no indication of acting in good faith, which makes me and the other editors here view everything you say in a negative way. Accept the fact that you will continue to have an uphill struggle here simply because you refuse to play by the rules.
• Jpgordon, Jayjg, and others: You have debated this matter valiantly, but I wish to leave you with a bit of advice in the form of the image to the right.

This is absolutely the last time I have chimed in on this increasingly silly matter. Dewet 19:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dewet, I couldn't have said it better myself.--Bcrowell 16:05, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Explain just how many sources you need to justify that "diaspora Jews settled in South Africa in the 19th Century". I mean how can you possibly justify that statement as false to be deleted? It's just ridiculous. The 2-word inclusion does not blame the Germans or the French or the Jews for Apartheid. It discusses the fact that a distinct Jewish community (that is not, never was trivial) existed alongside the rest of the list. The debate is just gotten so twisted it need to refocus on the inclusion at hand. Geez. 69.221.60.181 20:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

PS Throttle back a little on the censorship! :-) [[13]] Jpgordon and Jayjg have not debated the subject valiantly, moreso from an intellectually dishonest position, twisting the meaning of the inclusion from what it actually states.69.221.60.181 20:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

PS Again: Yes I know what ad hominem illogic is: Regular Ad Hominem

  1. 69.221.60.181 makes claim B;
  2. there is something objectionable about 69.221.60.181
  3. therefore claim B is false.

That about sums up the fallacy of this debate.

GOOGLE HITS

• "South African German" -- 699
• "South African French -- 726
• "South African Jewish" -- 9,090 (Trivial?)

This section is about Google hits, so please no ad hominem attacks (Wikipedia:No personal attacks), they will not be responded to.69.221.60.181 19:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you read the archives of discussion on this particular article, you'll see that most of the discussion is about the Jews. Is there any factual base for this? Not really. But unfortunately (for WP), there is a noisy fringe, eager to use it as a soapbox and push their pathetic POV, which in this case happens to be blame the Jews. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• "South Africa Huguenot" -- 34,800 (French Huguenot refugees who settled in South Africa) --Jcw69 09:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • No it's: "South Africa Huguenot" -- 49 or "South African Huguenot" -- 17

Sorry, but when I search Google I get
South African German -- 6,860,000 hits
South African French -- 22,600,000 hits
South African Huguenot -- 35,200 hits
South African Jewish -- 2,820,000 hits
To me living in South Africa there are far more Muslims than Jews. And being a english speaking white South African, I was not directly responsable for aparthied BUT I benefited from it by getting a good education while the majority of the people didn't. I know quite a few Jews who fought against aparthied but most of the Jews being white like me also benefited by the system. So you can't lay the blame of Aparthied at the feet of Jews, but at the feet of the whites, even me who got something out. I was so protected growing up that I didn't even know what was going on. During my forced 2 years in the army in the 80s threw me into the thick of things. I am thankful that South Africa has become the "Rainbow Nation". This nation of ours is a miricle. Now stop this mud slinging about who is to blame and get on with making this article a good and informative --Jcw69 12:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• 1) The text does not "blame" or "sling mud" at the South African German, French or Jewish communities. Have you read the subject text we are discussing? This has been covered already. Seriously. Please read the issue at hand, there is no blame being placed on the French or the Germans or anyone else. There is no POV text preceding or following anything we are discussing. There is no "blame" being placed anywhere. Read the text. Can you justify that accusation? Thank you for saying: "most of the Jews being white like me also benefited by the system." However, that's not the issue at hand, although many want to make it such, that's not what the text states.

• 2) To have a meaningful googletest, the query should be put in quotes, otherwise you pick up issues about for instance, Germany and France and S. Africa as distinct modern day countries, not the "South African Germans, etc." which is what we are trying to discuss. If you google South Africa Israel you get 39,300,000 which is the highest number yet. That is not the right analysis, don't you agree? 69.209.193.213 29 June 2005 06:10 (UTC)

Thank You Jcw69 for contributing to the discussion. In any case, it appears that the relative and actual amounts of Google Hits shows that the South African Jewish community is indeed a meaningful one.

Humus sapiens Using that same logic: The article as it stands says "blame the Germans and French". Do you have a problem with that? I haven't heard you say such a thing so far, why bring it up now? However, the inculsion does not blame anyone and it doesn't contain the word blame. You, Jpgordon, Jayjg and maybe a few others with a "POV" are the ones that introduced the word "blame" into this discussion and nobody else has. Sorry. The article, sentence, and inclusion at hand do not blame the Germans or the French or anyone else.69.221.60.181 15:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Jpgordon, Jayjg and maybe a few others with a "POV" are the ones that introduced the word "blame" into this discussion -- Where did I do anything of the sort? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On your Talk page: [[14]]69.221.60.181 15:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

• Impi There is no consensus except ad hominen illogic against me, instead of looking at the issue. I am editing in good faith. Most editors, that have dipped in for a quick comment, have not followed the discussion in its entirety to the logical conclusion, or contributed to it in anything other than a reactionary way.

First, the rebuttal used was that the Jewish community was/is trivial, that has been proven false. There are 13 times more hits than for the French or German. Other POV rebuttals dishonestly claimed the edit placed "blame", when it clearly does not. Then we have historical accuracy. The subject edit is historically accurate. Read the text. That argument is proven false as well.

So the only reason you can come up with now is: "when first written, it was decided to include the four major groups". Oh, 4 only. says whom? as determined by? that's set in stone forever on a Wiki project? [Impi], seriously, why do you think Wikipedia should simply copy and duplicate orthodoxy, and not progress? Wikpedia is not limited in size. Maybe you should be selling paper encyclopedias. ;-)

Every single piece of literature you read on South Africa's White population is unanimous that diaspora Jews settled in South Africa in the 19th Century, and that the Jews were classified as White during the apartheid era.

The subject edit is true and non-trivial and in no way places blame on any group. Please stop deleting the contribution to the article. The rebuttals have not withstood scrutiny.69.221.60.181 16:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For anyone crazy enough to read this ridiculously long discussion and try to evaluate all the points logically, it may be relevant to look at Talk:Carlo Levi, where jayjg used Google to show that "Italian-Jewish" was more common than "Jewish-Italian." In my opinion, that use of Google makes sense, whereas the one the anon is proposing here does not.--Bcrowell 2 July 2005 01:17 (UTC)

That's subjective and inconsistent. Kindly explain when, in your opinion, a Googletest is applicable and when it is not. It cannot be based on whether the results are "to your liking". Consistency should be applied, which Jayjg does not. Thanks.69.209.210.198 2 July 2005 10:55 (UTC)

Also, you might want to have Jayjg get right on his mission and go correct the Sol Kerzner page where Jewish is listed before Russian. We can't have that kind of radical POV going on! Oh my! Call in the reinforcements!! 69.209.210.198 2 July 2005 11:43 (UTC)

Summing up non-triviality test

Google Hits (6-25-2005) for settler communities:

*"south african jewish"    9,130

*"south african english"  15,500
*"south african french"      720
*"south african huguenot"     17
*"south african german"      691
*"south african dutch"       656
*"south african irish"       864
*"south african portuguese"  201

Clearly, the South African Jewish settler community is not trivial. Therefore that argument is POV.

• Please sign your comments. Also, google hits do not indicate the relative influence or importance of the community, but the amount of attention they receive on the internet. It is especially suspect as there is a large number of anti-semetic sites who would tend to inflate the relative prominence of Jewish people in any historical setting of discrimination, and there is a much smaller level of animosity towards these other particular groups of Europeans. These sites' brazen opinions render them essentially useless as sources of factual information, as they make no claims of neutrality. Consequently, the google hit argument does not prove that the Jewish settler community was any more influential than any other community. Just to clarify, I am not accusing you of Anti-semitism. However, you have not provided any neutral sources which demonstrate that the South African Jewish settler community was influential enough in sustaining Apartheid to warrant its specific inclusion in the article. To include it without such evidence implies wrongly that it is documented and in WP for a reason, and the the Jewish community had a more significant, sustenant influence than any other ethnic group which goes unmentioned. - Matthew Cieplak ^{(talk) (edits)} 22:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Matthew Cieplak Oh, I see. A Googletest is only applicable when it supports your position, when it does not, then let's toss it out? The numbers do not lie. Matthew, have you read any of the 9,000 google hits? They do not appear anti-semitic in any way. Calling them "brazen" is yet another example of the fact that most people haven't reviewed this discussion in detail, and are simply editing in a reactionary way. Review the 9,000 google hits, and tell us what you conclude. The rebuttal was that the contribution was "Trivial". That has been proven false, so why delete it? Those who would delete have provided no justification for their position. If we are going to have to talk about the so-called "blame" once again, (which the text does not), where is the outrage over including the French or the Germans? There is no blame being placed in that text, that issue is dead and a red herring anyway. The Google test is a great indicator that the Jewish community is noteworthy (relative or otherwise) in the history of White S. Africa during the 20th Century, and the results are off the charts supporting my position. What do you have to suggest otherwise? 69.221.62.82 18:13, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC) Can I get a barnstar now?!

• Well, I tried. I suppose I should have taken the advice not to feed the troll, but better late than never, eh? Anyway, my closing statement is simply to say that you haven't provided any counterarguments or refutations of my points (or anyone's really). Since you insist on arguing, in the face of the Wikipedia principles you claim to be defending, this is my last rebuttal: Certainly the Jewish community was noteworthy but your way of including it without context is inadequate and implies responsibility. Also, French and German probably should not be in that list alone, as you said. To conclude: trolling, scouring people's talk pages and getting offended when "enemies" of yours are noticed for being nice isn't the way to start getting barnstars. Also, having a username would help you get noticed for your efforts, and so would being patient and keeping a neutral tone, even on talk pages. I do hope you'll stick with the Wiki and make some great contributions. I'm sorry if I've offended you, though I imagine you would not argue this vehemently and determinedly if you didn't enjoy it a little bit, so I doubt you'll mind. Also, I'm unwatching this page as this debate is sort of pointless, so any comments directed to me would best be left on my talk page. See you all later, and happy editing! - Matthew Cieplak ^{(talk) (edits)} 28 June 2005 05:43 (UTC)
  • Hmm. It appears the server I linked to above is temporarily wanged. Interestingly, google does not] (see top hit) have a cached version. It was up earlier today, so it may be up tonight or tomorrow. - Matthew Cieplak ^{(talk) (edits)} 28 June 2005 05:58 (UTC)

Rebuttal summary

Matthew Cieplak: I have responded to your comments. Please do not say that I haven't. You had concerns about:

• 1) The Googletest is not applicable. I responded. ---> 9,000 hits is not trivial.
  • If we continue dragging this forever (which you seem to be interested in), there will be more hits. By your theory, this would bring you more legitimacy. Wrong. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 28 June 2005 21:31 (UTC)

You should not drag it on then. The facts are clearly laid out.69.209.222.92 29 June 2005 05:19 (UTC)

• 2) The google sites are anti-semitic. They are not.
• 3) The google sites are brazen. They are not.
• 4) Not enough neutral sources. There are over 9,000 google sources to choose from, with more if you widen the search by removing the quote marks.
• 5) Deletion of the French and Germans also. Thank you for seeing the inconsistency. If one had followed this discussion and revert war in its entirety, one would see that some of the exact same editors who reverted back the removal of the French and Germans (i.e. made sure they were on the list), would not allow the diaspora Jews to be accurately represented and included. Thank you for noting the inconsistency. I believe none needs to be deleted, as the text does not place blame and is historically accurate, despite the relative irrelevance the googletest attributes to the Germans and the French.0
• 6) You had concerns about "no evidence". There is simply no evidence to conclude that the opposite is true. Kindly read the text being discussed. The Germans, French, Jews, Dutch, and English did settle in South Africa, and their history and communities in the 20th Century were not trivial. There is plenty of "evidence" to support it. Again, 9,000 google hits should be enough evidence for anyone.
  • See above. You failed to bring any serious evidence. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 28 June 2005 21:31 (UTC)
    • Read the 9,000 hits and let us know what you conclude. Did you do so? If not, see below for summary.69.209.222.92 29 June 2005 05:22 (UTC)
• 7) trolling, scouring, etc. That is a two-way street. Have you noted the flagrant attempts at censorship? the tracking? then the reverting, all across Wikipedia, providing no reason or justification on Talk pages? I am not naming names, I believe we know who practises this against targeted others.

How can you say your concerns were not addressed? Thank You.

Also, refutations have been provided against:

• 1) The contribution is "trivial". It is not, see googletest results.
• 2) "placing blame" The text does not place blame of anyone, including the French and Germans.
• 3) Ad hominem illogic against the hated Anon--(me) does not make the subject text false. Let's try to remember that.
• 4) The text does not "single out". The text already included a list.
• 5) "biased" sources. There are many existing Wikipedia links that support the subject text. I can link them all if needed. Plus there are 9,000 Google hits. Just what would be an acceptable source, if these are not?
• 5a) A few whining editors objected to using a Jewish source as "biased". That cannot be true. Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't Wikipedia contain multiples of links to Jewish sources and organizations in a variety of other articles on this encyclopedia? Will those links be likewise discredited as biased? Gee, I suspect not.
• 6) the text "obfuscates" and "destabilizes" the article. False also. The subject text is 2 words, that represent fact, with no POV text following or preceding it. Hardly destabilizing.
• 7) the text lacks "historical accuracy". It does not lack accuracy. That is big-time false.
• 8) "relative minority". Not one person has provided population figures about the German and the French communities, from an unbiased source, this entire time.
• 9) "Raw numbers." Can go both ways. Using raw numbers for up/down might not always the best indicator as you mentioned. Using raw population figures could be meaningless, for the precisely same reasons a googletest might be determined meaningless. It's subjective. If raw numbers are bad, then we cannot use the population argument. So, which of the two numbers tests are we going to allow, and which will be tossed? That seems POV, does it not? I think a Googletest is a far more meaningful indicator than relying on raw population data, that's why a googletest exists on Wikipedia and people use it, to provide insight and meaningful interpretation to otherwise bland, nondescript data.
• 10) "good faith". I have edited and discussed in good faith. I did have to avoid censorship a few times, but it was the censors that lacked the good faith.
• 11) Seriously, with brevity, is there anything that I missed? Thanks. 69.209.222.92 28 June 2005 19:40 (UTC)

I'd like to stress again that the anon has failed to bring any reputable impartial source. The quantity does not substitute for quality, and circular arguments or blaming the Cabal does not add anyone credibility. Speaking of which, the range of anon's contibs speaks for itself. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 28 June 2005 22:32 (UTC)

Dear Humus, Cabal? The text blames nobody. are you trying to use that tired and oft-used Canard and Slur again? You can throw it, but it won't stick. Now then:

12) So, we have a response that has nothing to do with this discussion. Again. 9,000 hits provide plenty of quality sources. Regarding my posts, what about them? What is your point? I encourage everyone to review them, and you'll understand the censorship that goes on. Somehow Humus Sapiens I get the feeling if you had the power to ban and censor, you would, like some others. Look at what impressive amounts of propaganda we are dealing with: [[15]],[[16]],[[17]],[[18]],[[19]] Gee, do you have anything else to do? No wonder you're all here arguing about 2 words and put the page on lock-down. The Jews settled in S. Africa, that is irrefutable and there is tons of reputable proof. Here's yet another: [[20]] and another [[21]], and another: [[22]] "the community has contributed much to the development of South Africa, making its mark on every facet of public life, commerce, industry, science, medicine, art, music, philanthropy, sport and academia." How is Sol Kerzner's Sun City resort doing these days? I remember the 1985 song by 45 "Artists against Apartheid" and U2. Please don't make me document the history of Jan Smuts and Chaim Weizmann to futher prove there was a South African Jewish community. By the way, how come you've not once whined about the French and German communities being on the list too? We all know why you have not. Cheers! [User:69.209.222.92|69.209.222.92]] 28 June 2005 22:46 (UTC)

You once again miss the point by a large margin, anon. Nobody is claiming that Jews did not emigrate to South Africa, nor is anybody saying that they exerted no influence. The point all those reverting you have made is that South Africa's Jews form a statistically minute portion of the population, and the influence the community posesses is nothing compared to that which the main white group of Protestant origin has. To repeat myself for what feels like the hundredth time, the vast majority of South Africa's white population descends from British, Dutch, French and German (mostly Protestant) immigrants. For example, the official South African government information site says: "The white population descends largely from the colonial immigrants of the late 17th, 18th and 19th centuries - Dutch, German, French Huguenot and British." 1, and the demographics statistics from the Demographics of South Africa article has the following: "86.8% of White residents are Christian, 8.8% have no religion, 0.2% are Muslim, 1.4% are Jewish, and 0.0% are Hindu. 2.7% have other or undetermined beliefs."

As you can see, even the official SA govt information page on South Africa lists only those four major groups. It does not say: "diaspora Jews", it does not say: "various groups of Irish, Italian and Portuguese immigrants". Instead, as is the situation here, it highlights only those four groups. So are you now going to accuse the South African govt of pro-Jewish bias and propaganda the same way you've attempted to besmirch the reputation of some of your fellow Wikipedia editors?

Frankly, I don't see why this entire debate is still ongoing. The opposing arguments have been set out comprehensively more than once, only to be ignored completely by you, and consensus, which was reached weeks ago, is clearly against you. If you cannot handle the fact that Wikipedia operates by consensus, then go somewhere else where your unilateral insertion of POV statements is wanted. Impi 29 June 2005 08:06 (UTC)

• Thank You Impi for your decent and resaonsed reply. I appreciate that you do not censor others, track others, revert without discussion, make personal attacks, make accusations of bias/hate in lieu of debating, besmirch others, rely on coordination to avoid the 3R Rule, and that you do not edit in a reactionary fashion.

• Please review my improvement. I think it's brief, inclusive, accurate, non-discriminatory, it covers all the bases, and doesn't diminish from the idea of the "main Protestant block's" dominance and blame.69.218.27.27 29 June 2005 16:17 (UTC)

Moving on -- POLL

Question: In 50 words, more or less, what do you object to, in the article in its present protected state?

Answers:

• It's protected, I think protected articles are contrary to wikipedian principles. Pedant 21:09, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

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

Unprotecting

I'm going to unprotect this page; it's been too long. If another revert war starts, I will point out 3RR violations at WP:AN/3RR, but I will not enforce, as I am too involved. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 29 June 2005 00:23 (UTC)

The conclusion suggests that there will be no more reverts or deletion based on POV bias unless justified. The facts have been laid out clearly, and more reverts and censorship are not acceptable. If you continue to revert, the revert violations will be noted. Please do not revert and start the same problem. Do not revert, move on.69.209.222.92 29 June 2005 05:12 (UTC)

• And it is understood that consensus is how decisions here are made here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 29 June 2005 05:21 (UTC)

• • Reactionary editors that pop in from time-to-time do not make a consensus. And that a few editors don't like the truth, or revert based on "just because we don't like it" doesn't mean much. You have laid out nothing other than "just because" arguments. Unless you have something new, please move on. 69.209.222.92 29 June 2005 05:30 (UTC)

• • • Actually, that's exactly how consensus is made on Wikipedia. Consensus on this issue was reached weeks ago, regardless of how much you dislike the consensus. If you wish to go through the formalities of dispute resolution, you can continue the steps, which will involve a publicized survey, then mediation (if you're interested), then binding arbitration. It's completely up to you. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 29 June 2005 05:36 (UTC)

• • • • How can a consensus be reached when the discussion is still going on? A few editors that popped in months ago, do not make a consensus. Unless there is new information put forward on Talk, which will be considered, your "just because I don't like it" position is not sufficient for continued deletions and reverts. Put forth some cogent arguments and we'll consider them. Thanks.69.209.193.213 29 June 2005 05:48 (UTC)

• • • • • I'm out of this conversation. My future actions will speak for themselves. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 29 June 2005 05:54 (UTC)

• Yes. If you cannot add any cogent arguments to the discussion or rebuttal summary, you should not continually revert and you should move on. Discuss facts, nothing else.69.209.193.213 29 June 2005 05:59 (UTC)

• • If we allow too much leniency toward obstinate anons with agenda of hate, knowledgeable and tolerant editors will either leave or get radicalized. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 29 June 2005 06:20 (UTC)

• • • Humus sapiens You have shown and produced zero knowledge or information about South Africa or its history. Are you an expert? No, we highly doubt it. Kindly put forth some information, which you have not done. Provide some facts and make a contribution, please do not level complaints and Slurs. You still have not once answered why you do not object to the French and Germans on the list. Unless there is some new information, personal attacks are meaningless. To make personal attacks is against WP policy (Wikipedia:No personal attacks). 69.209.206.36 29 June 2005 06:37 (UTC)69.209.206.36 29 June 2005 06:37 (UTC)

I would like to stress that strong-worded and radical declarations from an anonymous IP do not speak much in its favour. I suggest that the tone would be put down a little bit, and that the suggested modifications be discussed on the talk page, along with good references.

The argument "Do not delete the modifications without discussion" can also read "do not apply the modifications without discussion", and given the balance here, it might be a good solution if our anonymous contributor could take the on himself to make the step. Rama 29 June 2005 06:47 (UTC)

• Rama The modifications have been more than justified, footnoted, tested, referenced, googletested, explained, articulated and defended. The text is accurate. Kindly read the entire discussion and rebuttal summary. People are attempting to "put words" into mouths, and twist the text, based on POV. The text is NPOV and accurate. How is the rebuttal summary radical, can you kindly explain?69.209.206.36 29 June 2005 06:55 (UTC)

Multiple Reverts

The modifications have been than justified, footnoted, tested, referenced, googletested, explained, articulated and defended. The text is accurate.

It makes sense then, that a random revert, without providing any new information or a comment in Discussion is not justified. Wikipedia's dispute resolution provides a guide:

• "The best way to resolve a dispute is to avoid it in the first place. Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to."

Unless someone has an improvement, or a Discussion summary associated with it, the reverts should not stand. Thanks. 69.209.199.237 29 June 2005 07:53 (UTC)

Until you get other editors to agree with your POV, please desist from inserting text which no-one agrees is relevant or representative. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 29 June 2005 16:10 (UTC)

You are not following the discussion.69.217.193.91 29 June 2005 17:01 (UTC)

Please restrict your discussion to article content. Jayjg ^(talk) 29 June 2005 17:29 (UTC)

Get consensus here first

Get it anon? Consensus here first. It's policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 29 June 2005 16:18 (UTC)

Oh, and while you're doing that, please explain why the religion of the various groups that settled in South Africa is both relevant and notable in the Apartheid article. Jayjg ^(talk) 29 June 2005 16:23 (UTC)

Nice tone there, Jayjg. Having problems with other editors too? [[23]]

Perhaps you're not following the discussion before the multiple reverts. Jayjg, I trust that you are not an expert on South Africa, are you? Impi provided us the following information: "the vast majority of South Africa's white population descends from British, Dutch, French and German (mostly Protestant) immigrants. For example, the official South African government information site says: "The white population descends largely from the colonial immigrants of the late 17th, 18th and 19th centuries - Dutch, German, French Huguenot and British.", and the demographics statistics from the Demographics of South Africa article has the following: "86.8% of White residents are Christian, 8.8% have no religion, 0.2% are Muslim, 1.4% are Jewish." We are discussing demographics in 2 sentences in the article. The official South African government information site and Demographics of South Africa article contain simple religion and ethnicity data when discussing settlement demographics. It is done concisely and accurately. The improvement does the same thing, and I think it covers all the bases nicely:

2 sentences: "South Africa was settled initially by the Dutch, Germans and French from the 17th century onwards. The English followed in the 19th Century and these groups formed the main white Protestant population. Other smaller groups of Catholic European settlers and diaspora Jews followed in the 19th and 20th centuries."

The Demographics of South Africa article lists a Portuguese minority, maybe that list of notable minority communities needs to be briefly expanded on that page. 69.217.193.91 29 June 2005 16:56 (UTC)

Please restrict your discussion to article content, and please explain why the religion of the various groups that settled in South Africa is both relevant and notable in the Apartheid article. Jayjg ^(talk) 29 June 2005 17:29 (UTC)

Impi do you want to answer this? Jayjg, please stop censoring my IP addresses with insufficent or contrived reasons. 69.216.247.228 29 June 2005 18:49 (UTC)

Please use your login and stop violating Wikipedia policy, then you will not run into any difficulties. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 29 June 2005 20:23 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that we are discussing notable communities in the apartheid era, the latter-half of the 20th Century, not the 17th Century--I refer you once again to the googletest results. It is relevant and notable to reference statistics from authoritative sources in concise form as the authoritative sources present them.

• 1) Please explain why you object to using demographic information from relevant and notable sources?
• 2) All relevant and notable demographics summaries include include breakdowns of religion and/or ethnicity. This is done to provide clarity. Please explain why you would exclude this data.69.216.247.228 29 June 2005 19:04 (UTC)

Sorry, since you want to insert the material, you have to show why it is relevant and notable; you can't reverse the burdern of proof, which lies squarely on you. Now, can you please provide evidence for your assertion that "All relevant and notable demographics summaries include include breakdowns of religion and/or ethnicity." and explain what you mean when you say "This is done to provide clarity"; what particularly needs to be clarified here, and why will religious breakdowns do so? Jayjg ^(talk) 29 June 2005 20:23 (UTC)

Kindly show us the burden of proof rules for Wikipedia.69.209.227.142 29 June 2005 21:27 (UTC)

The relevance has already been established ad nauseum. 9,000--39,000,000 Google links (depending on how you search), official Demographic sources, other Wikipedia links, non-Anti-semitic sources, popular history (Sol Kerzner and Sun City), and thousands of history books, should a bibliography be required I can provide it. Jayjg, you have proved nothing other than your efforts to censor and revise history. Please do not keep censoring my IP addresses for insufficient reasons. 69.209.227.142 29 June 2005 21:27 (UTC)

Dear anon, you have actually demonstrated why mentioning the Jewish community is irrelevant. 1.4% of perhaps 10% of the population of South Africa is not noteworthy. The ZA Jewish community is noteworthy in discussions about JEWS, which is why there are so many google hits, but the community is NOT particularly relevant to any discussions about ZA. Even if it were relevant to ZA, the place to treat that is in South Africa, not in Apartheid. Tomer ^TALK June 29, 2005 21:39 (UTC)

You are making a claim, you need to back it up; so far you have failed spectularly, as many editors have pointed out. Your latest comments are not even relevant to why you would mention the various religions of South Africans, perhaps because you are still singularly focussed on Jews. In any event, you have to come up with new rationales, as the editors here have soundly rejected the ones you have provided; see the comment directly above this for the latest refutation. Until you come up with something new, I, like many others, will not bother to respond. If you have any questions in the future please refer to previous comments on this page. Oh, and please use your JonahP login, rather than using a constant series of IP addresses for the purposes of violating Wikipedia policy. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 29 June 2005 21:42 (UTC)

Tomer, you are incorrect. The googletest was performed within quotes and without quotes. And the results are spectacularly off-the-charts supporting the Inclusion and improved text. One cannot toss one set of numbers and rely on another, that's POV. I am suggesting we do neither and remain inclusive and accurate, which the text does. Sorry, but you haven't been persuasive. The relevance has already been established ad nauseum: 9,000--39,000,000 Google links (depending on how you search), official Demographic sources, other Wikipedia links, non-Anti-semitic sources, popular history (Sol Kerzner and Sun City), and thousands of history books, should a bibliography be required I can provide it.

jayjg, Where are the burdern of proof rules for Wikpedia? Until you come up with something new, I, like many others, will not bother to respond. The improved text is the most accurate, inclusive and appropriate. Your argument about triviality has long, long, long ago been debunked and proven false. Come up with something better, or you're just being trivial.

Do not block this user IP unless you have a reason. I will be watching, and if you ban this IP for no reason, you will be in violation of Wikipedia policy. Give up the censorship attempts already. 69.222.252.120 29 June 2005 21:59 (UTC)

Anon, I find it ironic that you're attempting to use my sources to prove your point, because they actually prove the opposite. Your contention all along has been that not including "diaspora Jews" alongside "French, German, British and Dutch" is POV (and essentially unique to the editors involved here), as well as that the Jewish population of South Africa is statistically significant enough to warrant inclusion in this article. As my sources pointed out, the officially accepted way to describe the origins of South Africa's White population is to say that they descend mostly from Dutch, English, French and German colonialists. Religion is not mentioned, because it is not relevant. In fact, the only reason I quoted figures for religious groups in my second source was to point out to you just how tiny the South African Jewish population is when compared to the overall white population.

So, in sum, the only wording I will accept is: "South Africa was settled initially by the Dutch, Germans and French from the 17th century onwards. English and other European settlers followed in the 19th century." Anything else is irrelevant to the article, and should not be included because to do so would be POV in that it would overemphasize the importance of certain groups in propagating Apartheid. ::You know, this really is getting a bit tiring, Anon. Please accept that the consensus is against you, and move on. You will continue to be opposed here and reverted on the article itself not because of some conspiratorial "revert gang" plot against you, but because every single other editor involved with this article has disagreed with the inclusion you wish to add. Impi 29 June 2005 23:13 (UTC)

You've been blocked for 3RR violation; accept your block and wait out the 24 hours, rather than continually using new IPs. Each time you use a new IP to edit, you violate Wikipedia policy, which extends the block. Jayjg ^(talk) 29 June 2005 22:36 (UTC)

Jayjg why did you block 69.222.252.120

jayjg, why did you block/censor 69.222.252.120 moments after you were asked not to? Are you going to block this IP also? Then only you would be able to post to the discussion.69.217.201.176 29 June 2005 22:22 (UTC)

You've been blocked for 3RR violation; accept your block and wait out the 24 hours, rather than continually using new IPs. Each time you use a new IP to edit, you violate Wikipedia policy, which extends the block. Jayjg ^(talk) 29 June 2005 22:36 (UTC)

Got it. I see that forming a "Revert Team" is a good way to circumvent and abuse the rule. The same reverts are made by a small group, to abuse the spirit and avoid the rule. The concept is sleazy, but Jayjg , your execution is excellent. [[24]][25]69.209.225.226 29 June 2005 22:54 (UTC)

Seven or eight editors reverting you is actually a huge group by Wikipedia standards; that's not "abusing the spirit" or "avoiding the rule", that's consensus in action. If you could get anyone else here to agree with you, you could play that "game" too, couldn't you? But you clearly can't, since the consensus is overwhelmingly against your edits. What is actually "abusing the spirit" and "avoiding the rule" is continually using new IPs to evade your 3RR block. Instead, accept your block, take 24 hours off, and then return. The Talk: page will still be here. Jayjg ^(talk) 29 June 2005 23:01 (UTC)

Jayjg, you have a track record of Censorship, and you are part of a Revert Team that pushes and jealously guards POV in many articles. 69.209.210.198 1 July 2005 20:13 (UTC)

Focus on the text

"South Africa was settled initially by the Dutch, Germans and French from the 17th century onwards. The English followed in the 19th Century and these groups formed the main white Protestant population. Other smaller groups of Catholic European settlers and diaspora Jews followed in the 19th and 20th centuries."

This should be uniform across all S. Africa articles. 69.217.201.176 29 June 2005 22:33 (UTC)

No it should not, religious data belongs in demographics articles, it need not pollute every single article relating to South Africa because it is irrelevant. That little intro piece is only intended as a brief introduction to the origins of South Africa's White population. The vast majority by far of the population, something like 90% of it, descends from early Dutch, English, German and French immigrants and colonialists, and so any other groupings, whether they be Jewish, American, Italian, Irish or Martian, are statistically insignificant and should not be added. If an article exists that details the specific history of South Africa's White population, only then perhaps would such inclusions be notable as they would be relevant to the subject matter. As it is, using your inclusions on this article and others relating to South Africa would be akin to pointing out on all shoe articles that a certain model of shoe has exactly 1323 stitches, or perhaps like pointing out on all pages dealing with celebrities that Sean Connery has exactly 18 nosehairs. Could either of those be true? Certainly (though I doubt anybody knows how many nosehairs Mr Connery has). Could such inclusions be defined as factual? Yes, nobody could dispute the facts of those. However, such inclusions would not be relevant, and could actually be POV for highlighting a specific issue/group/fact far in excess of its actual importance.

Your additions are not relevant, and they appear to be an attempt to assign a far greater responsibility to Jews for creating and sustaining Apartheid than they in fact had. For this reason, though the inclusion is technically factual (as my previous examples are), it is POV and inaccurate for overemphasizing the size and therefore importance of the South African Jewish population, and therefore myself and many other editors will continue to oppose it. Impi 29 June 2005 23:13 (UTC)

--Impi "Pollute" is an interesting choice of word, and what's with that nosehair analogy? But what's the alternative text that works? The text should provide more, not less, information to the reader (that's the whole point), and it should be accurate and brief. It should recognize the settlement groups and be inclusive of the Protestant Europeans -- (Dutch, French, Germans, English), the Catholic Europeans -- Portuguese, Irish, Italians), and the Jews. The following text adds information to the article, remains brief and accurate, and it recognizes the relativity of populations, does it not?:

• "South Africa was settled initially by the Dutch, Germans and French from the 17th century onwards. The English, other smaller groups of European settlers and diaspora Jews followed in the 19th and 20th centuries.

It's a simple sentence that provides improvement and clarity to who comprised the Whites in the 20th Century. It recognizes the relative numbers but doesn't completely omit information to the reader that the Googletest proves is not trivia. It's an improvement to the article. The religious info would provide more information, and I don't think it "pollutes" to have it in there, but Impi what do you think of the text now (with religion removed)? The new text doesn't blame or highlight, it takes into account the concerns of all editors, it doesn't change the content of the article, but most importantly, it accurately informs the reader.69.209.210.198 1 July 2005 19:57 (UTC)

From the RFC Request

I'm not Jewish, but have great respect for the broad river of humanitarianism, respect for learning, and socialism that began with the 'one-foot Torah lesson' of Rav Hillel (alav hashalom) and came out of the shtetls in a tidal wave during the late 1800s/early 1900s.

Apart perhaps from very secular Jews--and I mean very secular--Jews see themselves as a people apart, much as the Amish do. So I don't see a problem in calling out their immigration in the same way other distinct groups are called out. It would be the same if a group of Amish or Japanese or Jivaro had immigrated to SA--the number is less important than the fact that this is a group that chooses to set itself apart.

That's my take, anyway. Katzenjammer 29 June 2005 20:44 (UTC)

May I offer another take on it, which clarify matters a little?

• In the context of Apartheid, race has great importance. So, much as I find it offensive to do so, it is not possible to discuss apartheid without mentioning race. Much of the debate above is entirely at cross purposes: one side is arguing that Judaism is simply another religion, the other that Jews are a distinct ethnic group. Nationality is thrown in to muddy the water.

• Two "races" migrated from north of the Sahara to South Africa: Caucasians and Semites. The Caucasians were Christians [Protestant (Dutch Reformed, Presbyterian and Anglican), Orthodox and Catholic], the Semites were primarily Jewish, with tiny numbers of Muslims. These races (and religions) also had Nationalities. So there were Caucasian and Semite English, Caucasian and Semite Dutch, German etc.

• Before the migration, the Caucasians considered themselves to be the Master Race, genetically superior to the Semites. After the migration, they still considered that to be the case, but made the Semites 'honorary whites' (at some level) and both superior to the Negro. (I told you that this would get offensive). Some Christians and Jews opposed apartheid (Steve Biko, Desmond Tutu, Ruth First and Joe Slovo being the more well known among them.

• So it is accurate to say that Europeans and Semites went to SA. It is accurate to say that Dutch, English, Germans etc went to SA. It is accurate to say that Christians and Jews went to SA. What is not encyclopedic is to mix these categories at will.

I hope that moves the discussion forward. --Red King 30 June 2005 20:01 (UTC)

I doubt that there is any valid scientific justification for your two racial categories, Caucasian and Semitic. Modern genetic studies do not generally provide any support for the objective biological existence of traditional racial classifications. When you say, "I hope that moves the discussion forward," let's keep in mind that a clear consensus has already been established on this issue. The discussion moved forward, and was completed, a long time ago.--Bcrowell 30 June 2005 20:37 (UTC)

I agree totally. That is why I began "much as I find it offensive to do so". They are not "my" racial categories: they are the ones used by a racist régime, and I only use them in a context that explains the warped logic of that régime. There is no doubt whatever that there racism is entirely without scientific basis. --Red King 1 July 2005 15:00 (UTC)

• What's valid is the historical justification and distinctions. This is not the place to discuss genetics. Semites were not considered European, but they were made honorary Whites. The Jews were relevant as a distinct group in the 20th Century in SA.Peri2 30 June 2005 21:26 (UTC)
  • Can you bring forth any verifiable sources for this assertion? Semites are considered a subrace of Caucasians by every definition of the term I've ever read that treats "semites" as a "race". More often, however, "semites" refers to speakers of a group of related languages without reference whatsoever to "race". Tomer ^TALK July 1, 2005 00:01 (UTC)
    • There are no verifiable sources - that is the whole point. But this false classification was the premise for apartheid and all subsequent logic followed from it. You can't discuss apartheid without recognising that fact, obscene though it is. --Red King 1 July 2005 15:00 (UTC)
      • OK. Now, what is the relevance of this to the insertion that's the source of the now two month old deadlock -- the relative importance, or lack thereof, of the miniscule 19th-century Jewish component of European settlement in South Africa towards the history of apartheid in South Africa? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 1 July 2005 15:44 (UTC)
        • Exactly as I said: "So it is accurate to say that Europeans and Semites went to SA. It is accurate to say that Dutch, English, Germans etc went to SA. It is accurate to say that Christians and Jews went to SA. What is not encyclopedic is to mix these categories at will." I am supporting the view that the intro should mention Nationality OR Religion OR "Race" and NOT to mix types. So I guess that makes me a "Deletionist", but I had hoped to break the impasse by tackling it from a different perspective. Clearly I haven't done so. I'm sorry if this was all discussed in an earlier archive. I admit to having nearly lost the will to live after just this much and didn't go back. --Red King 1 July 2005 21:01 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I disagree with singling out any ethnic group among the white supremacists responsible for apartheid. To do so also singles them out as particularly to blame for the policy. Does anybody really want to do that? --Red King 1 July 2005 21:01 (UTC)

Are you saying the Jewish communities all over the world, and throughout history, are "miniscule" in relevance just because of mere population percentages? I think Wikipedia itself debunks that argument. 69.209.210.198 1 July 2005 19:15 (UTC)

On the contrary, it's you who's argued the opposite, and unconvincingly so. That aside, what rôle does Wikipedia play in the googletest? Or are you falling back on the tired cliché that Wikipedia is run by a cabal of Jewish deletionists? If you find the cabal, lemme know, cuz I wanna sign up! Tomer ^TALK July 1, 2005 21:44 (UTC)

On the contrary, the only person using Slurs, tired old Canards, and the word Cabal is you Tomer. Go figure. Cheers.69.209.210.198 1 July 2005 21:52 (UTC)

Census Data

OK, so I may be feeding the trolls of this argument with this, but according to the 2001 Census, the current Jewish population of South Africa stands at 0,2%. Compare this to 1,2% Hinduism, 1,5% Islam, and 0,9% Eastern Orthodox, there is a stronger case to be said that Russian immigrants were a more important factor in South Africa's history than the Jews.

Also, Anonymous editor, please get a user ID. They are easy to get, and your argument is not helped by not having a permanent user name. Páll 29 June 2005 23:13 (UTC)

I've had ID's, but User:Jayjg tracks the user name and then reverts edits all across Wikpedia. If one becomes a "target" so to speak, look out, all subsequent posts will be tracked and then almost immediately reverted without discussion. That's been my experience. Even with IP addresses, he still manages to follow and revert. It's abusive.

Speaking of abuse, you've created multiple Userids for the purpose of abusing policy and created them with abusive names. However, I have encouraged you to get one userid and stick to it. You have one now, and it is not blocked. Jayjg ^(talk) 1 July 2005 22:56 (UTC)

This is likely because you persist in traipsing all around wikipedia inserting POV OR into various articles. It's not abusive, it's part of his duty as an admin. Tomer ^TALK July 1, 2005 18:34 (UTC)

You don't know the facts about the abuse, so please stop speculating, and kindly stop personal attacks, they are against WP policy (Wikipedia:No personal attacks). My experience is as I stated. 69.209.210.198 1 July 2005 19:02 (UTC)

• Just because I don't spend my time tracking you down to look at your edits doesn't mean that Jay's are any secret. All I have to do is examine his edit history to see where he's undoing your vandalism. Your responses, incidentally, to Jay when he reverts you, and to me on this Talk page, are abusive personal attacks, not the other way around. Tomer ^TALK July 1, 2005 21:51 (UTC)

Regarding population, you have to look at the percentage of the White population. Plus the Googletest results are highly significant.69.209.210.198 1 July 2005 16:03 (UTC)

You've demonstrated categorically that, looking at the percentage of Jews in the White population, to wit, 1.4%, there is no justification in including the Jewish immigrants in any discussion about dominant contributions to "White culture" in ZA. As for the google test being highly significant, as I've already pointed out several times, the ZA Jewish community is historically important when discussion Jewish issues, which is why there are so many google hits. Look at what the "hits" link to instead of just counting them. At the same time, since you've pushed the issue, we now have the numbers to demonstrate that the Jewish community was a miniscule part of the White community, and was not sufficiently influential in shaping its character, to warrant mention in this article. Tomer ^TALK July 1, 2005 18:34 (UTC)

• You've demonstrated categorically that using that ridiculous rationale: "We now have the numbers to demonstrate that the Jewish community has always been a miniscule part of the White community in any country thoughout history, and therefore they have never been sufficiently influential in shaping anything, and therefore do not warrant mention in any article". It's clear that you want to remove mention in this article, that's it. 69.209.210.198 1 July 2005 22:21 (UTC)

That's your opinion. The are 13 times more Google hits than for the French or Germans. We are talking about the 20th Century in SA, not the 17th Century. The Jewish community was and is noteworthy in SA. The text does not place blame, so why are you so concerned? The fact that Jewish communities were minorities in many countries doesn't mean they weren't notable and worthy of interest and discussion. Wikipedia is proof positive of that. South Africa is no different. The text is straightforward, accurate, and it doesn't place any blame. So, get over it already and stop pushing revisionist POV and denial. 69.209.210.198 1 July 2005 18:50 (UTC)

• I've already addressed this. You have either neglected to listen or deliberately failed to understand. I'm done repeating myself, but I'll be watching closely to see when I next have an opportunity to revert your vandalism. Have a great day. Tomer ^TALK July 1, 2005 21:51 (UTC)

I revert vandalism, as you should do also. Please do stop repeating yourself, if you are simply going to neglect the discussion at hand. Kindly review the new proposed text.69.209.210.198 1 July 2005 21:58 (UTC)

please update the interwiki link for zh

please update the interwiki link for zh from [[zh:种族隔离]] to [[zh:南非的種族隔離]], thank you. --R.O.C 30 June 2005 02:02 (UTC)

POES

--168.209.98.35 1 July 2005 22:13 (UTC)

English pronunciation of "Apartheid"

The article gives the English pronunciation of "Apartheid" as [əˈpɑː(r)teɪt] or [-taɪt]. The first of those I have no doubt whatsoever is as a result of politicking by Anglophone schoolmarms teaching their impressionable pupils that the word means "a part hate", and that that is how it should be pronounced. That said, the article should at least include /ʌ 'pʼʌɺtʼ ha:ʲd/, which is the only pronunciation I've ever heard from English speakers who weren't specifically calling it "a part hate", with the exception of a few who hypercorrect it as /ʌ 'pʼʌɺ θa:ʲd/ or even /ʌ 'pʼa:ɺ θa:ʲd/ (which are even more ridiculous sounding). Tomer ^TALK July 1, 2005 22:02 (UTC)

"a part hate" is the way the word is pronounced in Afrikaans, and as it is an Afrikaans word, many speakers prefer to use that pronunciation. Impi 2 July 2005 21:36 (UTC)

Improved text

• "South Africa was settled initially by the Dutch, Germans and French from the 17th century onwards. The English, other smaller groups of European settlers and diaspora Jews followed in the 19th and 20th centuries.

This provides improvement and clarity as to who comprised the whites in the 20th Century. It recognizes the relative numbers among the whites and it does not completely omit information that the Googletest proves is not trivial. The new text doesn't blame or highlight, it doesn't change the content of the article, it informs the reader, improves the article, and most importantly, it takes into account the concerns of all editors.69.209.210.198 1 July 2005 19:57 (UTC)

• "South Africa was settled initially by the Dutch, Germans and French from the 17th century onwards. The English and other smaller groups of European settlers followed in the 19th and 20th centuries.

This is just the right level of detail to provide information and clarity, but excludes all information which has been proven to be misleading trivia, and, most importantly, takes into account the overwhelming consensus of editors on this page. Jayjg ^(talk) 1 July 2005 22:16 (UTC)

• Jay's version is the epitome of perfection. Kudos to this excellent editor! Thank you for your hard work in reining in POV vandals, Jay! Keep it up! Tomer ^TALK July 1, 2005 22:28 (UTC)

• • • No, Jay's version is POV and it is not the eptiome of perfection. It omits the Jewish community, and that's a less inclusive edit. These communities have always been in the minority, but they have always had relevance. POV vandals should not be allowed to revise and diminish the existence and relevance of Jewish communities in South Africa or anywhere. Keep it up!
      • No, your version is pushing a specific POV: that the Jewish community was an integral part of White society in ZA. It does not omit the Jewish community, it, rather, selects to not mention a very small minority that was never integrated into White ZA society, as evidenced by the fact that ZA is, to this day, the diaspora community least affected by assimilation and is, in fact, the diaspora community that has maintained the highest rate of Orthodox observance. While the European Jews may have been classified by the Apartheid system as "Whites", that is not an important aspect of Apartheid. Nobody has revised or diminished the existence or relevance of the European Jewish community (the only Jewish community of ZA you seem to care about inserting mention of, every which kittywumpus way) in ZA, nor elsewhere. Tomer ^TALK July 2, 2005 00:46 (UTC)

Dream On. Artists United Against Apartheid boycotted Sol Kerzner's Sun City, South Africa resort due to its adherence and promotion of apartheid policies. Just who worked at the mining companies? To say the Jewish community was never integrated into White ZA society is pure revision.69.209.210.198 2 July 2005 11:27 (UTC)

• • • The triviality issue has already been debunked by the Google test, a test that User:Jayjg employs to support his arguments on other articles, however he claims non-relevance here? Consistency must be maintained to claim NPOV. The concerns about noting the "relative numbers" have been addressed with the improved text. But completly deleting a non-trivial component of the 20th Century South Africa Whites is not justified. Sorry, but I think you want to remove the Jewish community from the Whites because of your POV.
      • I have never, anywhere, used the "google test" to support the relevance of anything, and until you can provide evidence to the contrary, I would ask you to retract any association of Jayjg's use of google tests to refute the completely different point I have made on numerous occasions about the specific relevance of the ZA Jewish community. (I'm begging you, please find an instance when I have used a google test and provide it here...that should keep you busy for a while so the rest of us can concentrate on editing.) Tomer ^TALK July 2, 2005 02:09 (UTC)

Are you a Jayjg sockpuppet? Jayjg references Googletests if they support his arguments, but interestingly he doesn't want to apply it consistently here, solely because it doesn't support his POV. Sad. 69.209.210.198 2 July 2005 11:22 (UTC)

The best and most accurate NPOV text is:

• "South Africa was settled initially by the Dutch, Germans and French from the 17th century onwards. The English, other smaller groups of European settlers and diaspora Jews followed in the 19th and 20th centuries.69.209.210.198 1 July 2005 22:55 (UTC)
  • You still haven't shown how "diaspora Jews" are different from "other smaller groups of European settlers". Tomer ^TALK July 2, 2005 00:46 (UTC)

The best and most accurate NPOV text is:

• "South Africa was settled initially by the Dutch, Germans and French from the 17th century onwards. The English and other smaller groups of European settlers followed in the 19th and 20th centuries. Jayjg ^(talk) 1 July 2005 22:59 (UTC)

No, that's not accurate at all.

The best and most accurate NPOV text is:

• "South Africa was settled initially by the Dutch, Germans and French from the 17th century onwards. The English, other smaller groups of European settlers and diaspora Jews followed in the 19th and 20th centuries.69.209.210.198 1 July 2005 23:03 (UTC)
  • (since we seem now to be directly repeating ourselves, )You still haven't shown how "diaspora Jews" are different from "other smaller groups of European settlers". Tomer ^TALK July 2, 2005 00:46 (UTC)
    • Well, that's the point -- there are those who believe that European Jews aren't really European; German Jews aren't German; French Jews aren't French; Italian Jews aren't Italian -- and that it's very important to make this distinction whenever possible. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 2 July 2005 03:58 (UTC)

Intellectual Dishonesty and Revision

It is clear that a few biased editors have no problem including "other European Settlers" on the list, but want to skip over the fact that the Jews were considered white in 20th Century South Africa also. Kindly explain why you don't object to the inclusion of other "European Settlers"? There hasn't been one peep of an objection. What were the relative numbers of "European settlers" that are acceptable for the list? How do they compare?

Jpgordon, is right, and his opinion reflects historical accuracy to say that the "other European settlers" and "diapora Jews" considered each other separate in ethnicity. That is manifested today in the fact that a European-descended South African wouldn't be given citizenship in Israel. The Jewish community sees a distinct difference, and it's backed up in historical fact going both ways.

It is not proper to combine them. It is intellectually dishonest to list one and not the other, that's POV.69.209.210.198 2 July 2005 11:08 (UTC)

• Your point has been made. Consensus disagrees, overwhelmingly. You have made no headway gaining any consensus. It's time to move on (as you would say.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 2 July 2005 17:05 (UTC)

• • Josh, you made your points a long time ago, and they were logically and thoroughly proven false, each and everyone of them. As usual, you neglect to address the issue of the discussion section, with illogical "just because I don't like it" arguments. Sorry.69.209.210.198 2 July 2005 19:00 (UTC)

• • • It doesn't matter. Consensus has been made. Time to move on; it is impossible for you to prevail here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 2 July 2005 20:24 (UTC)

what might be a more productive focus

. . .for all those who are wrangling over the subject that fills most of this talk page and several of its archives: work on writing History of the Jews in South Africa (currently a redlink) and work on turning Jews in South Africa into something more than a redirect to African Jew. Then you can go into detail about South African Jews and apartheid (whether as tacit collaborators or outspoken opponents) and link to that information from here. —Charles P. (Mirv) 2 July 2005 16:04 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. But that still doesn't address the inequities of listing the 17th Century "Germans" and "French", and other "European" settlers, while some editors like Josh want to conspicuously omit the ZA Jewish community of the 20th Century. It's totally POV, and the googletest is off-the-charts supporting the inclusion in the text, which once again, is accurate and truthful. Unles someone can improve the text, we have no consensus as to what the text should state. It cannot be discriminatory. Right?69.209.210.198 2 July 2005 19:06 (UTC)

Charles P.'s suggestion is excellent. There is a clear consensus that the current text does not need to be "improved" by adding a reference to Jews. The current text does need to be improved in many other ways, and that can't be done if it's only unprotected for a few hours every month. The problem is that regardless of how many good suggestions like Charles P.'s we get, all it amounts to is feeding an anonymous troll who has shown no intention of making any constructive contributions to wikipedia or of doing any real research. What we seem to have learned here is that the structure of wikipedia allows an intentionally disruptive anon to paralyze an article indefinitely.--Bcrowell 2 July 2005 19:45 (UTC)

Bcrowell, there has been plenty of research done, please review the rebuttal summary. Please respond to the intellectual dishonesty going on, regarding the 17th Century "French" and "Germans" being placed on the list. Only a few editors, those that know S. Africa history, have addressed it. The obvious editors have no problem with "Germans", "French" and "Europeans", but are revising the fact that diaspora Jews likewise were considered white. It's dishonest pure and simple, please address this issue, and refrain from personal attacks.69.219.53.138 4 July 2005 17:41 (UTC)

Exactly. Anon's consistent insistence on listing European Jews as separate from other Europeans is intensely POV, and what's more his addition implies that Jews formed a much greater proportion of the White population than they in fact did. Jayjg's modification of my original compromise wording is the best and most elegant solution, and should be the one that remains in the article. Consensus is clearly against Anon, and further insults on his part shall not change that. A miniscule 1.4% of SA's white population is Jewish, the rest consists overwhelmingly of descendants of German, French, Dutch and English settlers. What's rather amusing actually, is that Anon uses the Google test to try and prove to us that there are few French and German South Africans, but plenty of Jewish South Africans. This is an oxymoron, and also evidently the argument of one who is less than familiar with the history of South Africa. It's a basic and widely-known fact that the French, German and Dutch colonists gradually assimilated into one another to form the Afrikaaner people, something attested to by the sheer amount of French surnames in Afrikaans families (Olivier, De Klerk, Le Roux, etc). Furthermore, I agree, it really is unfortunate that an anonymous editor can paralyse an article in this way. Impi 2 July 2005 21:36 (UTC)

• • the text does no such thing. It takes into account relative populations. The Googletest proves that the community is not trivial or miniscule. Why are you so hell-bent on censoring the truth? And why have you only now addressed the "French and "Germans" being on the list? Please do not start playing the name game (Sol Kerzner), Oppenheimer, as there is an extensive list of 20th Century Jewish names also. For perhaps the hundredth time, the text does not place blame on the Germans or the French or the diaspora Jews or Europeans. Reread what the text actually states.69.219.53.138 4 July 2005 18:18 (UTC)

Throw Wikipedia in the water --- can it swim?

When I clicked on the link to edit this talk page, I got this message: "This page is 186 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable." A little silly, huh? Think of the amount of productive effort by intelligent people that's been wasted here. On consideration, I'm not so sure that, as I suggested above, this silliness shows that "the structure of wikipedia allows an intentionally disruptive anon to paralyze an article indefinitely." If we step back for a minute and think about what wikipedia is really about, what really defines it, in contrast to its failed predecessor Nupedia, is its attitude of "yeah baby, bring it on!" No holds barred. Just do it. Steal This Book. The fundamental assumption is that if something is broken, people who care will come along and fix it. Protecting the page continuously for months at a time betrays a fundamental lack of faith in what wikipedia is all about. Jayjg, let's unprotect the page, and leave it unprotected, and see what happens. Protecting it just feeds into the anon's cult of victimhood. I have my three reverts locked and loaded.--Bcrowell 3 July 2005 05:26 (UTC)

Well, I didn't protect it, but I'm certainly willing to give unprotecting another try. Jayjg ^(talk) 3 July 2005 07:23 (UTC)

Proposal for moving forward

Section 1

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):

1. Concur Tomer ^TALK July 3, 2005 07:50 (UTC)
2. Concur, but clarification re: starting time needed. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 3 July 2005 16:10 (UTC)
3. Concur Impi 3 July 2005 19:15 (UTC)
4. Concur Jayjg ^(talk) 3 July 2005 20:41 (UTC)

Section 2

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:

1. Concur Tomer ^TALK July 3, 2005 07:50 (UTC)
2. Concur --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 3 July 2005 16:10 (UTC)
3. Concur Impi 3 July 2005 19:15 (UTC)
4. Concur Jayjg ^(talk) 3 July 2005 20:42 (UTC)
5. Concur see Googletest results. 69.209.239.161 5 July 2005 14:29 (UTC)

Section 3

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:

1. Concur Tomer ^TALK July 3, 2005 07:50 (UTC)
2. Agree. Sock puppets have already been used in this debate.--Bcrowell 3 July 2005 15:53 (UTC)
3. Concur; 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. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 3 July 2005 16:10 (UTC)
4. Concur I don't think any of the proper editors involved in this discussion have fewer than 500 edits on the 'pedia. Impi 3 July 2005 19:15 (UTC)
5. Concur Jayjg ^(talk) 3 July 2005 20:42 (UTC)
6. ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE, that is censorship at work. Are you Jimbo Wales? Thankfully not.69.219.53.138 4 July 2005 17:48 (UTC)

Please reread:

• "Wikipedia is the the free-content encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit. Wikipedia is a WikiWiki, which means that anyone can easily edit any unprotected article and have those changes posted immediately to that page. EVERYONE can edit pages in Wikipedia — even this page! Just click the edit this page link at the top of any page (except for protected pages) if you think it needs any improvement or new information."

• "You don't need anything special; you don't even need to be logged in. We (on Wikipedia) don't individually try to "own" the additions we make to Wikipedia. We are working together on statements of what is known (what constitutes free human knowledge) about various subjects. Each of us individually benefits from this arrangement. It is difficult to single-handedly write the perfect article, but it becomes easier when working together. That in fact has been our repeated experience on Wikipedia."

• Editability "Wikipedia articles are extremely easy to edit. ANYONE can click the "edit" link and edit an article. Peer review per se is not necessary and is actually a bit of a pain to deal with. We prefer (in most cases) that people just go in and make changes they deem necessary. This is very efficient; our efforts seem more constructive than those on similar projects (not to mention any names). Wikipedia is open content, released under the GNU Free Documentation License. Knowing this encourages people to contribute; they know it's a public project that everyone can use."

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

• 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 faith.
• 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.

• • That's false. This is a kangaroo court with no standing. Even Bishop Desmond Tutu himself could not vote according to the rules this little group has set up: 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. Unacceptable. Unless Jimbo Wales 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 text.69.209.239.161 5 July 2005 14:21 (UTC)

Section 4

The subject of this vote is the wording proposed by Jayjg as opposed to that by the vandalistic and increasingly verbally abusive anon:

1. Concur Tomer ^TALK July 3, 2005 07:50 (UTC)
2. Disagree. Characterization of anon is unnecessary. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 3 July 2005 16:10 (UTC)
3. Disagree, for the same reason as jpgordon.--Bcrowell 3 July 2005 17:03 (UTC)
4. Disagree I do however agree with jpgordon's alternative Impi 3 July 2005 19:15 (UTC)

Section 4 alternative

The subject of this vote is the wording proposed by Jayjg as opposed to that by the anonymous editor most recently editing as User:69.209.210.198, as 69.*.*.* generally, and also as User:Novato and User:AmYisrael.

• Comment: 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. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 3 July 2005 18:41 (UTC)

1. Agree. Tomer ^TALK July 3, 2005 19:31 (UTC)
2. Agree. 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.--Bcrowell 3 July 2005 21:08 (UTC)
3. Disagree 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.69.219.53.138 4 July 2005 18:03 (UTC)

If what you say were true, none of the votes on the Wikipedia, especially Votes for Deletion, would be valid. Fact is, most decisions on articles on Wikipedia 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 involved with the article in question 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 Wikipedia works. Impi 4 July 2005 18:52 (UTC)

Section 5

This vote shall authoritatively determine the wording of the "white origins" sections of the Apartheid article for a period to last NOT LESS THAN TWO MONTHS:

1. Concur Tomer ^TALK July 3, 2005 07:50 (UTC)
2. Concur, though it's too short. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 3 July 2005 16:10 (UTC)
3. Concur. 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.--Bcrowell 3 July 2005 17:06 (UTC)
4. Concur Impi 3 July 2005 19:15 (UTC)
5. Concur Jayjg ^(talk) 3 July 2005 20:42 (UTC)
6. Disagree 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.69.219.53.138 4 July 2005 17:52 (UTC)

Section 6

The two forwarded proposals are as follows:

• PROPOSAL #1: The version proffered by Anon:
  • "South Africa was settled initially by the Dutch, Germans and French from the 17th century onwards. The English, other smaller groups of European settlers and diaspora Jews followed in the 19th and 20th centuries.

• PROPOSAL #2: The version proffered by User:Jayjg:
  • "South Africa was settled initially by the Dutch, Germans and French from the 17th century onwards. The English and other smaller groups of European settlers followed in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Section 7 (VOTES)

• In favor of PROPOSAL #1 (by Anon) (votes MUST be signed by valid WP editors):

• In favor of PROPOSAL #2 (by Jayjg) (votes MUST be signed by valid WP editors):

1. Aye. Tomer ^TALK July 3, 2005 07:50 (UTC)
2. Aye. – Seancdaug July 3, 2005 15:32 (UTC)
3. Support. --Bcrowell 3 July 2005 15:40 (UTC)
4. Ayup. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 3 July 2005 16:10 (UTC)
5. YES --Jcw69 3 July 2005 17:47 (UTC)
6. Aye – Impi 3 July 2005 19:15 (UTC)
7. Aye. Jayjg ^(talk) 3 July 2005 20:42 (UTC)
8. No A requirement that voters be considered "so-called valid" as determined by a small group of individuals is subjective. Let's get the founder of Wikipedia to vote on this. No censorship and vote rigging.69.219.53.138 4 July 2005 17:56 (UTC)

Section 8

Comments in favor of neither:

Section 9

Comments in favor of either:

• 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 previous posts on this subject. For more, please see "miscellaneous commentary" below. Tomer ^TALK July 3, 2005 08:12 (UTC)

• The Anon's posts are cogent, well-researched, footnoted, justified, and proven correct (see Rebuttal Summary) to a far greater degree.
  • Only to the satisfaction of the Anon in question. Tomer ^TALK July 4, 2005 18:33 (UTC)
  • 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 himself.--Bcrowell 4 July 2005 18:40 (UTC)

Section 10

Miscellaneous commentary:

• 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 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. Tomer ^TALK July 3, 2005 08:01 (UTC)

YES, THIS VOTE IS DESIGNED TO SQUELCH, and censor the facts of the settlement of South Africa, especially in the 19th and 20th centuries. Wikipedia 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 those that want to totally delete/withhold accurate information "just because they don't like it". It's not about being on a losing side. It's about honesty, accuracy, and historical fact.

• Any text that omits the diaspora Jews as settlers is false and intellectually dishonest, as the Googletest proves. Please work to come up with an improved text that addesses your concerns about relative populations or whatever, but don't delete facts. Improve Wikipedia, please don't censor it based on POV. 69.219.53.138 4 July 2005 18:26 (UTC) 4 July 2005 18:12 (UTC)

• I'm sorry for throwing a spanner into the works! - I totally agree with the last statement of the anonymous editor. JohanL 4 July 2005 20:41 (UTC)
  • 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 Demographics of South Africa, not in Apartheid. Tomer ^TALK July 4, 2005 21:03 (UTC)

I had a quick look at Demographics of South Africa 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 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?

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 Demographics of South Africa! 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, Barney Barnato, the Harry Oppenheimer, Sol Kerzner 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!

I would advise all editors to have a good look at [[26]], and evaluate themselves in terms of their attitude in connection with i.e. anonymity, subjectivity, etc. JohanL 5 July 2005 15:14 (UTC)

OK, so vote for the anon's formulation. Help us form consensus. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 5 July 2005 15:38 (UTC)

The two should be consistent, not inconsistent, that's POV.69.209.239.161 5 July 2005 14:04 (UTC)

NEW PROPOSAL (collaboration for improved text)

• Any text that omits the diaspora Jews as settlers is false and intellectually dishonest, as the Googletest proves. Please work to come up with an improved text that addesses your concerns about relative populations or whatever, but don't delete facts. Improve Wikipedia, please don't censor it based on POV.

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.)--Bcrowell 5 July 2005 17:16 (UTC)

• 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: "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" --Red King 5 July 2005 14:49 (UTC).

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 Apartheid? It might have a place in a Languages of South Africa article. Jayjg ^(talk) 5 July 2005 15:09 (UTC)

It's an attempt to try again from a different perspective. Yes, your counter-argument is valid but the logical conclusion of your position is that all the colonists' original nationalities are irrelevant and so the only NPOV opening para is "South Africa was colonised by European settlers from the 17th century onwards.". Drop the dutch, the german, the english and then you have a reasonable basis to drop the diaspora jews. Otherwise you don't. --Red King 5 July 2005 16:45 (UTC)

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. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 5 July 2005 17:13 (UTC)

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

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 Jayjg 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 after many requests. So thank you for contributing and not joining a kangaroo court. Not one person has addressed the history of Jan Smuts and Chaim Weizmann 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 information and thoroughly researched and footnoted data, is staggering.69.209.239.161 5 July 2005 17:12 (UTC)

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 article.--Bcrowell 5 July 2005 17:16 (UTC)

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. 69.209.239.161 5 July 2005 17:19 (UTC)

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.--Bcrowell 5 July 2005 17:24 (UTC)

--Why don't you try taking a stab at some text that all editors can agree with? that is fair and accurate and doesn't omit information to a reader? 69.209.239.161 5 July 2005 17:28 (UTC)

NO more censorship

Thus far, only editor Impi has attempted to improve the text. Many other editors have popped into the discussion offering suggestions also. However, certain Jewish POV editors Tomer, Jayjg , jpgordon have abused the open collaboration effort have used censorship and supressed the facts, and have not offered a text that avoids dishonesty. 69.209.239.161 5 July 2005 14:15 (UTC)

Please work to provide an improved text below in lieu of censorship and POV:

Crapflooding

"This page is 211 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size." It seems obvious to me that the anon is trying to distract attention from the vote, by cutting and pasting the same arguments over and over again, in an attempt to crapflood this talk page. Maybe if he can get the vote to scroll way off the top of the screen, he can keep people from noticing that the consensus is overwhelmingly against him, and that all his arguments have already been debated extensively, and haven't convinced anybody. To feed this troll right now just encourages him. --Bcrowell 5 July 2005 17:31 (UTC)

You are the troll. Personal attacks are against Wikipedia policy. Please try contributing (one time) some text that all can agree with. Please make an attempt.69.209.239.161 5 July 2005 17:53 (UTC)