Misplaced Pages

I'm not expressing an opinion one way or the other on the merits of the edit, but it's clearly not vandalism; it's a content dispute. Let me point out WP:VAND:

Edward321 didn't "blindly" remove the text; he referred to HiltonLange's comments higher up the page to explain the removal. As to the PDF, it opens fine on my computer. But one should assume good faith; it's probably just a software problem on Edward's side. - htonl (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the roads story. That's neither here nor there. I'm talking about the BEE story. What is your objective view on that? Should the reverted BEE text and refs be reinstated? A simple Yes or No will suffice.

Meanwhile, Edward321's reversion of my edits both at this SA article and earlier at History of SA and elsewhere have established what is IMO a distinct pattern of disruption and harassment, making it very difficult for me to assume good faith on his part. Communikat (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I honestly don't have an opinion on the BEE stuff because I haven't read the cited references and I'm busy editing other articles at the moment. As far as I can see, Edward321 has reverted you twice here (and in one case undid the reversion after I linked the original article) and once on the History article. I don't think that stretches to "disruption and harassment" in any sense of the words. In any case, it's clearly not vandalism. - htonl (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You are not familiar with the history of Edward321's conduct in his interactions with me, which include among other things: false and disruptive claims of copyright/photographic theft concerning a GDFL jpg uploaded by me last year at History of South Africa article; and also a tedious and time-consuming COI referral by him, which failed miserably. Communikat (talk) 00:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

My system still continues to insist the pdf is corrupted and will not open it. I would appreciate if you could confirm the content, Communikat has a history of misinterpreting sources. Edward321 (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Comminunkat's claim that http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jan/22/southafrica.features is not a reliable source seems to show a lack of understanding of modern journalism - The Guardian is reprinting an article from The Observer, which it owns, correctly attributing it to that paper. Edward321 (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The link opens for me as a 4.9MB, 19-page PDF document entitled "BEE 
Reform: 
The 
Case 
for 
an 
Institutional
 Perspective". It doesn't indicate who the author is or for what purpose the report was written, but I deduce from this that it was a seminar given by a Don Lindsay from the Wits sociology department. It does support the statement that BEE has not improved the "broader economic disparity", but I think it would be stretching to say that it supports the claim about "enrichment of a small, black, politically connected elite". I didn't read the document very closely, though, so I am open to correction here.

As to the Observer article, it is clear that the Observer article is reliable. If you click on the "Article history" link, you see the message "This article appeared on p38 of the Observer Magazine section of the Observer on Sunday 22 January 2006. It was published on guardian.co.uk at 02.18 GMT on Sunday 22 January 2006." The Observer is part of Guardian Media Group and its articles are published on the Guardian website; there is nothing unreliable about that. - htonl (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

My mistake. I was not aware that an "understanding of modern journalism" was a requirement for editing wikipedia. I will in future do my best to keep up to date on the latest media mergers and acquisitions, which still does not change the fact that Edward321 has a history of hounding me to articles on which he has never worked previously, and vandalising my edits there. Communikat (talk) 21:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It actually doesn't require an "understanding of modern journalism", only the ability to notice that that very page has a logo "guardian.co.uk | The Observer". - htonl (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

My mistake. Nobody;s perfect. Communikat (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, re your assertion: "...it is clear that the Observer article is reliable": The item in question was not a news report but an editorial opinion. Editorial opinion pieces are not recognised by wikipedia as reliable sources, which I have established recently during a reliable Sources noticeboard discussion initiated by me. Communikat (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter; as I've already agreed, the Observer article doesn't actually relate to the sentence to which it is attached as a reference. I have no objection to removing it. - htonl (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Black Economic Empowerment (BEE)

Ref 66 in the Economy text that Edward321 has reinstated (as purportedly "reliable'), attributes the words: "The affirmative action policies, called Black Economic Empowerment, have seen a rise in black economic wealth and an emerging black middle class" to this source: http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=261345&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__business/%7Ctitle=Black middle class boosts car sales in South Africa: Mail & Guardian Online. The source has a 404 error and should be deleted as such. The same text words are co-attributed at Ref 67 to http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jan/22/southafrica.features Race against time. The Observer. 22 January 2006. This cited item contains no mention whatsoever of BEE. The source is therefor inappropriate and should be deleted as such. Viz., neither of the two sources substantiate the false POV assertion that "affirmative action policies", are "called Black Economic Empowerment". In fact, as anyone who's even vaguely familiar with the subject knows, affirmative action and BEE are not at all synonymous, as falsely implied in the text that Edward321 has reinstated. Edward321 may benefit from revisiting diligently the sources I provided, which he reverted without reading or understanding. In any event, if Edward321 does not like the allegedly "corrupted" academic university source I provided, there are many, very many, reliable alternative sources that I can supply to support the words: "... enrichment of a small, black, politically connected elite", which he also reverted blindly and without any knowledge of or insight into the topic. Communikat (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I have fixed the M&G link to point at http://mg.co.za/article/2006-01-15-black-middle-class-boosts-car-sales-in-south-africa where the article lives now. I do agree that the Observer article doesn't say anything about the emerging black middle class and I don't know why it's attached to that sentence. - htonl (talk) 22:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You miss the point. The point being that the text states incorrectly "affirmative action policies (are) called Black Economic Empowerment" Which is not true, and was a reason why the six-years old source(s) was/were replaced with recent sources citing experts in the field, not crappy, opinionated journalistic sources. Besides, the "emergence" of any "black middle class" in the real sense of the term might benefit from some empirical evidence, of which there is none that I am aware of. Communikat (talk) 23:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I miss the point? You brought up the M&G article and the Observer article, and I was responding to that. As for BEE, I don't see why it shouldn't be described as affirmative action. Our article on AA defines it as 'policies that take factors including "race, color, religion, gender, or national origin" into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group, usually as a means to counter the effects of a history of discrimination.' I think BEE falls well within that description. - htonl (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, BEE may well fall within the description of AA, but they are separate semantic entities. AA is not "called" BEE, as wrongly stated in the text. AA is AA, BEE is BEE and it is essentially an economic policy; they are certainly not the same and identical thing, though they may have some common features and principles. If you want AA and BEE to mean the same, then so be it. Let's move on. What do you think of the over-long History section which replicates the History of South Africa article? Communikat (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I see what you mean. I do agree that the "The affirmative action policies, called Black Economic Empowerment,..." is a rather misleading way to put things. How about "The Black Economic Empowerment policy, a form of affirmative action,..." or something like that? I'm not particularly attached to the reference to AA, but we should give the reader some idea of what BEE is about.

The History section is very long, but I don't know how much we can really cut out. I have some ideas:

• the large paragraph about Dias could be trimmed down.
• something is very wrong with the "Colonization" subsection - the order of events seems to be all screwed up.

But for the most part it only seems to deal with the important points. No doubt there can be some trimming here and there. - htonl (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Re your agreement "we should give the reader some idea of what BEE is about". I'll take that as concurrence the reverted text and refs should be reinstated. Communikat (talk) 00:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm sufficiently confused that I don't know which "reverted text" you're referring to now. But no, my comment should not be understood to imply concurrence with the insertion of any particular text. - htonl (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The source Communikat is objecting to is a news article published in a national newspaper. Based on his standard, Communikat's own sources could all be deleted as opinionated as well. The question is not whether a source has an opinion, the question is whether the source is reliable. Communikat has offered no evidence that the Observer article is not a reliable source. Edward321 (talk) 01:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I merely repeated what I have been told recently at an RS rfc relative to a similar question. Take it up with them if their view troubles you. In any event, I concur with administrator htonl's opinion above that "the Observer article doesn't say anything about the emerging black middle class and I don't know why it's attached to that sentence". So the matter appears now to be WP:DEADHORSE. I don't know why you continue to harp on it.

Edward321, are you ever going to contribute something useful to this article that is not exclusively an apparent bid to undermine and/or to drive me away, (seeing as your recent, separate endeavour at Arbcom failed to have me site-banned)? I'm really curious to know. Improvement of the article might benefit enormously from your superior knowledge and experience. Communikat (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a note: I'm not an administrator here, only at Wikisource. - htonl (talk) 13:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Noted. Communikat (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

And I'm not the one who proposed a site ban, that was Nick-D. Those Arbiters who commented on Nick-D's proposal said:

• With regard to Nick-D's proposal, this was almost the outcome of the case, and it still may wind up being the outcome; Communikat needs to improve his pattern of participation if he wishes to retain any role on Misplaced Pages. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
• I find Nick-D's proposal more compelling than any suggestion that Communiat's restrictions be lifted. Having said that, I'm not sure Nick-D's proposal is strictly necessary... yet. Jclemens (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Edward321 (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I see you've gone ahead and changed the BEE sentence to carry a completely different opinion, despite their being no consensus for this change here. If you're not happy with the reliability, accessibility or any other credential of the Mail and Guardian (and I really have no idea why you wouldn't), here are another slew of links which provide evidence of a growing black middle class as a result of BEE:

• http://business.in.com/article/south-africa/south-africa-rise-of-the-black-middle-class/14022/1
• http://www.southafrica.info/about/people/blackdiamonds-230507.htm
• http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,966815,00.html
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/apr/13/southafrica.rorycarroll

Additionally, you've replaced a reference which reports a simple fact (car sales increased) with an opinion piece containing no references or facts itself. I'm going to revert it unless you can find consensus with other editors here. --HiltonLange (talk) 04:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I've just reread the entire discussion above. Please assume good faith, as I am trying to do in you. Every second sentence is an allusion to other editors "vandalizing", "harping on", "hounding". That kind of text is quite inflammatory, especially when apparently unprovoked. --HiltonLange (talk) 04:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm wary of my edits being taken the wrong way. To prevent myself being accused of vandalism, I'd like to mention my rationale for reverting the De Klerk nuclear weapon information. The history of nuclear weapons in South Africa is given in much more detail at the linked South Africa and weapons of mass destruction page. I've already expressed my opinion that the main article is a summary. The summary? South Africa developed and then dismantled nuclear weapons. This history and detail, quotes from people and analysis? On the linked page. I apologize that I've now reverted you twice on 2 separate issues. Constructive changes are encouraged, but I simply disagree with both of your changes to this article. You're actively editing an article which is too long, and already has a great deal of consensus for the subject matter. Any substantive change aside from cleanup or general improvement is going to go through iterations. Adding sections of interest is going to meet with resistance. Changing POV is going to need discussion and consensus. --HiltonLange (talk) 05:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

HiltonLange, you are wrong on a number of points. I'm not going to say you don't know what you're talking about, or that you may be exhibiting a degree of WP:OWNERSHIP. That would simply be impolite, which is not my intention. But I will say I don't know what you are talking about; e.g. I've not reverted the M&G citation about black middle-class. Last time I looked, the text and ref are there (unless someone has fiddled with it in the meantime). I deleted the Guardian/Observer item as irrelevant with concurrence of one other editor. (Cf., ... I've already agreed, the Observer article doesn't actually relate to the sentence to which it is attached as a reference. I have no objection to removing it. - htonl (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have time to go into all the other issues Hilton raises, except to deal with one or two of the more essential items. Firstly and perhaps most importantly: your oft-repeated assertion that this is an already bloated overview article, and as such it leaves no room for further information to be added. As already pointed out, the History section is very long, it occupies a lot of unwarranted article space in this overview article, it contains some garbled text, and it replicates in large part the History of South Africa article, which is the main history article. Given your concerns about bloat, why are we not addressing this, as already raised by me in as yet unresponded-to discussion?

The article contains many piped-links, which you also refer to in your rationale for reverting my atomic weapon edits, as though piped-links represent or are an acceptable substitute for references. They are not. The sourcing rules certainly do not allow piped-links to be used as "references". All of which needs to be attended to if this article is ever to reach GA status, which I presume is the intended objective of our participation here (with the notable exception of at least one other editor).

There is a lot else that requires diligent attention, including your pertinent points raised earlier, and for which I've already expressed support, though no-one else has. Apparently too busy with edit warring, disruptive point scoring, exagerated claims (e.g. "every second sentence about vandalism), importing external disputes, reviving WP:DEADHORSE, expressing WP:IDHT, painting rosy POV pictures, ignoring the warts; and all the rest. I'm done. Communikat (talk) 13:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

As regards the BEE text and ref that H.Lange has reverted: in his careful reading of the thread, he seems to have missed this concurrence by htonl above that: "... we should give the reader some idea of what BEE is about ..." - htonl (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC) (My emphasis). HiltonLange, if you don't mind, kindly reinstate accordingly the text and ref you have inappropriately reverted. Otherwise I'll do it myself, when I have time to spare. No problem.

Before I forget, this long-neglected article contains walls of text (not my doing) that are unsupported by any references whatsoever. Perhaps Edward321 may spare a moment to employ his vast reservoir of expertise and experience by helping here to find and upoad suitable refs? Communikat (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to respond to each of the points here.

• You found consensus about removing the Observer/Guardian link. I accidentally restored that link, apologies. Fixed and replaced with another one.
• About article length, the guidelines state that long articles should be split. That means that instead of introducing even more detail about subtopic into the main article, it should go into a more specific article. If the entire history section were removed, this article would still be too long.
• Piped links indicate that there is another page with more specific information available. Did I at any stage suggest that one could or should be used as a reference?
• Your responses to another editor bordered on attacks. In my opinion your response to me (Apparently too busy with... etc) is pretty clearly an attack. Please stop.

--HiltonLange (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

My responses in order of your occurrence:

I found consensus not only re Observer/Guardian link but also re "something needs to be said about BEE". I've not yet checked, but hopefully you've reinistated that as well, failing which I'll do it myself.

Article split: since this is your well-founded suggestion in first instance, I suggest you proceed with article split, in order that we might proceed ultimately with polishing up the remainder to GA status. You misrepresent my comments on History section. I've not suggested removing the entire history section. I've suggested only it be reduced substantially, in line with your own overview-summary rationale. It's a straight-forward copy editing job. Yes, the article might still be too long, even if History is reduced, but a summary rework of History would reduce very substantially the current overall bloat, which was the intention of my valid suggestion.

Agreed, you did not suggest piped-links are acceptable substitute, nor did I infer that. What I'm implying is that there is a great deal of material in this article that merits attention, including drastic reduction of reliance on piped-links, no matter who put them there. That is not my concern.

I'm sorry if you perceive my remarks as personal attacks on you. IMO, those remarks hardly fall within the meaning of WP:NPA#WHATIS. I'm interested only in improvement of this article, with specific reference to content, not to person. Please assume good faith and accept my sincere apologies if my comments have been perceived as otherwise. I will in the meantime ignore the fact that several ill-disguised personal attacks have been launched against me by one other editor, yet those particular attacks have not drawn your criticism. But never mind, I'm not a cry-baby. Communikat (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Tourism brochure

All the pretty pictures on the article page give it almost the appearance of a tourism brochure. This conveys a distorted / lopsided visual POV of the country. There are no visuals depicting poverty, squalid living conditions etc as experienced by the vast majority of people living in South Africa. The lower part of the Economy section, e.g. might benefit from an appropriate visual depicting the majority lifestyle. I suggest this be remedied by someone adept at uploading appropriate CC visuals, at which I myself am technically challenged. Communikat (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I took a quick inventory of the pictures in the article. There are quite a few of major towns and settlements, a number of historical ones, including Boer War and apartheid signage. There are at least 3 depicting typical rural life, several about industry and commerce. I'm not sure what you mean by "all the pretty pictures", but they seem absolutely in line with the distribution found on most other country pages. Are there specifically any of people living in poverty? No. Do the "vast majority" of South Africans live in poverty? Not at all. You raise an interesting point about image balance, but I checked about 10 other countries which are economically similar, and none of them have go out of their way to depict negative images. Worth thinking about... --HiltonLange (talk) 04:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree entirely with your highly unrealistic "Are there specifically any of people living in poverty? No." and "Do the "vast majority" of South Africans live in poverty? Not at all." E.G. Have you ever visited the Cape Flats, situated not far from Observatory? Have you ever been to Crossroads or countless other squatter settlements around the country? Have you ever been to a black township? Are you familiar with farm-labour conditions? Are you familiar with some of the stats cited in the article itself, relative to poverty? Did you notice this stat (referred to in an earlier contribution that was then promptly reverted by Edward321): "The country ranks among the 10 countries with the lowest share of employed adults in the world, according to the International Labour Organisation". And so on. It is a well-documented fact that South Africa has the greatest level of socio-economic disparity in the world. The fact that articles about other "countries which are economically similar" do not have photos relating to poverty, does not automatically mean that the SA article must not have such images. Where did you get that idea? We are dealing here with the SA article, not articles about other countries with similar GDPs or whatever. Poverty and squalor are a huge problem in SA, and a cause of great political turmoil both past and present. Everybody knows that. Why convey a false POV that everything is rosy? I'm staggered. Communikat (talk) 12:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Try taking a look at Somalia, which is described as a failed state that does not control most of its own territory and is one of the poorest and most violent in the world. Care to guess how many picture show that or the "poverty, squalid living conditions etc as experienced by the vast majority of people"? Edward321 (talk) 13:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I did not edit the Somalia article. South Africa, fortunately, is not Somalia. I (and presumably you as well) am/are engaged (more or less) in editing the South Africa article. You are free to rectify the paucity of Somalia pictures, if avaliable, just as you are free to remedy same at this article, in the interests of visual NPOV. In short, two wrongs do not make a right. Or maybe they do. Nothing surprises me any more about editing at wikipedia. Communikat (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

We are either miscommunicating, or we are supplied with very different facts. "Vast majority" is a nebulous term, but in my interpretation it means significantly over 50%, I imagine 70%-80% to consitute vast. (Otherwise simple "majority" would suffice). No, the facts at my disposal don't suggest that the vast majority of South Africans live in poverty. Not even a majority of South Africans live in poverty. It is a well-documented fact that South Africa has the greatest level of socio-economic disparity in the world. Again, no. The facts at my disposal say that it is ranked somewhere between 10th and 20th in the world, depending on the source. Also, if you reread my reply to you, I actually agreed with you. I found it interesting that no country articles contained significantly negative images, and said it was "worth thinking about". I am having difficulty collaborating with you, even when we agree. --HiltonLange (talk) 16:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Kindly provide the empirical facts at your disposal re poverty, and I shall then endeavour to provide mine. In the meantime, I remain of the opinion that the visuals, such as in the Economy section, are POV-biased; they are reminiscent of a glossy tourism brochure. Yes, it certainly is worth thinking about, that visual POV is evident in Third World-country articles. This does not change the self-evident fact that we are dealing here with an article about SA, not about other countries, nor is this article meant to be a comparative study. And no, we are not talking about "negative images" per se; we are talking about visual POV balance, in keeping with the principles of encyclopeadic content, relative to pictures that depict reality. The reality of SA is not all pretty pictures of Table Mountain, colourful flora and fauna, and so on. If there happens to be a dearth of useable, poverty-related CC visuals, then I shall be happy to provide some of my own GDFLs, or alternatively, I'm confident the University of Cape Town Visual Archives will co-operate in making available any of their copious archival pics depicting the reality of social / living conditions experienced by a majority of people in this beautiful country. Communikat (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting to note this (now italicised) data was reverted / removed by someone (I can't be bothered to check the diffs, there have been so many disruptive arguments, reversions and reinstatements that it's now an extremely time-consuming and an almost unmanageable task to establish who's doing what to whom or why): In 2005-06, the national Income and Expenditure Survey found the average income for the top 10% of households was 32 times that of the bottom 50%. The country ranks among the 10 countries with the lowest share of employed adults in the world, according to the International Labour Organisation . However, one thing seems clear to me: the issue of poverty / inequality is something that someone here seems determined to underplay at best or, at worst, avoid almost entirely. And no, this is not a personal attack; it's a matter of encyclopaedic content, not of person. I'm open to reasoned debate. Bless you all. Communikat (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

military section -- reinstating reliable De Klerk disclosure

Hilton Lange above, citing in discussion a separate, related article, has reverted a sourced De Klerk disclosures about SA atomic weapons. HiltonLange's partial, unsatisfactory justification for the revert is that it is already dealt with elsewhere. The article he cites for his justification of the revert, does not mention at all the De Klerk disclosure. The article he cites in discussion is riddled with tags of "citation needed" etc; and the article is also something of a content fork from the Vela Incident. All things considered, I'm reinstating the De Klerk atomic weapons text and ref, not least because it gives needed body for satisfactory text wrap-around of visual in Military Affairs section of this SA article. Communikat (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Neva Makgetla, Inequality on scale found in SA bites like acid, Business Day, 31 March 2010

• Misplaced Pages articles that use South African English
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class South Africa articles
• Top-importance South Africa articles
• WikiProject South Africa articles
• B-Class Africa articles
• Top-importance Africa articles
• WikiProject Africa articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class country articles
• WikiProject Countries articles
• Selected anniversaries (May 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (May 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (May 2006)
• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once