Talk:Racism in South Africa

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Significant Rewrite Necessary

[edit]

Lots of opinion and unnecessary information. See the list of comments handpicked from a blog Zvtok (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most sources are reliable and cited for example ENCA and Al Jazeera are used instead of a more biased site such as SABC towards black people. DumaTorpedo (talk) 10:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And don't you think handpicked comments from anonymous individuals are opinion based? Seems to me this article is becoming VERY opinionated. Zvtok (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see the comments have been removed. I do agree with that, as for the re-write. I do not see it being relevant any longer DumaTorpedo (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just read this article. Agreeing with the view that a significant re-write is necessary. E.g. There is little mention of racist ideology which were driving forces behind colonial era racism and apartheid era racism, and that those ideologies persist exist in South Africa. These ideologies are well documented and were well publicised throughout the colonial and apartheid era, so it is really weird that an academic source like this makes little reference to them. There are also documented examples of how those ideologies persist post-Apartheid - they are missing too. The section on post-Apartheid racism is especially poorly written. It contains much conjecture and biased positions. It is really difficult to see the section as a coherent academic or factual treatise. Many quotes, for instance, are given out of context. It is necessary to show, for instance, that the Penny Sparrow statements are an example of the enduring legacy of racist ideologies despite being in a post-apartheid era that has universal suffrage. It is also incorrect to (i) attribute anti-white statements and sentiments as "racism" without qualification - in context, they are "internalised racism" as the speakers were victimised by colonial and apartheid racism, and have a perception that that victimisation persists even though legal barriers have been lifted. (ii) attribute conflict between non-whites as "racism" without qualification - in context, it is "internalised racism" as product of the deliberate colonial and apartheid ideological moves to foster distrust between non-whites. This too is document. I could go on, the the gist is, the entire article needs to be re-written by a team of Wikipedians who are committed to being academic thorough, knowing the knowledge domain in its full breadth and not just slivers that are convenient for populist agenda. Lundaling (talk) 06:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly the problem I have with the "Racism against white Africans" section! Historyday01 (talk) 19:39, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, the problem is that the article conflates many different definitions and theories of what racism is, without acknowledging that it's doing so. The article should be completely rewritten to emphasize this complexity instead of ignoring it. This is a difficult task, because it involves navigating very sensitive topics that many editors are seemingly quite defensive about. But we shouldn't surrender to anti-intellectualism just because engaging with serious sociological research will lead to a lot of divisive arguments in the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.198.146.55 (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Section about racism against Black Women

[edit]

I remember reading this article a while ago and seeing that some type of institution had discrimination or sexual harassment against Black Women after apartheid, but I can't seem to find this incident anymore. Anyone know which version it might be under?

Kylenielsen (talk) 08:36, 10 July 2022 (2022)

South African attitudes to other African countries

[edit]

The article (which lacks structure, balance and clarity) further seems to omit any mention of the widely reported prejudice/dislike/mistreatment/racism by South Africans (meaning black South Africans, afaik) against people (generally also black) from other African countries. The BBC cited this "black-on-black hate" as 'afrophobia' (in WP, a synonym for Anti-African sentiment), here. I remember also long-settled Zimbabwean shopkeepers being attacked and chased out of the country. More work to be done. Onanoff (talk) 18:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "Racism against white Africans" section

[edit]

Hello all. I removed this section today, saying that the sourcing of this entire section is atrocious, saying it "reads more like a news article than encyclopedic content." After my edit on that section, a certain user @User:Equivalent33, reversed my edit, then declared that I was "vandalizing and blatantly trying to suppress evidence from the page" and claimed I was trying to "hide information about violence that ANY ethnic group has faced in the country" when the reality is what I said in my next edit: "this section is not well put together and is A MESS. It is a disservice, to users, to have it here" and asked that user to start a discussion here. Instead of doing that, the user reversed my edit *again*, here, even though it is my understanding that contested content does not remain on the page. They said that by my standards then "all the other sections are just as much of a mess" and said "we can talk about improving the sources or how the information is written, but simply removing that entire section is unacceptable" and refused to start this discussion. I'm fine with having the discussion about improving sources of the entire page, but that's a bigger discussion. For now, this discussion should only concern this section. I would say the current wording of the section would violate WP:NPOV, Here is the breakdown of the sources currently used:

Sources used
Name of source Links Times used
News 24 here ( Too anecdotal in that there isn't background on these reported killings) here (Reads like a commentary (it is a guest column) rather than a news article, and it is unclear who wrote this), here (an okay source, but not attributed appropriately in the text), here (an okay source, but depth of source is weak) Four
IOL News and its variations here ( a very cursory summary of the report, which this news article doesn't even link to; also undue weight to this source (there's an entire paragraph about it)) here and here (the latter two have undue weight when used in a paragraph), here (An okay source, but not attributed appropriately in the text) Four
Times.live here (article displays social media content, but doesn't really analyze it, or give much of the background, so not a strong source, plus undue weight on this source (it is used for an entire paragraph) and here (again, not a strong source and undue weight for paragraph), here (same as others, not a strong source) Three
The Citizen here (this entire article basically is a commentary on social media postings on an account that has since been deleted. What value does this add to the article?), here (similar comment to the other link) and here (similar comment to other link) Three
Politicsweb here (Commentary, falling under WP:NEWSOPED and two authors are not attributed appropriately, and the connection between the Solidarity Research Institute and Solidarity union is not entirely clear) and here (another commentary, this time by Kobus Marais, which is not attributed appropriately in the text) Two
SA Breaking News here (Dead Link. Available on wayback machine, but it is unclear whether this is a reliable source, or if this source has any editorial oversight at all) One
Sowetan Live here (this article is okay, but something stronger could be used) One
Daily Maverick here (this article has undue weight in the current article section) One

In my view, this entire section should be removed, due to giving sources, especially those from IOL News, News 24, and Politics Web, undue weight, over all, weakening the section, making it lean toward WP:NEWSSTYLE. It also seems to have a bent in the text which violates NPOV, with a reading of the text not being neutral but against the EFF and Black First Land First, without any balance, raising WP:FACTCHECK questions. And it could be falling into issues involving MOS:WTW.

Only if deemed necessary, this section should be kept, and ONLY if there are strong reliable sources to support it. As is stands now, this entire section is supported by news reporting, which makes me extremely uneasy. I look forward to your comments about this. Historyday01 (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC) Updated by changing the ordering of the chart and some other changes to my comment.Historyday01 (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the overreliance on news sources is a problem, it is a problem prevalent throughout the entire length of the article discussing the post-apartheid era, and not just in this particular section. I do agree that the tone of this section is unencyclopedic, but this is an issue that affects the tone of much of the other post-apartheid sections as well. I don't believe this is sufficient grounds to remove one section altogether, while leaving the others unaffected despite the similar overarching issues.
With regard to the specific sources identified as questionable or misrepresented in the form of extrapolations, I am in full favor of removing them, and the associated information. The PoliticsWeb source can stay as long as the allegations made are attributed rather than presented simply as fact, and IOL News and News 24 are usually credible, so I'm not particularly convinced by the implication these are weak sources (provided proper attribution is offered in the body of the text). --Katangais (talk) 03:46, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing has been done to fix this article. Not only does the "racism against white africans" section still exist, it remains bloated, and is still laundering the white supremacist organization Afriforum as if it were a legitimate group. If anything, Afriforum's activity belongs under the "racism against black africans" section. 46.97.170.26 (talk) 16:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight

[edit]

The post-Apartheid section should not be anywhere near the length of the colonialor Apartheid-era sections, and yet it is roughly double them. Relevant policy is WP:PROPORTION. I've added a tag Kowal2701 (talk) 14:35, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]