Talk:History of the Jews in South Africa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Merge proposal 2 balance in use of Jay Sand's book 3 Copyright 4 Rewrite 5 Apartheid section 6 Boer wars copyright issue 7 Proposed merge of Afrikaner-Jews into South African Jews 7.1 Survey 7.2 Discussion

[edit] Merge proposal

[edit] balance in use of Jay Sand's book

Slabs have been taken from Jay Sand's book at http://www.mindspring.com/~jaypsand/sa2.htm but some bits of that have been commented out as POV while other bits have been left untouched. Going by that source, the current article seems to lack balance on Jewish support for apartheid - it suggests only opposition or neutrality. -- Danny Yee 00:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's the commented-out text - I've deleted it from the article and moved it here. It's taken verbatim from the mindspring page - possibly our use of that exceeds fair use? -- Danny Yee 00:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Some historians suggest that the South Africans, both Jewish and non-Jewish, felt a kinship with Israel, a primarily white nation born on the land of unwilling non-whites. Jewish emigration increased in the ‘50s as blacks started to rebel against apartheid en masse. Some Jews fled to avoid the rising black masses, while others left to avoid persecution for their own anti-apartheid views; some remaining South Africans pejoratively called this emigration "the Chicken Run."

Throughout, the Jewish Board of Deputies and most South African rabbis were deafeningly silent on the immorality of state policy. Israel itself was not as reluctant; its parliament spoke out against apartheid in the ‘60s and voted against South Africa often in the United Nations, causing white leaders to accuse Jews of being anti-apartheid rabble-rousers. Israel resumed cordial relations with South Africa only when most other African nations broke off diplomatic contact after the Six Day War of 1967.

I've added some releavnt parts back in. More can be added. --Viriditas | Talk 00:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

But you picked one sentence out of context... Can we put the whole paragraph in? -- Danny Yee 01:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

No, I added a sentence chronologically. While information about emigration should be added, you've added it out of chronological order. Furthermore, your recent edit was a complex revert. Please make reverts explicit and do not link to pay-subscription cites, as we cannot verify such information. Please also source the statement, "the bulk of the community either emigrated or avoided public conflict with the National Party government." The wording of this statement and the context are highly misleading. --Viriditas | Talk 01:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Ooops, didn't realise the TNR article was pay to view - found it through Google and it was fine that way (I hate the way Google does that). I've found a nother reference. -- Danny Yee 01:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright

There seems to be a copyright issue with this article. - Xed 01:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Good point. I've removed the entire section to talk for discussion. Section follows: --Viriditas | Talk 02:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Jews played a notable role in the anti-apartheid struggle: activists included Helen Suzman, Joe Slovo, Ronnie Kasrils and Albie Sachs. Of the seventeen members of the African National Congress arrested in 1963 for anti-apartheid activities, all five whites arrested were Jewish.

Other Jews were supporters of the apartheid regime. Percy Yutar was the prosecutor in the 1963 trial which sentenced Nelson Mandela to life imprisonment, and rose to be deputy attorney-general first of the Orange Free State and then of the Transvaal. [1]

During the 1960s, Israel voted against South Africa in the United Nations, which led white leaders to accuse South African Jews of promoting the anti-apartheid movement. However, in South Africa the Jewish Board of Deputies and most South African rabbis remained silent on apartheid until the National Congress of the Jewish Board of Deputies passed an anti-apartheid resolution in 1980. This urged "all concerned [people] and, in particular, members of our community to cooperate in securing the immediate amelioration and ultimate removal of all unjust discriminatory laws and practices based on race, creed, or colour." This inspired some Jews to intensify their anti-apartheid activism, but the bulk of the community either emigrated or avoided public conflict with the National Party government.

You removed parts which had no copyright problem. - Xed 02:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The entire section was removed. FWIW, the content that I added was rewritten in my own words, so please describe the part that has "copyright problems". Mention of Percy Yutar should be added back in to a NPOV section. --Viriditas | Talk 02:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what FWIW means. When will you put back the non-copyright material you removed? - Xed 02:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to look up FWIW. I notice you didn't answer my question regarding "copyright problems". In any case, let's work on this section together on the talk page. Surely, you have an interest in helping to create a NPOV version? Why don't you re-write the section here, first. --Viriditas | Talk 03:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you? - Xed 03:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd love to help, thanks for asking. So does that mean you'll participate in rewriting the section? --Viriditas | Talk 03:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

I've removed the apartheid section due to potential copyright issues, added the verify and rewrite tags, and recommend merging Jewish South African history. --Viriditas | Talk 02:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Update: I've merged part of Jewish South African history. I'll move the unmerged cotent below. --Viriditas | Talk 03:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Unmerged section header stubs:

• Britain and Germany
• Lithuania
• Russia
• Poland
• Emigration out of South Africa
• Modern emigration of its Jews away from South Africa

[edit] Apartheid section

Due to the controversial nature of the apartheid section, my prior request in the copyright section for the difficulties to be worked out on talk before inclusion, and Mr. Dannyyee's insistence on violating copyrights [2] [3] and posting links to pay-based-subscription articles [4] [5] (which tells me he may not have read the articles), as well as his recent edit which very selectively quotes an abstract (NPOV violation) from an obscure journal to promote his POV, the article should be reverted back to the previous version. Until that time, I am adding the totally disputed header. --Viriditas | Talk 05:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't copy that material - it was already in the article and I simply edited it. I was also the first person to point out that there might be a copyright issue. [6]

And I have read the Patterns of Prejudice article - my university has a subscription (which suggests it's not an entirely obscure journal). As for subscription-based articles, I see people citing Nature and Science articles that are only available to subscribers all the time... Not to mention books that aren't available online. I think using one sentence from the abstract falls within fair use.

I'm sure I have a POV, but I don't consider the accusation of NPOV fair - I really am just trying to find some balance here. -- Danny Yee 05:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

This isn't a notable science reference, which is often duplicated or followed-up on in other reputable studies, reliable press reports, etc. This is a political science article in an obscure journal by an unknown author. As for NPOV, you left out the conclusions of the article, and selectively cited what you wanted to include. Furthermore, Adler is not the author of the actual abstract you cited. --Viriditas | Talk 07:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

It's silly to claim Adler didn't write his abstract. That's what academic authors do, probably as criterion for acceptance by a journal; at the very least, Adler approved the abstract as a characterization of his work, even if it was modified slightly from the version he provided. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

But, the abstract doesn't appear to have been written by Adler considering how it refers to him in the third-person. Most abstracts don't do this, and often times are self-referential, which is why I brought this up.--Viriditas | Talk 08:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Every abstract I've ever written referred to myself in 3rd person. That's just how it is done, most places (though this is a style guide specific to publication). There might be disciplinary differences in the person used, but it's nothing to see something lurking underneath. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 09:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Can you give me a link to an example that matches Adler's abstract? I'm looking for abstracts which refer to the author by name in the third person singular, and I can't find any. Instead of referring to the author by name in the third person, abstracts with one author simply state "this article", "this research", or "this study". When more than one author is cited, the use of "we" or referring to the individual author by name is common. I thought it was very strange to read, "In this essay, Adler attempts to account for both responses..." --Viriditas | Talk 09:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Almost all academics are obscure! Adler has a PhD from the University of Chicago and a position at MacAlester College. And he's published at least one book with a reputable publisher (Cambridge University Press). I don't see any reason to doubt he's a serious scholar. -- Danny Yee 08:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The "totally disputed" tag is way too much. The editing issues that are open are relatively small issues that are being worked out here. It's also not unreasonable for an editor to extract a sentence from an article that is not available for free (but that is in principle verifiable). As Dannyyee comments, books and print journals are also not available for free, but citing and quoting (within fair use) from them is perfectly common in articles. Obviously, if a perfectly good cite that is freely linkable can be substituted on the same point, that's great, but we should trust editors to accurately quote non-free materials they have access to. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

And yet, Dannyyee didn't accurately quote the material. He selectively quoted it, originally without attribution, the conclusions of which are still missing. Have a look at the abstract yourself, which doesn't appear to have been written by Adler but by the publisher. --Viriditas | Talk 07:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I added the link/attribution when I first added the material. I modified it slightly from the original text, but I believe I've preserved the sense. -- Danny Yee 07:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The article is worth finding a copy of -- it covers a bit of earlier history as well, and the disputes within the rabbinate and the Board of Jewish Deputies, as well as looking at the background of activists such as Joe Slovo. It seems reasonably balanced in its presentation of the moral and political dilemma faced by both individuals and the community. -- Danny Yee 06:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

You selectively quoted parts of it as if it were the gospel truth without attributing it as the authors opinion, nor citing the conclusions. Why don't you cite Adler directly instead of an abstract written by his publisher? --Viriditas | Talk 07:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The abstract appears under Adler's name in the article - I see no reason to believe this article doesn't follow normal academic practice, with the abstract written by the author(s) rather than the publishers. -- Danny Yee 07:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The publisher may have modified the abstract to fit their style. But the abstract is a reasonable summary of the paper - if it really bugs you I'll find a quote from the body of the work, but then I'll probably be jumped on for providing unverifiable citations :-). -- Danny Yee 07:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about gospel truth. What I wrote seems like a reasonable summary, both of the paper and of the other stuff I've been reading on the subject. -- Danny Yee 07:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Please review my changes. --Viriditas | Talk 08:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Well done, looks good to me! I was planning a longer rewrite myself, but you've saved me the effort. I took out the "According to social scientist Hugh Adler" comments - the reference is there, so people will know where it all came from - and reordered a bit of it. -- Danny Yee 08:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's very important to attribute, particularly because I plan on moving all "Adler" refs to footnotes tied into the page numbers, and also because the general audience should be informed about the source, as the cite doesn't explain who he is. Please add it back in when you have a chance. --Viriditas | Talk 08:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

We could add some background on Adler in a footnote maybe. Also, Adler's sources are interesting. But I'll look at it again later. I may do some ILL to get hold of other promising articles. -- Danny Yee 08:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. See Wikipedia:Verifiability as well as Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. "To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents." The importance of identifying sources in the main body of the article can't be stressed enough. Think of the reader. --Viriditas | Talk 09:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[unindenting for readability] Is there anything at all controversial in what we're using from Adler, though? It gels with everything else I've read and seems straightforward enough. Was Ruth First really assassinated? Did most South African Jews keep their noses down? Was Joe Slovo really head of the Communist Party? None of this is rocket science. The controversial topic Adler canvasses is the moral question of "did the community do enough", but I don't think we need to go into that in an encyclopedia. -- Danny Yee 09:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Sources should be attributed. You removed Adler's position (political scientist) and you removed attribution and content from this section: According to Adler, most Jews were unsupportive of the anti-apartheid cause, however some rabbis spoke out against apartheid, and historically, the contributions of many Jewish individuals, women's organizations and groups against apartheid have been ignored. This is a controversial claim and should be attributed. I don't understand why you favor removing attribution. Wikipedia is not in the business of asserting facts. --Viriditas | Talk 09:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The source is cited at the end of each paragraph. We could stick an "According to Adler" in front of every paragraph in the section, but that would just be redundant. As for the exact wording, we have a sentence that summarises Adler's account of the rabbis that spoke out and the opposition they faced. -- Danny Yee 11:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Eventually, the source at the end of the paragraph should be replaced with footnotes. However, it is Adler's claim in particular that "most Jews were unsupportive of the anti-apartheid cause" that needs direct attribution. First of all, Adler does not exactly say this. Instead he writes, "Yet, despite this thick crust of Jewish participation in the good fight, it is nevertheless true that the Jewish establishment and the vast majority of South African Jews were inwardly focused on specifically Jewish issues, remaining distant from the central South African issue of racial injustice and unsupportive of the anti-apartheid cause." Adler does not appear to provide a reference for this claim, however he does challenge this assumption later in the article when he writes:"Jewish moralists claim that what was at stake was a fundamental Jewish ethical standard, to treat the oppressed as brethren. They maintain that that standard was either met formally rather than substantively, or was simply violated by the Jewish establishment and by the vast majority of Jews." Again, there does not appear to be a reference. In any case, how would one quantify such a statement? We seem to be in the realm of morals and ethics, not hard facts. Adler's comment is a "soft" opinion which appears to be controversial and requires attribution. --Viriditas | Talk 12:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree we should leave the moral debate Adler describes out of this. (Personally I don't see that there's any case to answer: I don't see why Jews should be subject to stiffer criticism here than Anglophone or Afrikaaner South Africans, and the contributions of individual Jewish activists were clearly outstanding.) The moral debate seems more internal, with Jewish activists bitter about how they were treated by the community, but reading Adler's account of events (rather than recent debates) makes it clear that there was very limited support for those activists either from the community or from its organisations. If we wanted to include more details there, we could include more about the silencing of activist rabbis perhaps. -- Danny Yee 12:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how Adler's later discussion of Jewish moralists contradicts his earlier statement - the moral debate he describes is retrospective, and not directly relevant to the events of the apartheid period. We could include some of this in the "Today" section, perhaps, to illustrate ongoing divisions in the community. -- Danny Yee 12:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

To this day, longtime Jewish activists bear deep resentment towards the complicity of the larger Jewish community, not only the establishment, especially when that community forgets its own past and attempts to bask in the reflected glory of those they had previously isolated, marginalized and treated as virtual pariahs.

Most encyclopedias (or academic papers) don't discuss source issues in articles unless there's some controversy, in which case they'll do the full "X says A, but P and Q say B, and Z has a theory all of his own" thing. Otherwise it's normal to just provide the information, with references for those who want to check up on it. I still don't see anything controversial here. -- Danny Yee 11:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is Wikipedia, not most encyclopedias or academic papers. Even Adler admits that this conclusion has competing views (see above) and he doesn't even appear to source his opinion. Attribution is required by the NPOV policy. --Viriditas | Talk 12:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I still don't see any reason to stick "Adler says" in everywhere. I agree a broader range of sources would be good, though. -- Danny Yee 12:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I've only recommended sticking it in once, and describing his position somewhere. --Viriditas | Talk 13:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Boer wars copyright issue

The above seems to be taken from here. Haven't checked the rest of the article. - Xed 13:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• Jewish encyclopedia is also NOT copyrighted. IZAK 05:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

"Some of the most heroic deeds of the three years' Boer war — such as the Gun Hill incident before Ladysmith — were due to the dash and daring of Jewish soldiers like Major Karri Davies."

This isn't acceptable writing, and you shouldn't be copying word for word from an encyclopedia. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I was not the one who wrote this ( I just edited some of what I found in this article already -- and I didn't change much of it in any case -- so feel free to edit, but no need for a wholesale revert) so please don't accuse me falsely. I was stating an obvious fact that Jewish Encyclopedia articles are regularly inserted into Wikipedia articles, often verbatim, see for yourself, for example, at Category:Jewish Encyclopedia for more information about this. I am surprised you don't know this yet SlimVirgin! IZAK 06:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry IZAK, I got you mixed up with someone else. I won't say who for fear of incriminating myself, but if I'd realized it was you, I'd have used a different tone. ;-) My apologies.

As for the content, we can't use phrases like "the dash and daring of Jewish soldiers," and I don't like the idea of copying anything verbatim, unless we're quoting. The least we should do is reword it and then cite the encyclopedia as a source, rather than using a template to signal that we've copied it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok no problem. Again, let me repeat, I was not the one who copied it into the text of this article first time around. I don't care how you want to edit it, as long as you edit it, but don't jump to conclusions simply because you are unfamiliar with the way articles from the Jewish Encyclopedia have been utilized (rememember, the Jewish Encyclopedia is over one hundred years old, and people wrote differently in those days.) You still acted too rashly in reverting me though, since you still do not seem to realize that many people have been adding material verbatim from the Jewish Encyclpedia for many years (since Wikipedia began in fact) because there is NO "law" that says it cannot be done -- since the copyright has long lapsed. Our job is to edit, even though we may not like the way material is inserted initially, it's perfectly Kosher to copy and paste entire Jewish Encyclopedia articles into Wikipedia whether you like it or not (and by the way, I do not do so and I am often the one who edits lots of stuff that has come down into Wikipedia that way -- just don't jump to conclusions and do not use that revert button, because anyone can use it too.) IZAK 06:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I think I just did that. I left out the Spectator information, as it seemed a little distant (third-hand?). But what kind of newspaper was the Spectator? -- Danny Yee 06:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• Danny Yee old chap, don't you think you are being a little too pedantic here? The quote comes from an encyclopedia after all doesn't it? IZAK 06:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Just because there's no law saying we can't copy it doesn't mean we ought to, IZAK. It's hard to rewrite this stuff, because it's so unclear what they mean half the time. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Here are some of the problems with that section, the copying issue aside:

• Which Boer War is the first paragraph about? The second paragraph is about the second Boer War, but the section doesn't explain that there were two.
• What does "according to careful enumeration" mean?
• The "percentage of Jewish soldiers killed (125)": the percentage of what, what was the percentage, and is 125 the number killed?
• "Within the Boer ranks, the story of the Jews is much the same." Much the same as what?
• "They were with the Vierkleur (four colored) flag on every battle-field." We don't say what the four-colored flag was.
• "Jewish 'irreconcilables' fought to the bitter end ..." We don't explain what a Jewish "irreconcilable" was.
• "Several Jewish prisoners were to be found at St. Helena, Bermuda, and Ceylon." Not clear what this means.
• "Jews were among the 'Bittereindes' ..." We don't say what a "Bittereinde" is. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought wording like "... among the "Bittereindes" who fought on long after the Boer cause was clearly lost." was self-explaining. But I guess there's no point explaining a term that isn't reused in the article (though one which seems to have been widely used at the time). Could we translate it as "Bitterenders" or should we just say "... were among those who fought on ..."?-- Danny Yee 06:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

We could explain who they were, and how they were named, if we know that. The problem with lifting material from such an old encyclopedia is that we have no idea who their sources or research standards were, so I'd be inclined to re-source it, or leave it out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The reference to the "Bittereindes" didn't come from the Encyclopedia, but from the recent article by Saks. (It's kind of weird, we have a 1906 Encyclopedia for one source, and a referenced 2005 article for the other.) -- Danny Yee 07:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Danny Yee: there is no "law" that says that facts must come from only one source. Wikipedia articles express the combined views of multiple sources, especially when conveying accurate facts. Bittereinders is a very old Afrikaans word (and students of South African history know what it means quite well), it was NOT "invented" by Saks or Shmaks or anyone else. IZAK 07:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin and Danny Yee: Please see some of my recent edits, I hope they explain some of the questions you raise here. Thanks. IZAK 06:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm still unhappy with raw sentences from the Jewish Encyclopedia, in such a florid style - we really need to rewrite the content in less idiomatic modern English. And if we include verbatim sentences, they have to be marked as quotes. -- Danny Yee 06:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, you are both obvioulsy unaware how some Wikipedia articles commence and are nourished with the passage of time. Also, if verbatim sentences convey well-known and agreed-upon (historical) facts, they do not always "have to be marked as quotes" if the general source, which is not copyrighted, is cited. IZAK 07:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Part of the problem was that the writing was so poor, but you've improved it, IZAK, so it reads a lot better now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge of Afrikaner-Jews into South African Jews

[edit] Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support -Afrikaner Jews does not really merit its own article; the topic can easily be discussed on the SAJ page. Ayin/Yud 19:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments No. This is a distortion of history. Seperation of historical details is essential. People are not just akrikan or jewish, they have their own distinct indentity.