Talk:Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
 |
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group. | ||
 |
It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality. |
Contents |
[edit] Biography assessment rating comment
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Edofedinburgh 02:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
We should start a talk page, as there are various major mistakes on the Verwoerd page.
Like what?
If it matters... Verwoerd went to high school at Wynberg. In 1913 the family moved to Bulawayo, then still Rhodesia Maybe Im misunderstanding the sentence, but Bulawayo was not previously called Rhodesia. Zimbabwe was prviously called Rhodesia. Bulawayo is a city on the western side of Zimbabwe.
[edit] Trivia
I have removed the Trivia section. Some info (H. F. Verwoerd Drive) belongs elsewhere in the article; some (His name has become synonymous in South Africa with "apartheid", "oppression", "racism" etc) doesn't belong in the article at all. I incline to the view that genuine trivia - by definition - has no place in an encyclopaedia article. Humansdorpie 11:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Architect of apartheid
The article stated that Verwoerd was the principle architect of apartheid. This does not tie in with the main article on Apartheid which states the introduction of pass laws by Great Britain as the colonial power, as the start of Apartheid. The pass laws were passed in 1809 which restricted movements of blacks to white areas and they significantly predate the birth of Verwoerd. I therefore brought the article in line with historical fact. -Gemsbok1 17:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Then both articles need to be changed, vervoed was clearly the principle architect of the system that became known as 'apartheid' the british just put into place a predecessor system --Aliwalla 21:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
The introductory paragraphs say he is "often incorrectly considered to be the primary architect of apartheid". I don't think these paragraphs are the place for disputed statements. Can we change this to say that he "greatly expanded the apartheid system"? Wwhyte 11:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
That Verwoerd was the "Architect of Apartheid" is hardly a disputed statement. It was he who - as Minister of Native Affairs during the early years of the apartheid regime - largely crafted and gave ideological and intellectual substance to the legislation and policies that comprised the heart of the apartheid program. The objection that there were 19th and early-20th century precedents for many of the apartheid policies really isn't compelling - Yes, there were earlier racially discriminatory and segregationist laws in South Africa, but these did not constitute apartheid (or even the start of apartheid), and apartheid was not merely a continuation of them. Smg9y 23:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Anti Semitism
I see that Verwoerd is listed under the category of Anti Semitic people. Do we have a source that indicate this as a fact, as I think the categorisation is wrong? -196.13.131.3 15:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- He was probably added since his actions or words were deemed to be anti-semitic? This might be true, but we need SOURCES calling/labeling him an anti-semite, not just peoples/editors determination as such. I don't see much in the article about this. Again, I don't know this guy from Adam and just learned of him today. If sources can be provided labeling him as such fine. This seems to be an ongoing problem with a number of categories and lists on Wiki. People will say "well its obvious that this guy belongs based on x,y and z." so in he goes...Anyways...--Tom 14:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- See http://www.anc.org.za/books/reich4.html - it may be worthwhile updating the article to incorporate this information and not just adding the category.
[edit] Canadian Human Rights abuses
I see that Diefenbaker's opposition to South Africa's readmission to the Commonwealth is accompanied by a comment about violation of Canadian Aboriginal People's human rights. Was that still in progress at the time? --Slashme 12:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Terminology
"Apartheid" was not an official term. I think they called it "separate development" on official papers. It is also not correct to say that "Blacks were deprived from political rights" - They were just not included into the political life of White society. Bear in mind that the NP worked with the assumption that the different communities were different political entities. Furthermore I think it is a very good article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 41.241.147.73 (talk) 12:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC).
