Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of South Africa/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] History of South Africa

Self-nom. I think this is a highly interesting and well-written article, with many pertinent and interesting images. Thank you! Páll 09:36, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. Well written article! DO'Иeil 09:39, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Lots of time and care was put into this article. A bit large, but then again, I think it's also unreasonable to cut down a history article on an entire country. Mike H 10:03, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is unreasonable to expect people to plod through such a large article when they have limited time (nearly twice as long as recommended). More summarizing of some sections and creation of daughter articles is in order. See Wikipedia:Summary style. Also the TOC is overwhelming and overall organization is poor (overuse of second level headings and hardly any subheads - certainly better division can be accomplished for this subject). Object until then. --mav 17:23, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Actually, history articles are generally allowed to be as long as needed. Take a look at History of Russia, which is a recent featured article. That is nearly 20k longer than this! Also, each of the second level headings is about a completely seperate topic. It wouldn't work well to use any subheads. Páll 18:17, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Just because another article slipped through, does not give leave for this article to be too long for most users. Most history articles are broken up in series with the main history of... article serving as a survey article that introduces each article of the series. Major organizational issues are still there. At a quick glance I can see the need for level 2 prehistory, colonization, wars, repression and resistance, reform, and more recent history sections with the current sections being subsections of those. This will also make it easier to see what new level 2 sections could be summarized with the current detail moved to a daughter article (at least so the article gets in the 30 to 45 KB range). --mav 19:23, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don 't think of it as slipping through, there was a major discussion over it. I implimented your suggestions over the headings, however the history of South Africa spans three million years. I think it is well within reason to have 20k per MILLION years on an article about the history of an entire nation. If it were about something else, yes, I'd say trim it, but this as it is is already very concicse and there are a lot of topics that I did not get into for fear of space. Besides, we are talking about the merits of an individual article, not whether or not people will read it. Páll 22:57, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"... not whether or not people will read it" Then what are we here for? You can't change the fact that the average attention span of people is 20 minutes and it takes the average person about that amount of time to read 30 to 35 KB of prose. So anything above that makes the article less useful. Temporarily having an article in the 35 to 45 KB range is OK so long as the long term plan is to spin off one or more of the sections into its own article and to leave a more condensed treatment in its place.
I'm not advocating that Wikipedia have less info on this topic - just that each article should be easily readable so that people who need a primer on the whole topic will likely get through the whole article. Readability is a very important aspect. The argument that no more summarizing can be done is specious since the lead section summarizes the topic down to 3 paragraphs and the history section at South Africa summarizes the topic in with several more paragraphs.--mav 20:14, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Lead sectioon is a bit too long. CGorman 20:38, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice and very interesting article! I made a few minor corrections. I would however make a suggestion that for design purposes some pictures should be placed on the left hand side of the page. It simply makes for a more varied presentation.Ganymead 04:00, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Very complete, well-written article. I don't have any problem with the length. — mark ✎ 11:47, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, Very good, nicely written. The length is justified by the sheer size of the topic. Inter\Echo 16:09, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I will support after a map is added, preferably to the lead. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:06, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What kind of map would you like? There is no one map of South Africa as the borders changed up until 1910. Páll 21:57, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, then a map showing the changing borders - or several maps. At least something showing south of Africa...well, any useful map will do. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:54, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I added a map. Páll 09:21, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Nichalp 18:52, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Many of the "pertinent and interesting images" do not give sources or have dubious copyright status. Many of them were (until just now) clearly mislabeled as "GFDL". Sigh...does no one bother to check these things? —Steven G. Johnson 20:24, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, most of them do if you went to look at their source on Wikipedia Commons. They are publicly released images by the UN, or they were images publicly released by the South African government. Páll 21:57, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
First, having "most" of the images ok is not enough; for a FAC, I would say that all of the images should be clearly sourced and usable by Wikipedia. (e.g. Image:MrsPles.jpg has no source at all given.) Second, just because something was posted to the Commons doesn't mean it is usable, if it was posted wrongly to the commons (or at least, if no source or copyright status were given). Third, for the UN images, at least they are sourced, but I went to the UN Photo Archive, and it has no clear statement that the photos are in the public domain — on the contrary, it says that you have to contact them "for further information on the use of UN Photos". (If you contacted them and they pointed you to clear permission, please post it.) —Steven G. Johnson 03:45, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
I took care of the Mrs Ples image, that was an oversight on my part. The UN images about apartheid are usable under the National Heritage Resources Act (1999) and the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Act 38 of 1997. Páll 03:54, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I entirely agree with the concerns about the images. Of the three I was so surprised to see that I checked:
    1. Image:Soweto Riots.jpg no source with GFDL placed by User:PZFUN
    2. Image:South African Miners.jpg no source with GFDL placed by User:PZFUN
    3. Image:Nelson Mandela Being Sworn In.jpg with GFDL placed by User:PZFUN with source and saying "From the UN image archive, used with permission."
    On this evidence, I would have severe doubts about any copyright statement by User:PZFUN. I would be particularly interested to know what the permission from the UN said given about the GFDL. I read the comment above about the National Heritage Resources Act (1999)[1] and the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Act 38 of 1997[2]; I would be interested to know which sections apply (on a very quick skim I did not spot them) and, given this is South African domestic legislation, how they apply to either the United Nations or to Wikipedia. --Henrygb 22:19, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
According to the "Registration of Copyright in Cinematograph Films Act No. 62 of 11 May 1977", "This Act provides for the registration of copyright in cinematograph films on a voluntary basis. The duration of registration is for such period of time as provided for the subsistence of the copyright by virtue of the provisions of the Copyright Act, No. 98 of 1978, i.e. 50 years. A registration constitutes evidence of copyright." However, the images that I used have been used publicly, and are commonly found images. With no credit given. The relevant section of the National Heritage Act of 1999, Section 48, states that "[a] heritage resources authority may prescribe the manner in which an application is made to it for any permit in terms of this Act and other requirements for permit applications, including— (a) any particulars or information to be furnished in the application and any documents, drawings, plans, photographs and fees which should accompany the application [registration]." As of such, the UN has not made such a registration, and since these images are relevant to National Heritage, they may be used for issues pertaining to South African national heritage, until the UN makes a counter-claim that is accepted by a South African judge as a registry. Since these images are of South Africa and stored in South African webspace, South African law governs their use. Páll 21:12, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
First, these are not "Cinematograph Films" which means movies. Second, if as you say South African copyright lasts for 50 years, on the face of it you cannot use anything later than 1955 without the copyright holder's permission. Third, my reading of the National Heritage Act is that it is about protecting heritage items (e.g. Bushman paintings) and that permission is needed to use them in a way which might affect them; even if it applies to this which I doubt, it seems to prohibit unregistered use rather than allow it. Fourth, the fact that others on the Internet ignore copyright does not mean Wikipedia can. Fifth, you cannot just give a GFDLicence on something unless you are the copyright holder, especially if you do not know the source. --Henrygb 02:07, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No, these are cinematograph films as this law is generaly used for photographs as well. South African copyright alsts for 50 years, if they were registered to be copyrighted, which the UN has not done. The National Heritage Act makes specific reference to photographs as well "3. (1) For the purposes of this Act, those heritage resources of South Africa which are of cultural significance or other special value for the present community and for future generations must be considered part of the national estate and fall within the sphere of operations of heritage resources authorities. 45 vii) books, records, documents, photographic positives and negatives, graphic, film or video material or sound recordings, excluding those that are public records as defined in section 1(xiv) of the National Archives of South Africa Act, 1996 (Act No. 43 of 1996)."
The law goes on to state that an image is "is to be considered part of the national estate if it has cultural significance or other special value because of— (a) its importance in the community, or pattern of South Africa’s history; [...] (c) its potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of South Africa’s natural or cultural heritage; (d) its importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a particular class of South Africa’s [...] cultural places or objects; [...] (g) its strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons; (h) its strong or special association with the life or work of a person, group or organisation of importance in the history of South Africa (emphasis added); and (i) sites of significance relating to the history of slavery in South Africa. 30 35 40".
This clearly to me states that images that are part of the heritage resources of South Africa (of which all of those images clearly are seeing as they are all over the place inside of the apartheid museum, history books on South Africa, as well as the national psyche. It is not just online that I have seen these images, I've seen them in every single book on South African historyt hat I own. I will replace the GFDL licence with a non-commercial tag. Páll 09:11, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It is clear to me that you do not understand either copyright or how it applies in Wikipedia. This is not the first time this has been an issue. You cannot neither simply give a non-commercial licence on copyright which is not yours, nor use a non-comercial image in Wikipedia. But I will stop arguing now, and simply maintain my objection. --Henrygb 17:44, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agree with mav on article length. In general, I would suggest amending the featured article criteria to say that articles above a certain length should use summary-style in the main article, with links to detailed articles on each section. This is more helpful to the reader than a very long article that just keeps growing, eventually reaching book-length. Remember, we are writing for a diverse audience of readers. The perfect encyclopedia article makes it possible to "zoom in" on as much detail as required. That also leads to some interesting side effects, such as the references in the main article being more general, and the ones in the specific areas being more targeted at readers who are already well-versed in the subject area in question.--Eloquence* 20:54, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
    sofixit :-) Kim Bruning 10:01, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
While your suggestions regarding amending the criteria are valid, I do not think this is the forum for them, Instead, I recommend you bring them up at the valid talk page, because until they are changed, they should not be used as criteria, instead we should go by what has already been made a featured article. In this case, the most similar article, History of Russia, is considerably longer than this article and passed its FAC. This article is already quite concise considering the period of history we are discussing, and it links to side articles where it is possible. As I've said previously, I do not think that 22k per million years of history is excessive, or in any way in bad taste. Páll 21:12, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
And there were many articles without references that went through before we added that requirement. Including many articles that I objected to based on them not having references. Looking at this article I can see two places where it would be natural to use summary style. The ==Apartheid== section and the ==Colonisation== section. Apartheid already exists as its own article. The detail here could be merged there and this section could be summarized with a Main article link to Apartheid (which itself may need to eventually go through the same treatment). Colonisation in South Africa does not exist. So setting that up will be even easier. --mav 21:19, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


  • Support, nicely written article. Kim Bruning 10:01, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)