Talk:Roy Welensky

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Roy Welensky is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.

[edit] Actual name and father's nationality

This comment had been inserted in the article, I think by LettyBIRD:
"I have 2 corrections - 1) My Father's name was actually Raphael Welensky (trust me I've seen his birth certificate) family legend has it that he was named after the arc-angel but was soon found to be far from angelic and so his name was shortened to Roy. 2) My grandfather was Lithuanian not Polish."
I have moved it here as this kind of comment is supposed to be on the discussion page. On the article an actual correction has to be made. Though I do indeed trust the writer of this comment, the original information is referenced to a published source and so a correction ought to be referenced to a published source as well. Is there any that can be used?
Rexparry sydney 23:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not have any published sources available, but it is relatively common knowledge that the Jewish community of southern Africa was overwhelmingly composed of those who came from Lithuania and Sir Roy would not be an exception. I'm going to replace 'Polish' with 'Lithuanian' in the article and remove the link to the talk page, simply to do away with the blight it leaves on the article. When a source is found, it can be added. michael talk 05:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
His autobiography says his father came from a village near Vilna (which is Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania), despite still stating his came from Poland. Settled. michael talk 07:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apartheid vs. Black Nationalism

I thought balance would be the better term, as it wanted to see about a "middle road" between the two. A liberal counterbalance to both. I don't like "reflected aspects of"; could you suggest a better wording? michael talk 12:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have edited to improve the characterization. The Federation was only liberal relative to a less liberal immediate past and to apartheid regression in South Africa. But is was not liberal in any normal 20th century sense of the term, which required one-person one-vote. It was conservative, seeking a "middle road" between reactionary apartheid and a fully liberal structure (such as was advocated by the tiny Liberal Party of South Africa). Chris Lowe (talk) 03:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"liberal in any normal 20th century sense of the term" What was considered liberal in 1947 would not be in 1960, let alone 1970 or 1990! I would suggest that it was liberal at the time it was founded, but that political culture in Britian (and the the rest of western world) changed. Remember that until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Segregation was legal in the US Simarliy the UK waited until the Race Relations Act of 1968 to make "no coloreds" signs illegal. People forget how recently these changes in attitude have happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.67.164.37 (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)