Talk:1992 South African apartheid referendum: Difference between revisions
Biscuit1018 (talk | contribs) |
Biscuit1018 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
Nowhere is it mentioned that the Government renaged on its promise of a referendum on any constitutional changes. The referendum was held BEFORE changes had been negotiated and the question was twisted to one of 'should the negotiations continue', rather than 'should there be majority rule in a unitary state'. Funding was unequal, Government controlled media was biased in favour of the yes vote. The print media was ovwerwhelmingly supportive of a yes vote. I know I was there at the time. Its not easy to find references because history has been largely written by the victors in this case, but if anyone can access the Citizen newspaper archives (or even other impartial local media on this issue) around March 1992 its easy to verify what I am saying is true. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/198.161.173.163|198.161.173.163]] ([[User talk:198.161.173.163|talk]]) 01:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Nowhere is it mentioned that the Government renaged on its promise of a referendum on any constitutional changes. The referendum was held BEFORE changes had been negotiated and the question was twisted to one of 'should the negotiations continue', rather than 'should there be majority rule in a unitary state'. Funding was unequal, Government controlled media was biased in favour of the yes vote. The print media was ovwerwhelmingly supportive of a yes vote. I know I was there at the time. Its not easy to find references because history has been largely written by the victors in this case, but if anyone can access the Citizen newspaper archives (or even other impartial local media on this issue) around March 1992 its easy to verify what I am saying is true. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/198.161.173.163|198.161.173.163]] ([[User talk:198.161.173.163|talk]]) 01:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
: The Citizen an impartial source? The origins of the Citizen (created by a very conservative government with state funds) make this impossible. The media around the world is usually more liberal than the government and SA's was no exception |
: The Citizen an impartial source? The origins of the Citizen (created by a very conservative government with state funds) make this impossible. The media around the world is usually more liberal than the government and SA's was no exception (that's why the Citizen was created). I don't deny that it was an unequal fight and that the media were overwhelmingly in favour of YES. Having said that there is no decent precedent in the world why it should be equal. The government of the day decided to support negotiations. They have to state their opinion. They did that. Media editors have their opinions. They stated them. As for the reneging point well please come up with the 'promise' made at the time of the referendum. I remember people asking if there would be another referendum after the negotiations. I don't remember the exact promise. [[User:Biscuit1018|Biscuit1018]] ([[User talk:Biscuit1018|talk]]) 06:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC) |
||
I was there at the time too and the above is the truth. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/88.97.38.12|88.97.38.12]] ([[User talk:88.97.38.12|talk]]) 11:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
I was there at the time too and the above is the truth. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/88.97.38.12|88.97.38.12]] ([[User talk:88.97.38.12|talk]]) 11:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Revision as of 06:53, 17 April 2012
South Africa Start‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Pictures
If somebody has some pictures of the referendum or something else, don't hesitate do add. I'm sorry, but I am not so good to put pics on Wikipedia. // User:Dr.Poison, January 17, 2005, 22:13
- Indeed. If someone could get the figures by constituency or something, I'd be happy to make a map. email me if you have them, please, in case I miss the detail on my watch list. Thanks! — OwenBlacker 01:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I mentioned earlier that it would be good with a picture, and i'm now thinking about that we could have a pic of the old SA flag (pricevlag?), this because it is a "symbol" of the apartheid regime (in a way)! So if somebody who knows how to ad pics here at wikipedia could do it I would be very happy! I have never done it before so idon't really know how to do it. // User: Dr.Poison
I have put up a picture of the old SA flag. I am not used to puting pictures to a article so if I have violeted some picture rule or something, forgive me. Dr.Poison 22:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- I've made a few small adjustments; feel free to look through them for future reference. dewet|✉ 23:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Okeay, thanks! It's nice to see that people are interested in this article! I am going to write some more after I read som newsarticles and etc. from that time. ����Dr.Poison 10:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Reasons for results
Someone has writen some new facts, and I am not so sure if it is NPOV. Dr.Poison 14:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- There are many reasons why a yes vote was passed. 1) Many white South Africans had become fed up of being regarded as a pariah nation. 2) White South Africans had simply become resigned to the inevitability of black rule. 3) The white electorate knew that voting no would further isolate South Africa internationally and bring about further sanctions. 4) South Africans wanted increased access to international trade that they were denied by the sanctions. 5) The white South African electorate naively believed that multi-racial democracy would bring about an end to the violence. 6) Many whites had simply become morally opposed in principle to apartheid. 7) The fact that capitulation to South Africa's blacks was the only option on offer (the idea of a separate white state was discussed by some politicians, but was not offered in the referendum). 8) The government had waged a series of unpopular wars across southern Africa that resulted in a number of lives being lost that was unacceptable to the electorate. 9) An expression of general discontent with De Klerk's predecessors. 10) Many political leaders reluctantly backed the apartheid government because it was fighting against communists in Africa. With the demise of the Cold War and the Soviet Union shortly before the referendum, the apartheid system suddenly lost a significant amount of world support, with the white electorate recognising its position as being untenable.
This sounds not to me like a NPOV . . . ��Dr.Poison 15:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm not too happy with it either. I'll see if I can change it refactor it a bit... dewet|✉ 15:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- That would be nice Dr.Poison 07:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- I am going to re-write those reason a litle bit so that they are more of a NPOV Dr.Poison 20:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- I've removed them in the mean time. These are too speculative and analytical for an encyclopedia article, unless for example they're cited as findings of some reputable body. Zaian 22:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I think that is much better now. If someone has any more information about this subject, please contribute! ��Dr.Poison 15:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Nowhere is it mentioned that the Government renaged on its promise of a referendum on any constitutional changes. The referendum was held BEFORE changes had been negotiated and the question was twisted to one of 'should the negotiations continue', rather than 'should there be majority rule in a unitary state'. Funding was unequal, Government controlled media was biased in favour of the yes vote. The print media was ovwerwhelmingly supportive of a yes vote. I know I was there at the time. Its not easy to find references because history has been largely written by the victors in this case, but if anyone can access the Citizen newspaper archives (or even other impartial local media on this issue) around March 1992 its easy to verify what I am saying is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.161.173.163 (talk) 01:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- The Citizen an impartial source? The origins of the Citizen (created by a very conservative government with state funds) make this impossible. The media around the world is usually more liberal than the government and SA's was no exception (that's why the Citizen was created). I don't deny that it was an unequal fight and that the media were overwhelmingly in favour of YES. Having said that there is no decent precedent in the world why it should be equal. The government of the day decided to support negotiations. They have to state their opinion. They did that. Media editors have their opinions. They stated them. As for the reneging point well please come up with the 'promise' made at the time of the referendum. I remember people asking if there would be another referendum after the negotiations. I don't remember the exact promise. Biscuit1018 (talk) 06:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I was there at the time too and the above is the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.38.12 (talk) 11:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Articles with unsourced statements
I saw that this article is put to the Articles with unsourced statements. Much of the facts that I have writen are from old newspapers and from this site: http://countrystudies.us/south-africa/ If there is anything I have done wrong or something that I should not done, please let me know. �Dr.Poison 10:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Secondary sources cited should include reference(s) to independent primary source(s). See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. --WickedHorse 19:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
A contradiction
This article states that white, coloured and Indian voters were allowed to vote at the start, but later says that only whites were allowed to vote. Which one is correct?
White South Africans could only vote in the referendum. My sources are [1] and [2]. This article has been edited at some point, and the orginal version staited that only whites could vote. Dr.Poison 18:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
This article has been edited with new information, that is faulse:
a) The South African referendum of 1992 was held on March 17, 1992 in South Africa. In it, South Africans were asked to vote in the last tricameral election held under the apartheid system, in which the Coloured and Indian population groups could also vote, to determine whether or not they supported the negotiated reforms begun by State President F.W. de Klerk two years earlier. The result of the election was a large victory for the "yes" side.
It was a referendum and not a parliament election. Only white South Africans had the right to vote in the referendum. My two sources cleary staits this and I can give more sources if wanted. Dr.Poison 18:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- As I said in October, what I know and what my sources clearly staites, it was only white South Africans that where allowed to vote in the referendum. I have many sources on this, if wanted. I have changed it now to the current form, that staites that only whites where allowed to vote, as I haven't seen any sources to the allegation that Indians and Coloureds also had a vote in this referendum. My sources are clear and I have staited them earlier. They all say that only White South Africans had a vote in this referendum. But as far as I am concerned, this is a fact, until I am proven wrong. If there is any problem or anything else such as spelling and so on, please make a edit. Dr.Poison 23:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Minimum conditions for negotiations with the ANC
The National Party (NP) promised the white voters in South Africa that will not give the country away to the ANC, but they undertake to negotiate for at least certain minimum conditions. Flyers were distributed before the elections, and on the voting day (at voting stations) indicating these minimum conditions of negotiations with the ANC.
If you have copies of these old adverts, please scan it and post it on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.17.178 (talk) 00:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)