Talk:1992 South African apartheid referendum

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)

Yes they did promise minimum conditions including property rights & a couple of other things. To my recollection these were all protected (or almost all) by the new constitution. Biscuit1018 (talk) 06:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Sources

• The 1992 referendum: Twenty years on, FW De Klerk, Politicsweb, 16 March 2012
• De Klerk's Question for Whites: 'Do You Support Reform?', Los Angeles Times, 25 February 1992
• South African Whites Ratify De Klerk's Move to Negotiate with Blacks on a New Order, New York Times, 19 March 1992

Minimum conditions for negotiations with ANC being removed from this article

It is clear some auditors are trying to remove information related to:

A) The minimum conditions for negotiations with the ANC; and B) The promise of a second referendum - where the white people had to "approve / disapprove the negotiated settlement" with the ANC.

This is a deliberate attempt to remove reality from the History books.

The article: 20 YEARS AFTER THE 1992 REFERENDUM, written by FW de Klerk - illustrated and confirmed some of the facts. http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71654?oid=286925&sn=Detail&pid=71616

That article says absolutely nothing about a "second referendum". The only information I can find about a purported second referendum is in this news article from the time:

"[De Klerk] suggested that, if he wins, it will be the last referendum of white voters only in the country.

[...]

At a news conference later, he said he would interpret a yes vote, even by a majority of one vote, as authority to enter into binding agreements with the African National Congress and other leaders of the black majority--without seeking further approval from the white minority. "It would be meaningless if we win the referendum, if we succeed in attaining in negotiation exactly what we say we are going to negotiate, to once again go back and say you must re-authorize it," he said.

But he added that a second referendum might be necessary, if the final, negotiated version of the constitution differs substantially from what the government has promised white constituents."

This is quite far from the suggestion that a second referendum was promised or required.

If you want to add information to the article about "minimum conditions", feel free: but do it by writing up a description referenced to reliable sources. Don't just copypaste the letter from FW. That letter could perhaps be used as a reference, though it would be better to have a source from 1992 rather than what FW now claims he said at the time. - htonl (talk) 09:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Please add the information available to the article

As you keep deleting information from the article regarding the "conditions for negotiations" and the second referendum, will you please add it youself. Please add the info you provided to the article, as it forms part of the history. You deleted parts of the history you don't like. It shows you are biast, and not prepared to let the facts speak for itself.

Mr. FW de Klerk didn't ask for "a black cheque" and it is rediculous to believe he didn't make promises before the referendum. We need a full list of all the promises in this article. The ANC agreed with some, and disagreed with others. This is the way negotiations go. You are biast if you delete the promises from the list whom you don't like.

His own newsletter can be seen as a reliable source, because he has proper records of his own actions, and he was the State President at the time during the negotiation process. It's not the one or other obscure reporter writing an article in a "mainstream media's" newspaper.

Dispute - Removing information related the conditions for negotiations & Second referendum

All information regarding the conditions for negotiations with the ANC & Second referendum (initially promised by the National Party) are deleted from the article. It clearly indicates biast. This is a clear example of the biast nature of Wikipedia.

This article is badly written, as all relevant information related to this subject is deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.68.42 (talk) 23:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The following paragraph is currently contained in the article:

De Klerk told the press that he would interpret a majority "Yes" vote as a mandate to enter into binding agreements with the ANC and other black leaders, without further approval from white voters. He stated that a second referendum to approve the terms of the constitutional settlement would not be necessary unless they differed "substantially" from the government's promises. These promises included a bill of rights, separation of powers between the branches of government, an independent judiciary, and a Parliament consisting of two houses.

What do you disagree with in this paragraph? - htonl (talk) 21:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

1. This paragraph is a good starting point, but it needs further improvement. 2. You can't omit facts when it doesn't suit your one-sided agenda. 3. All the promises made by the National Party before the 1992 referendum needs to be listed. You can't just list selected promises, meaning only promises made which you like. If some of the promises are uncomfortable for you, it still needs to be listed as it is reality - and it was promises made. 4. Some of the promises was for the advantage of all South Africans, e.g. Language rights; protection of minorities, etc. 5. Only links to external information is unacceptable as the external links are often removed or deleted. 6. Proper reference needs to be made to the promised second referendum. This promise was made before the referendum, but withdrawn after the referendum. Facts needs to be listed, even if you don't like it. 7. If you are trying to portray to are factual, you need to list ALL the facts, and not delete the facts you don't like. 8. During 1992, the Internet wasn't as prominent as today. Therefore the sources will contain information from old newspapers and flyers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.137.234 (talk) 00:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I did not "select" promises based on "which I like"; I listed what was mentioned in the LA Times article. If you want to add, for example, "proportional representation; a strong regional basis for the future dispensation; the maintenance of language and cultural rights; and community-based education for those who want it" to the list I have no objection (though I don't know what "community-based education for those who want it" is supposed to mean). As I have mentioned it would be better to see a source from 1992, rather than FW's press release from this year - he is not exactly an impartial reporter in this matter.

As to the "second referendum", there is simply no evidence that such a referendum was promised, and as noted there is clear evidence that FW himself said that no second referendum would be required. If you can bring reliable sources about this alleged second referendum promise, then we can talk about adding it to the article.

Finally, as to the question of linking to external sources: linking is how Wikipedia works. In fact, it is how the Web works. If you are concerned about the possibility of a linked page disappearing, you can use something like WebCite to preserve it. But you simply cannot wholesale copy external sources into the main article or this talk page. - htonl (talk) 04:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

" linking is how Wikipedia works. In fact, it is how the Web works." - Links are never required when stories about "the evils of Apartheid", or phony stories about e.g. Climate change, Hitler or the Holohoax is written. Then, it's not necessary to provide links. Entire articles are written without a single links on Wikipedia. It's double standards. Many articles are written in wWikipedia without a single link to a Zionist media source.