Jump to content

Talk:District Six

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

District Six, Cape Town

I hope someone who knows the facts, etc, better than I will edit the article to draw attention to the fact that although the bulldozers made the land AVAILABLE for re-development, that re-development, largely, did not occur.

It seems too much to hope, but the idealist in me gives some credit to the claim I heard that at least part of the reason is that no one who would have been allowed to live there wanted to take advantage of what the government had done. At least the possibility should be mentioned in the article?

Another minor tidy which may be necessary: Besides the church(es?)... there were, around 2002, a few other buildings there, I think. Police houses, I think. Left from before the bulldozers, I think.

Thank you, Wikipedia authors!

Tom, England —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.20.22 (talk • contribs)

Hey Tom, you know, you are also allowed to make edits to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a project with the policy than any person in the world may edit it. Just thought I'd inform you in case you did not know. PS: When commenting in discussion pages, please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks! --Adriaan90 (Talk|Contribs) 11:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add the fact that District Six became a notorius slum before the forced removals occured. In fact, my father recollects that during a visit by the Royal Navy during WWII, the sailors (many seeking brothels and cheap liquor) were strongly advised to stay clear of the area because it was "very dangerous". This detail is therefore relevant when it comes to discussion about motivation for the removals. Obviously economic and social factors, including apartheid, played a part in the formation of the problem. Cape Town is a city of great natural beauty, so one can understand that having a great slum in full view of any and all visitors to the city bowl was always going to be difficult to deal with and should not be overlooked when apportioning blame for what occured.

Dawn Treader196.207.40.213 18:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't disagree with you, you need to provide sources for your information. ► Adriaan90 ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) ♪♫ 19:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is rather POV, and emotive. There is no doubt District Six was a slum. The only question was whether it could have been cleared up rather than demolished. The history of such places suggests that clearance was the only option. The designation as a whites only area is largely irrelevant, as no one moved there. Does any one know why there was little redevelopment?JohnC (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The District Six slum seems to evoke a very rosy memory for some people. We must guard against political bias. Already some contibutors see fit to just change whole swathes of text to agree with their own political views and then label it as 'Minor Edit'. Of course, no references are used to support the changes. Yet when I refer to Table Mountain as "beautiful", I get a removal and a note saying 'Provide a reference to say so'. Let's be fair for once. Can someone please provide a nice full-frontal picture of the slum on the beautiful mountainside so we can all see just how rosy it was? Let's not hide it away now ... 196.38.218.25 12:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC) DawnTreader[reply]

Map

It would be nice if there was a map of where district six is located.Gary van der Merwe (Talk) 23:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree - was about to request the same. 193.134.170.35 (talk) 08:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added an openstreetmap URL, which you can match up with this picture of the map in the museum. The castle is an easy reference on both maps. This is another good map. Wizzy…☎ 15:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

District 9

Any reason to include a link to the recent science fiction film, District 9, inspired by District Six? -- SpareSimian (talk) 03:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. The alleged connection with that film is, in my view, spurious. There are many other "Districts" in South Africa. Neill Blomkamp is probably too young to have even been aware of Cape Town's District Six. It is unlikely that he was thinking of it when he named his film.JohnC (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So in your opinion a SF film largely about racial segregation and forced relocation, titled "District-something" and set in South Africa, has no connection to District Six, and that it's "unlikely" the director was thinking of it? Ok... 201.216.245.25 (talk) 14:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like he didn't see the movie, as it's about the forced location of a racially separated group in SA like the person above pointed out... but at the same time is it really necessary to call it an alternate reality? Isn't that a given for science fiction in general?Lime in the Coconut 17:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems very unlikely not to share some connection. The Wikipedia page for District 9 seems to assume the link though I did not follow sources. I think it would be of some interest to put in a link to this and perhaps other contemporary media that is linked to District 6 into an end section of this page though having it mentioned on this talk page is enough for most researchers. A musical play or score was developed called District 6 some time ago it seems. Perhaps also add in a mention to the District 6 in Hunger Games as though it may not be that closely related to South African history it is about political struggle and segregation.
District 9 Themes
District 6 in Hunger Games
Remember district 6 District SIX a music album
District Six, Cape Town BBC mini documentary during 2010 SA football world cup
Idyllic press (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Land Claims

Who is the best person to contact, reagrding CAPE Town land claims? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.145.217.74 (talk) 05:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move: District Six, Cape Town → District Six

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


District Six, Cape Town → District Six – "District Six" is the common name for this apartheid flashpoint, and the subject is also the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Google "District Six" -wikipedia and the first page worth of hits is dominated by the Cape Town district. District Six, Cape Town got 120,000 page views last year, compared to 1,700 for District Six (album). The Ho Chi Minh City district is always District 6, never District Six. There are books entitled The Struggle for District Six, District Six: An Ordinary Day and We Remember District Six. No one has written anything entitled, We Remember District Six, Cape Town. Kauffner (talk) 00:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First off, this RM is about "District Six". If you came to talk about "District 6", "6th District", or whatever, you came to the wrong place. Any reasonably common term will have more than one meaning, but we can still assign it to a particular article. Take a look at District 9. (The movie's name is adapted from real-life District Six.) Kauffner (talk) 07:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
--NJR_ZA (talk) 05:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Street names

Concerning the corrections [1] I moved the sources into footnotes. Please use the discussion here. --House1630 (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear sentence structure.

In the section District_Six#Return the end of the last sentence does not read logically.

However, the historical legacy and "struggle credentials" of most of the trust leadership made it very likely that it would continue to represent the claimants as it was the main non-executive director for Nelson Mandela.

I suspect some kind of editing error but hard to tell, I have not looked to see if there are other earlier versions of this section that may be more sound. There is no immediate cite so not sure if the original source is on-line for perusal.

Idyllic press (talk) 20:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Idyllic press: This article was apparently vandalized several years ago, so it has some errors that have not yet been corrected. Jarble (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on District Six. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on District Six. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How controversial was the clearance at the time

Was there opposition from the opposition parties, and if so, who were they? Why was the area not redeveloped according to plan? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Zonnebloem which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was…there is no consensus to merge.
Joyous! | Talk 04:19, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I propose merging Zonnebloem into District Six. Zonnebloem was renamed District Six in 2019. English language sources use the new name almost exclusively. Both articles are now talking about the same thing.

Coverage of name change:

Zonnebloem name change back to District Six imminent

Process gets under way to rename Zonnebloem back to District Six

Zonnebloem officially reverts to District Six

Coverage after name change:

Safety issues delay transfer of 58 new units in District Six to beneficiaries

She had hopes of dying in District Six - family mourns land claimant with unfulfilled dream

55 years after forced removals, hope is blooming for District Six claimants

‘The symbolism of District Six is absolutely powerful’

Desertambition (talk) 13:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural close. This was previously proposed and rejected at Talk:Zonnebloem#Requested move 7 January 2022, with the request stating Place was renamed in 2019 to restore the previous name. Page should be merged with existing District Six page because they are talking about the same thing. Reliable sources regularly use the new name and providing the same sources as have been provided here. BilledMammal (talk) 14:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, these are not the same sources. I am puzzled at how you came to that conclusion because as far as I can see I didn't reuse a single source. In addition, both you and Toddy1 were misinformed about the name change.
 First and second source are talking about the historic District Six, not the current Zonnebloem. They are also not talking about the same thing, as Districtt Six was split into three districts, one of which was Zonnebloem, and in addition an RM is not the correct format for what you are proposing. Finally, recent news results suggest that Zonnebloem remain the current name, but I am not going to look further given the issues with the proposal. BilledMammal (talk) 02:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
This is false, as the name was changed in 2019 and reliable sources regularly use the new name.
Toddy1 was also under the false impression the name had not been changed. I was not able to respond with objections while the request was up as well. Seems completely reasonable to start another discussion on this topic. Desertambition (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, it appears I was mistaken about the choice of sources. However, you are wrong about my statement being false; by current name, I meant the common name, not the official name.
As for the proposal, my objection remains the same; the historic District Six is not the same as Zonnebloem, as the district was split into three different suburbs, one of them being Zonnebloem, which means a merge would be inappropriate. Regarding raising the same issue again, I will reply on your talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, if your argument is that District Six is not the common name please provide sources proving that. As it stands, sources show people are using District Six (present) synonymously with District Six (past). This new name is a clearly seen as restoring what it was previously called, even if the borders have changed slightly. A distinction can be made on the history section of the article but there is no reason to have two separate articles titled District Six. Desertambition (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis do you claim that sources show people are using District Six (present) synonymously with District Six (past)?
There is a present-day District Six, which is in Zonnebloem in the same way that London is in England. But that does not mean that District Six is another name for Zonnebloem, any more than London is another name for England.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Slight correction; the present-day District Six (officially Zonnebloem until 2019), covers some of the historic District Six, though the differences are too great for them to be considered the same entity.
It seems I was wrong about not spending any more time on this discussion, but hopefully I was able to help clear that up for you. BilledMammal (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I encourage you to look at the sources I have provided again. You seem to be mistaken about the current name of "Zonnebloem". Desertambition (talk) 03:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My position on this is that it should be procedurally closed. Given that, I don't intend to spend any more time on this discussion; if you wish to know my position you can refer to the previous discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you have provided no evidence Zonnebloem is the WP:COMMONNAME. Desertambition (talk) 03:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This video also talks about District Six and should be added as a source in the article: Why South Africa is still so segregated Desertambition (talk) 14:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:District_Six&oldid=1201563635"