Talk:Apartheid

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Apartheid article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite, and welcoming to new users Assume good faith Do not attack other users For disputes, please see our guideline	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Discussions on this page may turn into heated arguments. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.
( no personal attacks · assume good faith · be kind )

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.

I don't think changing "big boy" to "non-Europeans" was a good idea. This would really give the wrong idea to someone who has never heard about it. It should be changed to "black people" or whatever is currently politically correct. --SpamKiller 13:29, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I might think that way also, if I'd never heard of a guy named Gandhi. Arguably he did a lot to focus people on the issue. I could have changed it to "non-white", but that might also confuse people. To me, the issue was the colonizing peoples, Boers, English, etc., versus everybody else, native peoples and imported peoples (e.g. Indians). So I thought European vs. non-European was 'okay'.

Of course, the real problem is the article needs more information. But we know that already. :) Shenme 18:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that there is a problem with the term "European", because I don't se the Afrikaners or the whites in SA as Europeans. It sounds to me really stupid, because every white/caucasian in the world are not Europeans. /Martin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.173.59 (talk • contribs)

Apartheid: Incorrect definition[change source]

This article's definition of apartheid is incorrect. It says "Apartheid was a political system in South Africa, which was in use in the 20th century, mainly between the 1940s and the 1980s. In the system, the people of South Africa were divided by their race. Even though black people were the majority in the country, a small number of white people ruled them and held most political offices. There were laws that kept up the racial separation." In fact, white minority rule over the black majority existed from the moment the South African state was created, in 1910, which was long before apartheid existed. Apartheid is an Afrikaans word that means separateness, it meant racial segregation. Apartheid was not South African government policy until the 1940s, as the article points out, so it has a more specific definition than simply white minority rule. The opening paragraph should be changed. --RJR3333 (talk) 04:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Improve Writing Style[change source]

This is an incredibly important topic in world history and the quality of the writing should be more authoritative and fluid. It doesn't require sweeping prose or anything fancy, but the article currently consists of simple, short, and halting sentences. The opening sentences are a prime example of this:

"Apartheid was a political and social system in South Africa while it was under white-minority rule. This was used in the 20th century, from 1948 to the early 1990s. The word apartheid means "apartness" in Afrikaans."

Dsal1951 (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]