Talk:Nelson Mandela/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Edit request on 24 March 2013

Please change the name of the president that preceded Mandela: it is not "Andres Pastrana Arango." He is a former Colombian president. Valericciulli (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Unless I'm misreading, Arango is listed as the previous secretary general of the non-aligned movement, not the previous president. This appears to be correct. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Presidency section edits

I revised the presidency section today as part of the push to bring this to GA status. The section appeared to me to rather indiscriminately list legislation passed during Mandela's term without much context, a discussion of his role, or significant sources. I've tried to reframe the section in terms of his goals and trends, while also adding some of the better known incidents of his presidency, such as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I've also divided it into subsections that will hopefully be an improvement on "Lockerbie" and "stuff that isn't Lockerbie". (For comparison, Lockerbie gets 1 page in Sampson's 600 pg biography of Mandela--even what we have now might be too much.)

Midnightblueowl, you can probably improve this still more--I've only got the Sampson biography to work from--but I figured that this would provide a start. Here's a diff showing what I did today if anybody wants to doublecheck me later: [1]. Cheers to all, -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey there Khazar; I am currently working through the page in a chronological manner, adding in referenced information from a variety of sources (Mandela, Sampson, Smith and Meredith), but at the moment am currently dealing with the era of Mandela's life in which he was imprisoned; over the next few weeks I shall try and get on to his presidency, although in real life have a very busy month ahead of me, so please bear with me if I'm a bit slow in doing this. All the best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

No hurry at all. I may try to start from the end of Sampson's book and work backward--we can meet in the middle. =) -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Criticism of Nelson Mandela

Recently, an editor removed the following statement from the introduction to this article: "Controversial for much of his life, critics denounced him as a terrorist and communist sympathiser." Clearly, this is ignoring the voices of Mandela's (relatively small, admittedly) but nevertheless notable critics, and is pushing the article into POV territory; Mandela is not as universally adored as this introduction might make out. Reputable sources testify to such opposition, whether it be from the U.S. government, Margaret Thatcher or just some random right-wing nutball on the internet; all voice their Mandela hate, or at least their displeasure with what they see as his pro-communist, terrorist past. For this reason I am returning the aforementioned part of the introduction, in order to return the introduction to a state of NPOV. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, but it may be better to rephrase it to be more specific, e.g. "Supporters of the apartheid government and some Western governments denounced him as a terrorist and communist sympathiser." Zaian (talk) 07:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I also agree but don't see the need to specify who the critics are as the lead is a summary and I prefer the original text that was removed. — Keithbob • Talk • 16:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Keithbob; it's difficult to pin down exactly who those critics are. I think that for the purposes of this introduction, "critics" works just fine. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with either set of language, but as a BLP, it's important that this be specifically sourced, either by a footnote here or referring to more detailed descriptions of this criticism in the text. I also wonder if it could appear more chronologically in the lead; it seems that there were far more critics in the 70s and 80s who said these things than there are today. It feels a little awkward to close out the lead with it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree, critics should be clearly sourced in the body and the lead sentence could be cited too if necessary.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Since it's been two weeks without a source being given, I've removed the text per WP:BLP. (I actually should have reverted this much sooner). I believe the sentence is correct, but we absolutely cannot call someone a terrorist in Wikipedia without a citation. -- Khazar2 (talk) 05:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The main body of text now contains references to this fact, so the sentence can be re-introduced to the introduction. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

A newcomer to Wikipedia, User:Hedgefall, recently deleted the statement again, under the opinion that it was the "Wrong place for that." With the utmost respect to this particular user, they did this despite the agreement that has been reached here on the talk page, and sought no consensus for such actions. From what I see on their talk page, they have been warned about this sort of behaviour before. I have undone their edit and replaced the sentence, albeit in a different position within the introductory text. Perhaps a page as important at this should be further protected from the edits of new Wikipedians ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your new placement, and I think it'll help defuse the ongoing issue with that sentence. As I mentioned above, it seemed odd to me to close the lead with accusations of being a terrorist and communist, since so few would say that about Mandela now; the chronological placement (accusations, then worldwide celebrity and recognition) makes much more sense to me. I don't know that additional protection is needed for the page for now, but let's see if editors continue to go after that sentence in its new placement.

On a side note, thanks for all your continued revision! I think we're getting quite close to where this will be ready for a GA nomination. Once you've finished your own revising, I'll take a pass through myself; if we're both happy with it then, we can go ahead and nominate I think. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request

This paragraph:

Mandela was also criticised for the sluggish economy, corruption scandals in the ANC government, and rising crime rates.[213] The last of these in particular caused waves of white immigration in the late '90s.[214]

Should surely read:

Mandela was also criticised for the sluggish economy, corruption scandals in the ANC government, and rising crime rates.[213] The last of these in particular caused waves of white emigration in the late '90s.[214]

--81.23.54.142 (talk) 02:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done Yep. That error's all mine--thanks for the catch. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, in Cinema and Television, the name Sidney Poitier is missing an 'i' (before the 't') --81.23.54.142 (talk) 03:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done At least that one wasn't me. =) Thanks again for taking the time to point these out, it's a big help. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

GA Catch-all section

I'm making a last copyediting pass over this and hoping to nominate it for GA in the next few days. I'm creating this catch-all section for small points that may not be worth an individual thread, like:

• I just changed all the "Simpson 1999" citations to "Simpson 2011" to make the ref harv link work. There may be a way to do this and keep the 1999 year intact, but I haven't found it yet. diff -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• Is the phrase "Roman Dutch law" correct here? It seems an odd combination. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• The "Sebokeng massacre" probably needs a touch of context, perhaps in an explanatory footnote if it would disrupt the flow of the article. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Royal origin downplayed

The article's info on Mandela's ancestry has been changed to indicate that he belongs to the House of Ixhiba, whereas my recollection is that his great-grandfather married a woman of that clan, and that the Ixhiba being a "Left-Hand House", tradition dictated that the Thembu king cannot be born of a mother of such a clan, which is why Mandela's family are hereditary councillors to rather than dynasts of the Thembu Royal Family. Needs to be checked and corrected if it got distorted in "compacting" this article. In general, I think that Mandela's past and current role as a descendant and kinsman of one of South Africa's major Paramount Chiefs and his blood and marital relationships to African monarchs and leaders with whom he had political dealings (e.g. Goodwill Zwelithini, Mangosuthu Buthelezi, Kaiser Matanzima, Buyelekhaya Dalindyebo) have been minimised relative to the connections of European contemporaries of similar royal backgrounds (cf. Louis, Earl Mountbatten of Burma and Count Folke Bernadotte, who were simultaneously famous international diplomats and aristocrats closely associated with reigning monarchs). FactStraight (talk) 21:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The Lead

I've made a few stylistic changes to the lead where I thought the wording seemed awkward. I'm still concerned about the slightly gushing phrase "activist, revolutionary and politician", where the terms are a little too imprecise and also overlap. Could that perhaps be "activist and political leader" or even just "activist"? Also, the term "white supremacist" is (perhaps strangely) a term not often used in South Africa, nor is the uncited term "Father of the Nation". Zaian (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I think I like "activist, revolutionary and politician", as it's important to note that he advocated violent resistance at one point in his career; activist and politician don't quite cover that. "White supremacist" could probably just be cut, as it's obvious any party instituting apartheid is such. I objected to the term "Father of the Nation" on this page before, and it was pointed it out to me that it gets a zillion Google hits. So I'm okay with it, but also okay with cutting it or better contextualizing it. It should probably get a citation at least. I'll add one now, but that isn't meant to suggest I see this as the final solution. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Rather than "anti-apartheid activist, revolutionary and politician", might I suggest "anti-apartheid revolutionary and politician." His activism was, by its very nature and his own admission, revolutionary in its content. I also think that we should specify the political ideology or ethos of the National Party in this introduction; maybe "Afrikaaner-dominated National Party" or something is that nature to replace "white supremacist" ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Both of those suggestions seem like good ones to me. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Afrikaner, not Afrikaaner. I have reworded slightly - I think "Afrikaner nationalist" is better than "Afrikaner-dominated". The sentence is still not quite right, because of the 4-year interval: "After X happened in 1948, he rose to prominence in 1952..." Zaian (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks like we are having some issues with User:Hedgefall making further edits to lengthen the introduction without attempting to reach any concensus first. They have been reverted in the past, and continue to make such changes, resulting in a slow, protracted edit war. Now I was happy to leave a polite notice on their talk page, considering that they are a new user and might not be entirely acqainted with the Wikipedia system, but I notice that they have been warned about edit warring on three other pages already. Considering we are applying for GA review, we should keep an eye on this user's edits Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I've missed something, but I've looked at a couple of Hedgefall's edits and they didn't look bad to me. Zaian (talk) 20:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Political views

Reading some of his quotes, he wasn't a Marxist as some say, but he was a man with a clear leftist view, I'd say he was a socialist, rather than a democratic socialist, but that also depends on how you define a democratic socialist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlosavelar1992 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's tricky, especially given the way his views evolved over the course of his life. His biographers tend to call him a "democratic socialist", though, so I think that's the best term to go with for the lead. The nuances are discussed more in the political ideology section. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

It'll be hard to define him as a person, clearly he has a leftist political view, I believe it'll be better to describe him in such a way (leftist), and describing his government as a democratic socialist, because you can judge objectively the politics he and his ministers applied. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.87.121.70 (talk) 05:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Having built this article up using a variety of different biographies of Mandela (Smith, Sampson, and Meredith), I would have to stress that all three agree that Mandela defines himself as an African nationalist and democratic socialist, and there are various quotes from Mandiba himself testifying to this. He openly admits to having been influenced by Marxism in the early 1950s, and came to accept its emphasis on dialectical materialism; however, being influenced by Marxism does not make one a Marxist per se, and certainly doesn't make one a Marxist-Leninist, as some of his pro-apartheid critics assumed. I would actually disagree with the assertion that his administration itself was democratic socialist in direction, because while Mandela was President, his was a predominantly ceremonial or symbolic role (particularly post-1997), and Deputy President Thabo Mbeki was the one responsible for overseeing and implementing many of the government's policies; although Mbeki had been a communist in early life, like his father, by the mid-1990s he had come to embrace free markets and wasn't much of a socialist at all, democratic or otherwise. Of course, a variety of different ideological positions exist within the African National Congress (then as now), from social liberals like Mbeki to Marxists affiliated with the South African Communist Party, like Joe Slovo. For this reason I think it fair to say that Mandela was himself a democratic socialist, but that his government wasn't necessarily so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

We should go with what the sources say:

Mandela Should Be Judged for All of His Actions---The Washington Times (Washington, DC); October 2, 1998;. On his trip to southern Africa this week, Secretary of State James A. Baker III will encourage Nelson Mandela to continue his campaign against apartheid and urge him to abandon socialist economic principles

The Independent (London, England)--The Crocodile & the Saint ; PW Botha and Nelson Mandela's Unlikely Friendship, The Independent (London, England); November 2, 2006; Carlin, John-- Mandela is by temperament a democrat;

Given the sources above and bio cited by Khazar2's above. I would vote for "democratic socialist".-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Criticism

So nothing about neo-liberal policies besides one sentence on the Washington Consensus. There should be a section on the Growth, Employment and Redistribution (GEAR) program in 1996. It essentially let the World Bank and IMF into South Africa and change their policies. Unemployment, access to clean water (water privatization) are definitely sections I think should be added. I don't want to scream POV but Mandela does seem like one of the saints of the liberal-left. Is it possible to actually get some reality into this article or is it locked down like the article on Al Gore where any mention of his environmental crimes cannot be mentioned.Boone jenner (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

As this article should make clear, Mandela was a largely "hands off" President who devoted little to the day-to-day running of South Africa. Much of that which was implemented during his Presidency had more to do with Vice President Thabo Mbeki and parliament; that doesn't mean Mandela had no culpability at all however, but we should bear this particular situation in mind. Regarding your main point, this page is first and foremost an overview of his life, with other articles left to deal in greater depth with issues such as GEAR. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Remember- just because you're the president if you're a "hands off" president then you get to take all the credit for the good things that happen while you're in office but aren't culpable for the bad things. Unless you're a mean old conservative! Gotta love that liberal cultishness.96.231.17.247 (talk) 00:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

"Father of the Nation"

An editor on this article seems determined to downplay the "Father of the Nation" phrase, calling it the invention of a single journalist. I admit I don't know who coined it originally, but it obviously has life beyond that; Mandela has been described as "father of the nation" in the news more than 800 times in the last few weeks alone.[2] Per BBC, "He is regarded by most South Africans as the father of the nation".[3] Per Washington Post, "South Africans expressed their appreciation for a man widely regarded as the father of the nation."[4] Etc. Pretending this is a statement by one journalist only is kind of bizarre. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the caps may be the issue. In SA we call him Madiba or Tata. Helen (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

This list may help. Helen (talk) 14:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec) It is indeed a bizzare claim, so bizarre that I have no qualms about calling it vandalism - "Father of the Nation"(en) or "Tata Wethu"(xh) + Mandela gets a half a bazillion Ghits from thousands of different sources. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Please find a reliable source that doesn't describe him as "the father of the nation", but confers on him the title "Father of the Nation". Until then, it should not be capitalised. Park3r (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I've got no problem with lowercase or capitals, I just think the prevalence of the name should be clear in the article. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

If you have a citation that calls him Father of the Nation (fully capitalised, as a title) please cite it. Furthermore, the linked article Father of the Nation has itself got issues with original research, and I have tagged it as such. Mandela has been referred to as Tata (father), and this used to be in the article, with a citation, before it was removed by someone.

"father of the nation" [lower-case] would be acceptable, as it is well cited, as would "Tata" (accompanied with an appropriate citation). It isn't the job of Wikipedia to invent Honorifics. Park3r (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for being willing to join the conversation. I don't have any strong feelings about the capitalization, and I think you make a good point that sources seem to prefer the second. I'd support this being changed, but perhaps other parties can chime in first. I do disagree with your characterization in your edit summaries, and by implication in your new text, that this term is only used by one or a few sources to describe Mandela. The article's sources have always made clear that this is a widely held perception; I think something closer to the original language would be better, though I'm flexible on the wording. Cheers -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that the wording in the sources is "the father of the nation" (with a definite article, indicating a description), rather than "Father of the Nation" a title. Park3r (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Yep, it was that way in the original wording too. I agree that it should stay that way. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Also see comment at the top of the page by another user. It is not the first time that Father of the Nation' has been pointed out as not a standard usage in South Africa. Park3r (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not averse to the lower case "father of the nation"; I also think we should include "tata" as well, for it clearly has widespread usage in South Africa. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I would agree that phrase is appropriate, he is definitely viewed like that in most quote un quote "mainstream" media. I call the big one bitey (talk) 07:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Cult of St. Nelson

This article is a glowing tribute to "St. Nelson," which, unfortunately, is an invention of the media. A more accurate reading of history indicates that Nelson Mandela was a saboteur and terrorist, and a co-founder of Umkhonto we Sizwe, a terrorist organization which includes murder among its accomplishments. When I attempted to include that information in the article, it was vetoed by the Wikipedia PC police, who will not tolerate any criticism, expressed or implied, about St. Nelson, and who declared that my comment was POV. It is POV merely to include accurate and verifiable information in article, and which is necessary to counterbalance the oily, over-flattering information that is already there? It is extremely interesting to me how some Wikipedia articles are more neutral than others, depending on the point of view that is desired to be gotten across.John Paul Parks (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia, unfortunately, is not the place to puncture media and scholarly conspiracies; since we mostly summarize other sources, you're better off taking it up with the offenders directly. When the majority of reliable sources call Mandela a terrorist, the lead sentence of the article can be changed as you suggest. As a side note, you should consider using edit summaries in the future, and avoid name-calling; Wikipedia is a collaborative enterprise, so it's important to try to work with others. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Why are some articles connected to "twinkle" (TW) which allows the immediate reverting of any edit that might be made?John Paul Parks (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that if a user has Twinkle enabled, she/he can use on any article. You can read more at WP:TWINKLE. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that you are dissatisfied with this article John. However, I think that you are incorrect in both your claim that this page is a "glowing tribute" to Mandela and that it is controlled by "PC police" who wish to silence any criticism of the man. Regarding your first point, those of us who have worked hard to get this page to a GA level have endeavoured to provide an accurate, un-biased picture of Mandela based on reliable, specialist sources. Both in the introduction and (in greater depth) in the main text, we state that Mandela was involved in founding MK, an organisation that carried out acts of violent sabotage. This information is right there, in plain English, for anyone who wants to read the article; it most certainly is not being suppressed, nor sugar coated. We also state – again in plain English both in the introduction and in greater depth throughout the text – that many right-wing critics have condemned Mandela as a terrorist and communist sympathiser; again, this fact is not being suppressed. That Mandela was a terrorist is a matter of opinion, not an objective fact; "terrorism" is, after all, a subjective concept with little use as an analytical category ("one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" etc). By outright proclaiming that Mandela was a terrorist as you did, as if it were an objective fact, you were in clear violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy, and as such it was correct that your edit was reverted. We state that many critics consider Mandela a terrorist; you were changing that to Mandela is a terrorist. There is a big difference. As you seem to be aware, both in South Africa and on the global stage, the idea of "St. Nelson" is far more prolific than that of "Nelson the Terrorist". I would suggest that this is not simply down to media manipulation, as you have suggested, but could be due to the fact that most people see nothing morally wrong in utilising violence to fight a system of racial segregation and subjugation ? Or perhaps because they believe that his encouragement of peaceful reconciliation post-1990 makes up for his violent past ? I don't know, and at the end of the day, this isn't the place to discuss it. On a final note, I must emphasise Khazar's request that you cease insulting other editors, because Wikipedia has civility policies, constant abuse of which could lead to your blocking. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it possible to lock this article like the one on Gore or Obama? Just to avoid more vandalism like that of John or those like him? I fully support the effort to ban all these POV edits that are merely smearing Mandela. If even F.W. de Klerk doesn't call Mandela a terrorist, but openly admires him, perhaps it's time for others to do so too. CrashTestSmartie (talk) 08:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The Nelson Mandela article is already semi-protected, which means that non-registered and non-autoconfirmed editors cannot make edits, which must cut down the level of vandalism considerably. You can read more about it over at our Wikipedia:Protection policy. However, it is important to note that according to policy, NPOV violations are not considered "vandalism". This means that while I condone his actions, technically John is not a vandal, and cannot be treated as such. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Completely ludicrous that pointing out that Mandela is a terrorist is apparently "vandalizing". You leftists are sick people.96.231.17.247 (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has civility policies, 96.231.17.247. Please adhere to them and refrain from posting sweeping insults about Wikipedia editors, or your IP address could potentially be barred from editing. If you had actually read the above posts, you would find that we were not accusing John of "vandalism", but explaining that he was in breach of our NPOV policy; these are two very different things. Furthermore, as I previously stated, it is subjective opinion that Mandela was a terrorist, not objective fact: it is not Wikipedia's job to present controversial minority opinions as fact. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Chimnoy picture

It's a good picture, and well placed in the article. But the date is bullcrap. Sri Chimnoy died in 2007, and the picture date says 29 May 2011. Someone with permission to edit the image, correct the date to say "2007 or earlier" 1779Days (talk) 04:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Facing the inevitable

Should we make arrangements to have page protection "on a hair trigger" if/when the inevitable happens? I anticipate a massive rush to edit/vandalize when it happens. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

It's already semi-protected, I think, which should provide some protection from IPs. But it might not hurt to have an admin or two on call. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I suspect the "Mandela is a terrorist" lot will be all over this page soon, trying to correct what they perceive as its left-wing bias. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Health Issues

I suggest that due to this person is currently involved in an inestable situation and due to the importance of him, the tag "

" should be added to the headline of the article to prevent users for adding information that may change within just hours.

Health issues are not a current event per se in Wikipedia terms. The current event in question has not been reported at this stage, when it has the appropriate template may be added to the article. Helen (talk) 11:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Per the instructions at Template:Current, "the template may optionally be used in those extraordinary occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day, for example, in the case of natural disasters or other breaking news... It is not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic; if it were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have this template, with no informational consequence." The article's still very far from that threshold.-- Khazar2 (talk) 11:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 June 2013

Health:

26th June 2013: Mandela's health deteriorates overnight.

86.44.66.185 (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Though I'm as concerned about Mandela's health as the next editor, this is an encyclopedia article, not a breaking news site; daily updates on the situation are unnecessary, and will probably eventually be trimmed. The circumstances of his declining health need very little space in proportion to his long and astonishing life. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Seconded. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thirded. Helen (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 June 2013

120.59.49.103 (talk) 14:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC) Date of death : 26 June 2013

 Not done Not supported by a reliable source. Helen (talk) 09:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Typo?

I was wondering if Qufu in the sentence When Mandela was about nine, his father came to stay at Qufu, where he died of an undiagnosed ailment which Mandela believed to be lung disease.[13] is a typo and his father actually came to stay in Qunu, where N.M. was living with his mother and sisters at the time? --Hype supper (talk) 00:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:be bold, especially if you can find a reference. Rothorpe (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Well boldness is not my problem, rather competence regarding this topic. :) I was translating the article into Romanian and the question came up. I suppose it's just a typo, considering that in The Long Walk to Freedom (Part 1, Ch. 2) he deschibes Qunu and his life there, to start Ch.3 with ONE NIGHT, when I was nine years old, I was aware of a commotion in the household. My father, who took turns visiting his wives and usually came to us for perhaps one week a month, had arrived. But it was not at his accustomed time, for he was not scheduled to be with us for another few days.--Hype supper (talk) 00:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

In fact, Qunu is mentioned several times in the article. Rothorpe (talk) 01:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I indeed suspect that it is a typo, and worse still, I suspect that I am probably the culprit! That section was largely written by myself, so if anyone's to blame, it'll be me. Apologies! Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, come on, don't be so harsh on yourself. :) You've done great work on this article! --Hype supper (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Twitter dumbness

Okay, I have no idea how good of a thing this would be to add, but on Twitter R.I.P. Nelson Mandela is trending, and people are posting pictures of Morgan Freeman instead of Mandela's picture. --Matt723star (talk) 03:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Just my offhand take, but it seems a bit trivial to add. I suppose we can see how much coverage that phenomenon gets in later writings on Mandela--my guess is not much. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Well actually I just refreshed a few times and the TT has been taken off. Of course as soon as I write that that WOULD happen lol. --Matt723star (talk) 03:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Adding content regarding a twitter hoax is not something I would like to see added to this article. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

No. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed; considering all the huge, influential things that Mandela accomplished in his life, this response to his impending death is incredibly trivial, and therefore has no place on Wikipedia. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 June 2013

http://guardianlv.com/2013/06/nelson-mandela-life-support-shut-down-as-respected-humanitarian-dies-age-94/

Nelson Mandela has been taken off life support and has died.

Mjby10 (talk) 05:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Not done - Guardian Express is a user-generated amateur "journalism" site that fails WP:RS. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The article was already falsely updated with this fake death report once, unfortunately. We need to keep a close eye on this one. -- Khazar2 (talk) 06:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• No. News so far is worsening condition: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/27/us-mandela-idUSBRE95P1EW20130627 KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 09:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggest Current Event template be added

Suggest the template {{current person}} be added to this article as news is emerging somewhat rapidly about his condition. Major media reporting he's still alive, with CTV reporting he's apparently considered to have improved a little. So much for the bogus death report mentioned above. This is a different template than the one requested earlier, and the situation qualifies as a current event due to the widely reported vigils, Obama visiting South Africa, etc., so there's more than simply a health issue going on. 70.72.201.229 (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Templates like that are mostly intended for rapidly unfolding disasters, people involved in sudden breaking news (the deaths of Michael Jackson or Osama bin Laden) and the like, where massive number of editors are significantly altering an article's content. So far today, Mandela's article has been edited by about six people, who have primarily fixed typos. [5] There's no reason to post that template even after he dies, really, unless his death is accompanied by shocking revelations or controversy that actually cause us to change the article significantly and rapidly. I know some excitable editor will add it regardless, but IMHO there's no need. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

No need for the template. If Mandela dies, fine, we're in different territory, but right now it's just medical updates. Nothing more encylcopedic to add. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Terms such as current event on Wikipedia have meanings specific to Wikipedia editing, in this case an event resulting in rapidly changing information (minute by minute) relevant to an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a news service, there are plenty of media sources providing that. Helen (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the others, but thank you 70.72 for your well intended suggestion and your good faith contributions to the article. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 June 2013

This should be listed under monuments, accolades, awards also the segment about the UK's tributes should be listed under this also and not artistic tributes. Thanks.

In 1986 Nelson Mandela was awarded the Freedom of the City of Glasgow, UK and additionally had St George's Place renamed Nelson Mandela Place in his honour. This was largely the result of the Scottish Anti-Apartheid group and was much to the annoyance of the South African consulate that was based there at the time.

This information is of note as I believe it was the first city to do so.

I fixed the request by closing the open references Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

 Not done This is already covered in the Robben Island section and in List of awards and honours bestowed upon Nelson Mandela. Helen (talk) 10:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

His Excellency?

Only a diplomatic title, right? RaphaelQS (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

It is used in South Africa for the President, but I'm not sure if it's kept after their term is over Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

His official title still appears to be His Excellency President Nelson Mandela. Helen (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Y RaphaelQS (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

"Afrikaner males"

I wonder why it is necessary to say this rather than "Afrikaner men"? (as it was a government delegation I assume they were all over the age of 18). Such use of zoological language to describe humans seems to be designed to dehumanize. Shiresman (talk) 00:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I was responsible for authoring the section to which you are referring, Shireman. If you think that "men" is preferably to "males" here, then by all means change it. I certainly don't have any objections. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done I agree and have made the change. Helen (talk) 10:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Image banned

I recall that SA newspapers were not allowed to publish photographs of Mandela and as a result many South Africans did not see his image until close to his release. Is that covered in the article? Should it be? If so, I will try to find some sources. Helen (talk) 10:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and added something about it here. Helen (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

"faculty" doesn't mean the same thing in American and other Englishes

When Mandela is said to have been the only black member of the "faculty" of law at Witwatersrand, Americans will be confused, because what is meant that he was the only black student in the Witwatersrand school of law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.183.43.255 (talk) 22:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Honorifics

I think the honorifics soup in the infobox should go per WP:NPOV. No one else has this including Pope Francis or Elizabeth II. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that its a violation of NPOV per se, but that being said, I'm not averse to the removal of these honorifics. Any objections ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with MBO on both points: probably not an NPOV violation, but no harm in removing them. Actually, I think it'd be an improvement. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

IMHO it is not neutral to put honorifics on infoboxes but let's agree to disagree on that point as it isn't that vital. "OM AC CC OJ GCStJ QC GColIH RSerafO NPk BR MRCSI" wouldn't mean much on its own to most of the readers. Could I suggest moving the titles to a table? I would prefer to keep the titles in the article with information on when and whom he received them from with perhaps more details. I'd be willing to work on this but I'd need help filling the information in. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 00:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

All of this information is already listed at the "List of awards and honours bestowed upon Nelson Mandela" subarticle, so you should feel free to just delete it. It's not really needed in the main article, I think. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Nice! Maybe I'll convert that to a sorted list sometime. I am removing the titles from the infobox as suggested. :) -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 11:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I've done it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The two examples provided are not appropriate comparisons. There are plenty of politicians with a "soup" after their name, like Winston Churchill for instance. The amount shouldn't affect them being there, it seems ridiculous to remove them because you think there are too many! Hedgefall (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

You have single-handedly reverted a decision made by multiple people here - that's not how consensus works. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Made by three people; I think it merits a more considered discussion. The example I provided, one which is much more appropriate a comparison to this article's subject, has a similar number of honorifics included after their name, and why shouldn't they? We don't leave honorifics from after other politician's names just because they have a lot of them! While they're right to point out that a monarch like Elizabeth II doesn't have a similar list after her name, her infobox isn't structured in the same as this one, so it is a wrongful comparison. Hedgefall (talk) 09:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 02 July 2013

Please change the spelling of the name "Edelman" to "Eidelman".

Reference to "Witkin, Sidelsky and Eidelman" - Long Walk to Freedom: MacDonald Purnell 1995, p 66

 Done Thank you. Helen (talk) 07:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Treatment of children

What do the words "physically undemonstrative" mean in this article? If someone understands what was meant here, perhaps he or she can translate to English? Ciao. -- Y not? 18:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Seems like English to me. I interpret it to mean "not physically affectionate"--not hugging, hair-ruffling, back-clapping, what have you. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Family disuptes and controversies

The Mandela family feuds (summarised here by the New York Times [6]) have received extensive coverage in the South African media over the last 8 years or so, yet are not really covered in the article. From the initial Ismail Ayob controversy (removed from the article) to the recent attempts to remove George Bizos and others as trustees, and the current grave exhumation saga involving his grandson Mandla, the scandals involving Mandela's legacy and family should receive at least some mention in the article (in line with Wikipedia guidelines). The topic certainly isn't taboo in South Africa, so it shouldn't be taboo on Wikipedia. Park3r (talk) 10:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

But this article isn't about the whole family, so fitting it in will be difficult if not impossible. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thee legal actions directly relate to Mandela's own fortune and legacy, including his future grave site. They are certainly unseemly, but they are relevant. I can think of a few places where they'd fit in to the article. Park3r (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I propose the following edit. The sources are strong (Guardian, Telegraph and New York Times) and it doesn't give undue weight to the topics, despite the heavy media coverage:

Between 2005 and 2013, Mandela, and later his family, were embroiled in a series of legal disputes regarding money held in family trusts for the benefit of his descendants.

In mid-2013, as Mandela was hospitalised for a lung infection in Pretoria, his descendants were involved in a dispute relating to the burial place of Mandela's deceased children. Park3r (talk) 14:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence certainly seems like a good addition. The second seems a little off-topic for an article on Mandela himself, but it's brief--count me as ambivalent on that one, I guess. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Seems a lot like coatracking to me. All mention of his family should be removed from the proposed sentences. I would OK the first sentence only if it reads like this:

Between 2005 and 2013, Mandela was involved in a series of legal disputes regarding money held in family trusts for the benefit of his descendants.

Second sentence is OK if it says:

In mid-2013, Mandela was hospitalised for a lung infection in Pretoria.

We should not shoehorn in content about his family. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Wider family disputes are best kept out but if they engulf the treatment and burial of the man himself, and the handling of his legacy then it may be necessary to include them.

For reference the BBC have published the family tree which is useful for checking the various relationships. And if we are mentioning them more then please can they be described by reference to their relationship to Nelson and, if necessary, via which wife & child. Terms like, picking Thembela and Zaziwe at random, "half-first-cousin-once-removed" just tend to confuse most non-genealogists and lack the subtlety that can convey the particular standing of an individual. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

death/ vegetative state

an Australian newspaper wrongly announced his death and the tabloids today have said doctors are requesting his family turn off his life support because he is in a vegetative state, is he still alive?--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 20:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, this is not the place for speculation about or general discussion of the subject of the article. Rest assured this article will be updated within minutes if not seconds of a reliable source announcing his death. Helen (talk) 09:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Ditto. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Capture site picture

How about replacing the picture of the capture site with the new sculpture.

Could be tricky :) If you have a copyright free image in mind, please send us a link to it. Helen (talk) 12:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 July 2013

Although this is a minor gramatical point, it has the benefit of being easily fixed.

Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Mandela Subject Area: Revolutionary activity Section: Law studies and the ANC Youth League: 1943–1949 Location: Fourth paragraph

Is: "Gaining increasing influence in the ANC, Mandela and his cadres began ..."

Should be: "Gaining increasing influence in the ANC, Mandela and his cadre began ..."

Error description: The plural of "cadre" is "cadre" (i.e., they are the same). 199.209.255.246 (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Per Wiktionary and [7], I think the plural of "cadre" is "cadres". HueSatLum 16:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Legacy add

Mandela appeared as himself in the 1992 biopic Malcom X, playing himself talking to a classroom of children. --Matt723star (talk) 22:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Did he really play the part or did the movie makers simply splice a chunk of stock news footage into the movie? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

No he actually appeared in the film and quoted one of Malcolm X's speeches, seen here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=844oPFWG6Lg --Matt723star (talk) 08:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Although this fact is not deemed worthy enough for inclusion in most of Mandela's main biographies, this information has already been included in this Wikipedia article, albeit in the biographical text, and not in the Legacy section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I just assumed it would be in the legacy section because that's where things of that nature usually go in articles pertaining to people. --Matt723star (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

AIUI "Legacy" is what other people do in honour of someone - statues and naming parks, streets and schools etc. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Rodger Dodger; Mandela's cameo appearance in a film would not constitute part of his "legacy", instead being a part of his life story. The "Legacy" section is the place to put information on statues of Mandela, places named after him, and comments on him by major world figures and institutions. But thanks for contributing anyway, Matt. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

There is another legacy add that needs to be made here under the Film section. There is a new movie being released about the life of Mandela called "Mandela: Long Walk To Freedom", so it should be placed in the filmography section. According to the Internet Movie Database, Mandela will be played in the film by Idris Elba. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erinsm (talk • contribs) 06:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Tribute Show Category

There is a tribute show for Nelson Mandela by Valley Of the Kings 3D Films called 'Nuit De La Danse ~ MADIBA'. This is a docu-dance tribute chronicling the 9 most important phases of Nelson Mandela's life. web page www.valleyofthekings3dfilms.com Facebook Tribute Page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_semi-protected_edit_requests — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiffiny337 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

New Film to be added to subcategory under Legacy

Per the Internet Movie Database a new biopic has been completed entitled "Mandela: Long Walk To Freedom." Idris Elba is cast as a young Mandela. The film is due out on January 3, 2014 in the UK Erinsm (talk) 06:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 July 2013

The paper by Professor Stephen Ellis (Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, and former editor of African Affairs, London), "The Genesis of the ANC's armed struggle, 1948-1961" in the Journal of Southern African Studies, 2011 - available online from the Taylor & Francis website - establishes from archival sources that Nelson Mandela was a member of the South African Communist Party in the period 1960-62, which was itself the founder in that period of Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK). Ellis established that all members of the ANC who founded MK were members of the SACP at that time. He developed his studies in his book External Mission: The ANC in Exile, 1960-1990 (Jonathan Ball, Johannesburg, 2012, and Hurst & Co, London, 2012, due for publication by Oxford University Press USA in the United States later this year. Further confirmation will appear in the study by Professor Irina Filatova and Professor Apollon Davidson, The Hidden Thread, due for publication by Jonathan Ball in South Africa later this month. Both authors are senior Russian scholars. Their book is based on research in the archives of the former CPSU in Moscow.

Wikipedia's citations on this matter, in particular the authorised biography by the late Anthony Sampson, are out of date and unreliable.

I assisted Professor Ellis in his researches on this subject in the Stasi archives in former East Berlin in March last year.

I had a letter on this subject in the New York Review of Books, 6 June 2013.

- Paul Trewhela, Aylesbury, Britain

90.218.19.103 (talk) 08:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note about this. We'll have to look into it. Bear in mind that how to balance new claims with prior consensus is always tricky on Wikipedia, so including information about this may be a gradual process. In the meantime, can you link to any news stories/reviews/etc. about these books? It would help to show what impact Ellis' work is having. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Khazar; thank you for posting on this issue! It is certainly something that should be looked into. However, I also concur with them on the fact that we must determine what impact this new research has had in the field of South African history studies; for instance, are there any academics that challenge these ideas ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

What exactly is the addition to the article that you're requesting? That Mandela was the founding commander of MK or that he was a SACP member isn't a revelation, in fact it's fairly generally known. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I think what Mr Trewhela is saying here is that recent research proves that Mandela was indeed a member of the SACP; this is something that Mandela himself has long denied, and which is also denied in the authorised biography by Anthony Sampson. Both Mandela in Long Walk to Freedom and Sampson in Mandela: The Authorised Biography accept that Mandela was indeed associating with SACP members, particularly around the time of MK's foundation, but they have remained adamant that he wasn't a card carrying party member. This new data changes things, as it indicates that actually he really was a party member, and proceeded to hide this throughout the 1990s lest it harm the anti-apartheid struggle and his own electoral prospects. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I have incorporated an extra sentence with a reference to Ellis; it can be found in the biographical section detailing the foundation of MK. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Already done Mdann52 (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

rivonia trial

The link in the article has the wrong title, and links to a different speech. Can someone fix this please? thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.129.145.172 (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

To FA-Class

Why don't we set a peer review to see if we can take this into FA-Class? Toughts? Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 12:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

If you're interested, I say go for it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but I will need help from an expert user. Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 12:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You can potentially get that by going to peer review, or by asking someone you've worked with before who has experience with FA. Thanks for your interest in taking this on-- Khazar2 (talk) 12:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem, I am a huge fan of Mandela, ans so of MLK. Thanks for replying to my question. See you later, I'll see what I can get :) Have a good and peaceful day. Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 13:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Cool, good luck! It'd be great to get this to FA. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Yep. I hope the man gets well. Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 13:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

My personal view on this issue – as one of the major contributors to this page – is that an attempt to take this to FAC too soon would be rash. As much as I want to see it reach FA status in the future, I think that we have to accept that Mandela will probably die in the coming few years. And when that happens, a swarm of new information about Mandela will become available, with particular reference to his legacy. That would cause problems for a new FAC. In the meantime, there are many other problems facing the page. The quality of referencing in the final section is not particularly good, while the overall page length is 161,655 bytes; a stark contrast to Wikipedia's recommendation that pages not exceed 100,000 bytes. To clarify, I would not stand in the way of others who might wish to take this on to FA in the immediate future, and I would like to be a part of that FAC process when it finally occurs (preferably as a co-nominator), but I do not think that this page is FA quality at the moment Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Midnightblueowl. Oh, I just wanted a peer review, that way we can see grammar, spell, and other errors that the article may have. References prblems, etc... I haven't contribute to the article because is a big one (not because of its lenght but because of its importance) I consider Mandela as one of the most important persons in the entire world, so I don't want to mess up his article. I won't like to see the day when he dies :'(... Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 19:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment Miss Bono, and may I say it is always nice to see new editors here to help at this page! Regarding the issue of excess length (which will be the main barrier to FAC here), I think that we are going to have to look at splitting this article up into new ones (much as I am currently having to do over at Mao Zedong and Fidel Castro). Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words Midnight... I am always happy to help and much more if it is about great people like Mandela or MLK :), they are my heroes. If you need my help in anything regarding Mandela's article, please, don't hesitate in asking. Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 19:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Death TBC

Hi, I noticed that somebody has added Nelson Mandela death place and death date. Correct if I am wrong but I believe he is only on his deathbed, not actually dead yet. Just be aware as this could be seen as insensitive. Again I do apologies if this news is true, just a heads up Thanks Skurope (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, his death been officially announced. - Bilby (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm proposing to add a new sub-heading Declining health and death, for the last few paragraphs of the life part, starting with February 2011. Everything from that on is nothing but medical information, after all. --2.240.217.135 (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I have added a second reference - from one of the largest South African media companies. A "spare" reference is a good thing. I wonder is the page should perhaps be fully protected for a few days. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Death and state funeral of Nelson Mandela

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Seriously premature. This can be contained at Mandela's article. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support merge as giving Death and state funeral of Nelson Mandela (currently a redirect) its own article is premature.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• There is nothing to merge, simply delete and salt Death and state funeral of Nelson Mandela, because the continued existence of that page - even as a redirect is only going to attract editors who have no clue about how consensus works. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 01:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Done it as there is no point in an empty article (and already 2 editors have merged to be undone). Clear obvious consensus. When there is content then it can open up(Lihaas (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)).

Indeed. There is nothing to merge. I agree with Roger Dodger67. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.166.6.173 (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

superceded by events

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Moved to Talk:Death and state funeral of Nelson Mandela

Suggest removing or rewriting Kosovo reference

Mandela's stance on Kosovo appears to have been far more subtle than the brief mention would lead one to believe. See, for example, his speech in the UN Kosovo report and its concluding reference to him. The complete speech from which many of the Mandela quotes in the cited source were taken can be found here, and it also fails to adequately support the claim. "He strongly opposed the 1999 NATO intervention in Kosovo and called it an attempt by the world's powerful nations to police the entire world" suggests a national sovereignty agenda; it appears more accurate to say that Mandela was advocating deference to democratic institutions and not actually criticizing the Kosovo intervention, merely criticizing how it was unilaterally decided upon. The article's current statement thus constitutes misleading selective quotation. --MZB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:8B2D:7E0:B060:EFA4:830F:EE6 (talk) 05:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Death

It's official. He's dead. I can't edit it but Zuma announced it now. ТНОМАЅ МАСКЕТ (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Sadly true, but already edited. Go Phightins

Kudos to ye who got this updated before it has even hit google news. Hats off to you sir.

! 21:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I was sitting in front of the TV. Not something to be proud of but I updated within 10 seconds. RIP Mandela. Teammm ^talk
_email 22:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done

The death part in the sidebar is broken 120.150.157.73 (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. Fixed many hours ago. 220 of ^Borg 07:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 December 2013

Robben Island: 1962–1982 section ...should be changed to: 1964-1982 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.158.101.11 (talk) 02:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done Fixed thanks. He was there for a fortnight in 1962 but that does not seem to be covered in the current text. If someone adds that information, the heading can be changed back. HelenOnline 07:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Death page?

Due to his status as a legendary and revolutionary figure, will there be a page just for his death? Or is it not entirely notable? --Matt723star (talk) 23:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

When there is too much infomation for this article, sure. Until then, it's pointless in such a high quality article to split out a section that is currently two sentences. Soon, perhaps. Today? No. We don't need to crystal ball how many people will send condolences or on how many news stories covered the event. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

That's normal only for controversial or mysterious deaths. Rothorpe (talk) 6:34 pm, Today (UTC−5)

(ecx2) It's premature, the death section currently contains only two sentences and three references. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the section is not long enough yet. I think there could be consideration at merging the illness and death information together since the death section is so small. I have added more prominent and in-depth sources, formatted and cited all information to bring them in line with what you'd expect for a GA's references. Mkdw^talk 00:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The section's still not long enough, but the article already links to the separate Death and Funeral of Nelson Mandela article. Did someone jump the gun? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.177.8.26 (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I did, I was the one who jump the gun. I had done it when Margaret Thatcher died and it turned out ok. I though it would have been ok to create the page as soon as he died. Apparently I should have waited a day until more info about the funeral had came out and what he died of, so I apologize that I jumped the gun on this. I do plan to reopen the page as later as tomorrow at the earliest if and when there is more info, but again very sorry. Nhajivandi (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Do NOT PLAN on opening the page tomorrow at the earliest. We can split WHEN we have long contentLihaas (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Is there an Admin reaing this, please delete that page NOW please. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Lihaas, I have apologize and if you choose not to accept it, that if fine. its up to accept a apology or not, but I will say this and I will repeat what I wrote in the talk page for the death and funeral page."I stand by what i did and this page may be needed as early as tomorrow" there are already some info in the funeral already out there and more will be release in the next few hours. and another thing I said as well "if I have to be ridiculed and shamed for what I did than so be it because I thought I was doing something right by creating this page as a good Wikipedian". All I try to do as a editor is right and that was what I was doing when I created the page. it will be very hard to reopen the page if it is closed so i ask that it remain open as it will be needed either tomorrow or in the next few days. Thank you Nhajivandi (talk) 01:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

@Nhajivandi: at the moment, there appears to be WP:CONSENSUS that a separate page on Mandela's death and funeral is not needed. Just add the content to the appropriate section here, and we can discuss a split at some point in the future if it becomes warranted. VQuakr (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I also fail to see the desire to rush the creation of a rather redundant article as a dreadful stub, compared with this comprehensive and well-sourced article, which happens to cover the life, and now death, of this great man. Surely his many accomplishments would be more notable and take priority for splitting. For example, Negotiations to end apartheid in South Africa is itself a broad article that covers far too many details for this article to contain. Such is not true of the section covering his death. Hope this makes sense to everyone. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 09:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Request moved here from my talk page

The message below was moved from my talk page as I prefer to discuss articles on article talk pages as stated on the top of my talk page:

"Dear Helen,

Thank you for the work you've done on the Nelson Mandela page (the late, great, and honorable Nelson Mandela). I see that editing restrictions are currently in place so I'm writing you as the last contributor. As a modest suggestion, I wonder if you might agree that a link to the "List of South African newspapers" page could be appropriate. Even better, links to their respective Letters to the Editor. In that way, I believe the outpouring of support that can be expected might in some small way be enhanced. If you agree with me. I am very willing to track down those links for your review.

Sincerely,

Jim VanOpdorp — Preceding unsigned comment added by JZVan (talk • contribs) 07:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)" HelenOnline 08:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Sorry, I don't believe such links are appropriate for this article. There might be scope for adding something to Reactions to the death of Nelson Mandela if that article is not deleted but it would need to be in encyclopedic format. I understand people are drawn to Wikipedia whenever there is a major event given its high profile online, but please keep in mind it is an encyclopedia not a general platform for various other online content. HelenOnline 10:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Good call, Helen. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not HelenOnline, but I wished to add my thoughts to the suggestion by Jim VanOpdorp above:

Jim, if I understood you correctly, you may wish to determine if the article Reactions to the death of Nelson Mandela falls within your purpose, and if so, you might re-post your suggestion to its Talk page.

I did have concerns about your suggestion, though. It is my opinion that it is better to place text directly into a Wikipedia article sufficient to convey the full meaning of the reference in stand-alone fashion, without the need to visit its source (except of course for verification purposes). I understand your wish to point to various Letters to the Editor pages and don't yet know what will appear, but I think it might give the impression that future external content had been verified by Wikipedia, or approved, or deemed encyclopaedic. Even such a misplaced perception of an endorsement is dangerous, judging from some of the letters to editors that I have read over the decades. <y other concern is that although South African newspapers are most likely to be relevant, Mr. Mandela in some sense "belonged to the world". There could be a claim of bias. But these are just my thoughts. Please take a look at the Reactions article. With thanks from ChrisJBenson (talk) 12:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request 06/12/2013

The last sentence of the "Umkhonto we Sizwe and African tour: 1961–1962" section needs a bunch of capitalization corrections... Algeria, Ahmed Benbella, Tambo, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.174.22.26 (talk) 12:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Article Neutrality 2013/12/06

There are 382 total footnotes. 331 of these footnotes reference one of only three sources: Mandela 1994, Smith 2010, and Sampson 2011. That means that 89% of this article is referenced by only three resources. That creates a question of neutrality.

In addition, all three sources are used to support each reference. This gives significant undue weight to a minority view.

Moreover, according to a separate article, Anthony Sampson was a personal friend of Mandela. This creates a question of source bias.

Article marked until this is resolved. --Mikeyfaces (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't necessarily follow that the article is not neutral though? Better to say which parts you don't think are neutral here, so we have something to discuss otherwise it just looks like disruptive editing. Theroadislong (talk) 14:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Nothing has been edited yet. A NPOV tag has been added, and a talk discussion has been created. (1) All relevant points cannot be presented when 89% of the article is sourced from three separate sources. (2) Bias is introudced because, of these three sources, one is the subject, another was a personal friend, and the third is used to substantiate the previous two. (3) Significant weight is given to a minority of sources. Culling these or adding more sources is the easiest route to remedying the situation.--Mikeyfaces (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Users are repeatedly removing the NPOV tag without addressing this discussion of source weight. "An editor should not remove the tag merely because he or she feels the article does comply with NPOV: The tag should be removed only when there is a consensus that the disputes have indeed been resolved."--Mikeyfaces (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.Theroadislong (talk) 15:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC).Theroadislong (talk) 15:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Theroadislong here. The use of the NPOV tag is premature and should be removed immediately. I'm not an expert in penalties here at Wikipedia, but I am under the impression that constant re-addition will be seen as edit warring and might result in sanctions. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

As an experienced Wikipedia editor and a major contributor to this article, who played a key role in getting it up to GA status earlier this year, I must express my respectful disagreement with Mikeyfaces. In order to be upgraded to GA status, this article had to be thoroughly scrutinised for POV, and I'm glad to say that it passed. At the time, some concerns were raised about the POV of the article, and they were addressed and dealt with in a polite and reasoned manner; it is for this reason that the introduction notes that some right-wing critics viewed Mandela as a communist sympathiser and a terrorist. If, however, you think that there are still instances of text within the article that reflect a particular POV, then please let us know so that we can discuss them, but if you cannot do that then I would hope that you retract your initial accusation. Furthermore, I think that you have misinterpreted Wikipedia's NPOV policy in asserting that the repeated use of the same biographies is POV; look at FA articles such as that of Nikita Khruschev and you shall see that they, too, rely on the use of a select group of specialist biographies by experts in the subject. The alternative – which you seem to be advocating – would be to build up this article with a wide range of newspaper reports and web links from disparate sources, which would not only be a complete mess but also suffer from the fact that these sources have no specialism in the study of Mandela. That is not the way to build up good Wikipedia articles that can reach GA and FA. All the best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thats the purpose of tags. Just because its current doesnt haev to be removed without discussion. And yes the self-referencing here to mandela#'s own primary source is not encyclopaedic. (unless with due caveat).

Do not war on the tag to keep it ready for "200k page views why "ruin" the page".Lihaas (talk) 15:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

"The editor who adds the tag should first discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, and should add this tag only as a last resort. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor." It is unclear to me what the NPOV violation is supposed to be. Please clarify exactly where you think the NPOV violation is instead of making vague unsupported accusations. If you think the article can be sourced better, then by all means add better sources. If you think facts in the article are incorrect, please state specifics so they can be addressed. HelenOnline 15:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I second HelenOnline's excellent points. However, I would advise that you not add "better sources" without discussing them with us here first, else we end up with an edit war on our hands. As the article stands, it makes us of Mandela's official biography, his autobiography, another significant biography, a biographical study of his early life, and a number of academic papers. How exactly could one find "better sources" ? Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

International Reactions/Comments on the Death of Nelson Mandela

Right now, international organizations and government officials are releasing statements regarding his death. What are the procedures regarding citing the numerous comments made during news events like this? Rselby1 (talk) 02:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

See Reactions to the death of Nelson Mandela. --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

(See Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden or International reactions to the death of Muammar Gaddafi for examples.) --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. My nest question is this: Nelson Mandela is an influential figure, but which quotes are truly influential enough to cite on Wikipedia? I've seen reactions to his death from people including Boris Johnson and Charles Lollar. I am certain that there should be a line as to who is not notable enough to be quoted here, but where should that line be drawn? Rselby1 (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Depends which camp you ask. My stance is that we shouldn't compile a directory of quotes (Wikiquotes does nicely on that front) from every political fof'n around the globe. However, the other viewpoint is that we should include as much verifiable information as we can find, and that perhaps down the line somebody will arrange it from a list into paragraphs. As a tertiary source, we should be looking at including condolences that are impactful. The government newsticker comes out with statements constantly; this is a primary source. Important condolences are filtered out and echoed in editorials and articles; a secondary source. Our job is then to summarize these secondary sources, taking care to avoid undue weight to any particular viewpoint (e.g. what importance is a statement by the Canadian government in comparison to one by the South African government or his next of kin? The current list of reactions implies an equal importance to every condolence). - Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Sebokeng massacre

The article contains a wikilink with the text "Sebokeng massacre" that actually just links to the township Sebokeng, which does not mention any massacre. Any more info on this? Reference is a book I don't have access to. Nicolas1981 (talk) 17:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Here: Richard_Goldstone#Sebokeng_Inquiry_and_Goldstone_Commission --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Death date

DEATH

Nelson mandela died on December 06, 2013 Friday Vysusvcreas (talk) 19:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect. He died Thursday, December 5th, shortly before 21:00 local time. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

This statement should be revised

"Although Mandela was a controversial figure for much of his life, he became widely popular following his release. Despite right-wing critics who continued to denounce him as a communist sympathiser and terrorist, he gained international acclaim for his activism."

There are many politicians from center and left as well who have criticized mandela for his terrorist actions(Thepalerider2012 (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC))

The lede is supposed to summarize the body. The only relevant content I can find is, "Thatcher considered Mandela a communist terrorist and supported the suppression of the ANC." which is talking about Mandela, pre-release. Therefore I think "despite right-wing critics who continued to denounce him as a communist" should come out or be sourced properly. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

First, I think I should point out that by referring to what you perceive to be Mandela's "terrorist actions" you have already shown your own POV on this issue; the definition of "terrorism" is largely subjective, and there are many people out there who would not consider Mandela and the early MK to be "terrorists"; here the old adage of "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" comes into play. Second, having largely constructed this article using the most prominent biographical and historical accounts of Mandela's life and times, it is clear that the overwhelming majority of the criticism aimed at Mandela came from the political Right; both from domestic right-wing groups like the Nationalist Party and the AWB, and from foreign rightists like Thatcher's Conservative government in the UK. Yes it is quite possible that there have been leftist and centrist figures who have accused Mandela of being a communist sympathiser and a terrorist, but I have found no reliable evidence for that, and it remains clear that the overwhelming majority of criticism of him on these points came from the Right. For this reason I would support retaining the text as it stands. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you said but still think the sentence needs to have cites showing Mandela was criticized for being a communist sympathizer and terrorist while he was garnering acclaim. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Part of the problem is that the sentence we are discussing has been changed quite a bit in the last 24 hours. The text used to read "Mandela has been a controversial figure for much of his life. Right-wing critics denounced him as a terrorist and communist sympathiser. He nevertheless gained international acclaim for his anti-colonial and anti-apartheid stance..." It has recently been changed to "Although Mandela was a controversial figure for much of his life, he became widely popular following his release. Despite right-wing critics who continued to denounce him as a communist sympathiser and terrorist, he gained international acclaim for his activism,...", which of course actually adds a different emphasis to the prose, one which is no longer supported by the references that appear in the rest of the article. I am more than happy to see it changed back, if you agree. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds more accurate and closer to what existing sources state. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I have made the revert to the original, more accurate prose. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Can we possibly get increased protection for the page at the moment ?

Due to the sudden news of Mandela's death, this page has seen a dramatic increase in the amount of people viewing it, and, as a result, to the number of people editing it. Unfortunately, most of these edits – though often well meaning – are clearly detrimental, for instance dragging trivia into the introductory paragraphs and messing up the clarity of prose. It's been left to a handful of more experienced editors to clean up and police the page, so as a result, I was wondering if we could impose stricter limits on who can edit this page for the time being. Any thoughts ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Even though the subject of this article is recently deceased, the "spirit" of BLP still applies here. People need to be very mindful of that. --Somchai Sun (talk) 15:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Somchai Sun. The idea that an article experiencing a new and, increased volume of traffic should be automatically restricted and left for "experienced" editors is imo very contrary to the fundamentals of wiki.

198.228.201.156 (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)