Talk:Rhodes Must Fall/Archive 1

Archive 1

Headings

Here is a suggestion for headings for the page:

1 Origins
1.1 Cecil John Rhodes/colonialism
1.2 Institutional racism
1.3 White privilige
2 Overview
2.1 Goals
2.2 Protester demographics
2.3 Black Monday
3 Occupy Bremner
4 University Response
5 Spread of campaign
5.1 UKZN
5.2 Rhodes University
5.3 EFF vow to help
Jacobmacmillan (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

- Citation for it spreading nationwide http://mg.co.za/article/2015-03-26-defacing-statues-an-important-part-of-revolution 81.31.113.218 (talk) 09:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

This article has a lot of room for development, it currently oversimplifies the topic. I will try add in bits and pieces in my spare time Jacobmacmillan (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Queen Victoria

Statues of Dublin: The unveiling (and removal) of Queen Victoria. Axxter99 (talk) 09:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 12 April 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 14:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

---

Rhodes Must Fall → Statue of Cecil Rhodes, University of Cape Town – The statue is the primary topic of the article, and other controversial statues within wider protests are titled as such, eg. Goddess of Democracy, Joe Paterno statue, Stalin Monument, and Nelson's Pillar. As the South African protest movement against colonial era statues has blossomed, this should perhaps be reflected in a broader article. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose The primary topic of the article is the movement not the statue. I don't see how the proposed title would make it a broader article (only the contrary). HelenOnline 06:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose For the same reasons as stated by HelenOnline above. It is an article about the movement to topple the statues and not the statue its self. The toppling of this and other statues is more of a side effect of the movement which has broader goals than just statues.--Discott (talk) 12:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

---

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Marion Walgate, husband of architect Charles Walgate

Not knowing anything about this couple, I cannot say for certain that it is not true. But it seems unlikely. Klausok (talk) 11:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC) Same here! PurpleChez, 4/28/15, 10:20 EST (I can't log in) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.249.207.195 (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Artefacts about Charles Percival Walgate: "he met his future wife, Marion Mason, a fellow student at the RCA where she was studying sculpture, they married in 1912" Vysotsky (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Krotao bench - 24 September 2015

• http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Khoisan-leaders-in-court-for-allegedly-vandalising-disgraceful-tribute-bench-20150925
• http://beta.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/western-cape/cape-calls-khoisan-activists-thugs-1920621

Axxter99 (talk) 05:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed move: Alleged death threats against and physical intimidation of female lecturer

I am not so sure about the section titled "Alleged death threats against and physical intimidation of female lecturer" being in this article. It seems to me that it would be better placed on Chumani Maxwele's Wikipedia page rather than this one as although the event might have taken place during the Rhodes Must Fall movement and/or involve one of the movement's leaders it is not necessarily something that is directly relevant to the movement. Whilst on the other hand it does directly involve Chumani Maxwele. I therefore propose that this section be moved to the page Chumani Maxwele.--Discott (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Discott, thanks for your comment. I respectfully disagree, Maxwele has been the face of RMF and this was a major event during the protests. It's not really possible to separate the two. RMF has supported Maxwele at every stage. --BookshelfZA (talk) 23:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi BookshelfZA, I am not convinced of that and feel that the event can be separated from the two (Rhodes Must Fall and Maxwele). I think we should ask other editors to give their opinions on this matter.--Discott (talk) 13:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Discott, I think today's events indicate that RMF is the genesis of a broad network of related events, which should at least be referenced to the main article — Preceding unsigned comment added by BookshelfZA (talk • contribs) 13:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that is fair and accurate, although I also think we should definately start a new article for #FeesMustFall as well. Wiki-markup does not seem to like things that have a "#" in their title though.--Discott (talk) 14:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I am still for moving the section to Maxwele's page though.--Discott (talk) 11:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Strong support Discott's proposal for moving this to Maxwele's page. The incident happened in his personal capacity as a UCT student, not at a meeting/protest or any such RMF related activity. While RMF supported him to fight the action taken against him, that is the only thing that is maybe relevant to the article. Further, Chumani is not the leader of RMF, RMF has a decentralised structure and to associate his actions in his personal capacity as a student with RMF is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobmacmillan (talk • contribs) 14:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Open Stellenbosch

An interviewee from the OS documentary was photographed during the attach on Elsenburg. Therefore, OS is highly implicated in this incident. I do not think it is right to declare that OS was not involved in the attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BookshelfZA (talk •q contribs) 21:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but Luister is not an OS documentary. Produced by non-RMF UCT students.196.24.134.18 (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

OK. This needs to be explained in the paragraph and justified because from social media it appears to have the endorsement of OS. Thanks for pointing this out - the objective here is to get the full facts reflected properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BookshelfZA (talk • contribs) 21:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

No worries, sorry if my tone was confrontational, with South Africa being the country that it is there is a clear racist bias from some editors, much of the page is quite problematic (focus on certain not very relevant issues while ignoring the more pertinent ones), I will address it when I can.Jacobmacmillan (talk) 15:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Whilst I am not so sure about there being any racial bias going on on this page (South Africans in my observation tend to pounce on race as their default answer to most things) I do agree that there is some degree of systemic bias and I agree that this page could do with more balance from receiving contributions from a wider verity of people thereby representing a greater diversity of points of view. So I feel that such edits would be of great value on this page. I also agree with Jacobmacmillan that there is some degree of focus on a "few not very relevant issues that ignore more pertinent ones" so I support more edits to try and rectify this.--Discott (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Discott, I will do my best after my exams finish. I think though, that the systemic bias in this case is a racial bias (not necessarily a conscious bias, though) given the demographics of South African English wikipedians.Jacobmacmillan (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

That's a fair point.--Discott (talk) 10:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Difference between the organisation and the movement

Looking for some guidance; Rhodes Must Fall is both a movement (for specifically, the fall of the statue, and also decolonization of education, among other things) that many people were/are actively involved in, but it also is an organisation based at UCT with their own often more radical views, aims and methods. The organisation began the movement, but in comparison to the amount of people involved (across the country) the organisation is very small. How would this be addressed in the article as the two are equivocated regularly? cc: BookshelfZA and Discott. Jacobmacmillan (talk) 14:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jacobmacmillan, I agree that it is part of a bigger movement. In my observation that larger movement of other university students is largely, although perhaps not fully, captured in the #FeesMustFall article. There might be a need for another article that captures an even broader movement that these movements might be part of but I would wait and see if that is the case (and other people have written about it) before such an umbrella type article is created.--Discott (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Bosstopher

Hi Bosstopher2 - I am so sorry that you have taken exception to my edit. Your feelings are evidently bruised too so should we pamper you? There is nothing absurd about my edit, qv. It's time to say No to our pampered student emperors www.telegraph.co.uk. I could accept your Point of View, had you simply deleted the word "whimsical", but you have deleted my contribution in its entirety which most definitely deals with Reaction to Rhodes Must Fall and, unless you can elucidate why this is not so, please do not suppress "Reaction" - this newspaper article which has been read millions of times could not be described as anything other than reaction to the Rhodes Must Fall campaign. M Mabelina (talk) 22:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Mabelina, I wouldn't exactly call my feelings bruised. It's more that I'm astounded that an experienced editor could make such an amazingly bad and POVish edit. The issue is that you are writing in Wikipedia's voice that RMF is "whimsical." You then state that "most British academics and historians" an alleged fact you've pulled out of god-knows-where. You then mention "listed buildings" which seems once again to be you bringing your own personal POV in, because Mount never mentions the statue being listed as a reason for opposing its destruction. I'll rephrase it into an actual representation of the source and hope that solves the problem. Please remember that Wikipedia articles are not a place for you to write your own personal opinionsBosstopher2 (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

@Bosstopher2: thank you for producing a most reasonable rewording of Harry Mount's reaction to RMF & with regards to the other points about most British academics and historians as well as the listed status of the monument I shall let it pass given the whole issue is highly topical, but the weight of academic support in opposition is heavy (but without providing original research on this, I can't prove it - not that many internet sources can be viewed as impirical evidence for that matter!) and the statue is a listed monument - that is a fact! Thanks for your help & reason - Happy New Year. M Mabelina (talk) 23:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

& I hope the Greeks do not get unnecessarily worried when they hear "Rhodes Must Fall"!

One Settler One Bullet

I'm OK with the wording which simply makes reference to the the chant, but think the assertion that it is *not* a call to violence is debatable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BookshelfZA (talk • contribs) 21:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

It must be seen in context, it originated as a rallying cry during apartheid where non-violent protest was illegal. Students see this as a continuation of the struggle to end white supremacy (not whites), so use old struggle slogans/songs. Cannot be taken literally.196.24.134.18 (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with BookshelfZA, the assertion that it is not a call to violence is highly debatable and it something that would be better discussed on the chant's Wikipedia talk page.--Discott (talk) 15:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

196.24.134.18 I would also suggest that you get a username, it will increase your credability and will make following these discussions easier for all of us. Thanks,--Discott (talk) 15:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, it was me I just couldn't login. I think that it is important to realise that while the rallying cry during apartheid was definitely a call to violence (a violence that had a lot of justification, given that non-violent protest was illegal and non-violent protesters were brutalised), it was certainly not used in that manner during the protests. I will scour for sources and such when I have time. But essentially, there was no violent conduct that happened at any time around the chanting of OS,OB - so the burden of proof, I think, lies with those who say that it is a call to violence.Jacobmacmillan (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not convinced. If something explicitly states "X" but those who state it, no matter how genuinely, insist it means something else; then the burden is on those stating "X" to explain why it does not mean what "X" explicitly states but instead means something very different. It is unreasonable to expect others to automatically know that it does not mean what it explicitly states. I do however have some sympathy for your argument however in that, these days at least, it is common knowledge that the French national anthem does not in fact literally call for "impure blood" to "soak our fields!" However, I would argue, it is still reasonable to expect someone singing that section of the song to explain that in the context of a volatile situation between France and some other group, why it is not in fact a call for violence. The closest retort to that I can think of is that it is 'common knowledge' a weak claim that can not be made for the "one settler, one bullet" slogan. Anyway, as I discussed before a more relavent place to discuss this would be on the chant's Wikipedia talk page.--Discott (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

NPOV?

By reading the article as it is written now, it seems like it justifies and endorses the motives, ideology and tactics of the “Rhodes Must Fall” movement. In the “See also” section, links point to articles that asserts the supposed “righteousness” of the movement, while other parts of the text linking the movement with Julius Malema’s EFF are cited only briefly.--MaGioZal (talk) 05:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi MaGioZal, could you please expand on how you feel it is perceived to justify the motives of the RMF movement? I am also not sure what additional relevance to Malema this article has apart from the section mentioned. Would be great if you could expand on that issue as well please. Thanks, --Discott (talk) 09:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)