Talk:Truth and Reconciliation Commission (South Africa)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Additions needed

Under the "Impact" Section, this article really should mention Jane Taylor's "Ubu and the Truth Commission," which was a multimedia play performed by the Handspring Puppet Company. It's getting some critical attention in the academic community. 160.36.251.95 15:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Teresa Hooper, Tennessee

Truth commission to Truth and Reconciliation Commission

This is a heads up.See Talk:Truth commission, a requested move has been proposed to move Truth commission to Truth and Reconciliation Commission which is currently a redirect to this page. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Trclogo.gif

Image:Trclogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Cry Freedom

I think it is useful to allow a mention of the film "Cry Freedom" in relation to Steve Biko. The person who decided to cut that information from the article did so on the basis that "Cry Freedom" was not Biko's main claim to fame. But to mention that his life was later featured in that film does not entail that we think the film was his main claim to fame; just that it is a noteworthy fact. "Cry Freedom" was a very high-profile film, shown all over the world. It did go into the story of Steve Biko's life in some detail, and it is true that it brought his story to people who had not previously been aware of it - just as "Erin Brockovich" did, vis a vis the life of Erin Brockovich, and "Hotel Rwanda" did, vis a vis the life of Paul Rusesabagina. It seems reasonable to suppose, given the wide circulation of "Cry Freedom", that some people reading this article might remember seeing the film, and might remember the story featured in that film of a young Apartheid activist being murdered in police custody, but won't necessarily remember all the names of all the people featured in that film. By mentioning that Steve Biko was the self-same activist whose story was featured in "Cry Freedom", I would therefore argue that we are adding useful context. It seems a shame to cut that context out. 86.159.141.218 19:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms section needed

This article feels somewhat biased, especially with the line "The TRC was a crucial component of the transition to full and free democracy in South Africa and, despite some flaws, is generally regarded as very successful." No flaws are listed, and most every statement in the article is pro-TRC. I think it may be good to add a criticisms section. We could mention the Biko family who were famously against amnesty and P.W. Botha's refusal to seek amnesty which resulted in merely a fine against the old President. Rab V 11:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

On the other side, the TRC could be viewed as an instrument of propaganda. It is more than questionable whether the confessions were true. And what's more, the far greater crimes of the anti-apartheid-movement were never mentioned. Therefore, to put it mildly, the TRC was completely one-sided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harald4244 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Some suggestions for editors

Hi! I don't know very much about the TRC, so I can't answer any of these questions, but here are some things I was hoping this article would cover that it does not.

1. When did it start, when did it end? Where there phases?
2. Of the people granted or denied amnesty, who were they what was the make up of the different groups of petitioners?
3. Way more details about the findings and report.
4. How the TRC came about, why was it chosen as a format and how did it get set up?
5. How does the TRC fit into the context of any other trials and things that happened?
6. What happened to the people denied amnesty?
7. What did each of the committees find?
8. What were the format of the commission events? Were witnesses cross examined? Were people asking each other questions or responding to each other? What type of evidence was gathered? Were there lawyers or other prosecutors or defence lawyers or whatever involved?

Good luck! Lot 49a^talk 08:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Media

The hearings were not televised live for seven hours a day during the first week. I am researching this thoroughly and have got details from the broadcaster logs of the time. Joe Thloloe wrote an ambiguous article in the Nieman Reports which suggested there was more live broadcasting than there was. I am thus adjusting this statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EmjayE2 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

liberation forces

Please, Jeandré du Toit, could you stop using the term liberation forces to refer to groups and organisations that were opposed to the apartheid (like the ANC). It is a one-sided term that has no place here - there is no mention of in your source, and even if there was it is a perverted term diffused by supporters of the ANC to their personal gain.

On a more personal note could you please tell me who was actually liberated? The whites who are now stuck in closed neighbourhoods due to the explosion in crime since the liberation forces came to power? The blacks who are now stuck at home since there are no more jobs since the liberation forces came to power? The coloureds, indians and whites who don't even have the liberty to go to press conferences since the liberation forces came to power? Please, who was liberated? ChrisDHDR 18:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Your first paragraph above is relevant, but the second is irrelevant, and also betrays an unhealthy amount of POV. Please stick to improving the article. Zaian (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I clearly noted that the second paragraph was on a more personal note - ie. not connected to the article where such POV would be unacceptable. I'll be back after lent. ChrisDHDR 18:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

"As the leader of the liberation forces that will eventually take power, Mandela has not suffered the steady erosion of support among his constituent base that has bedeviled de Klerk." [1]. -- Jeandré, 2009-03-01t13:21z

The report refers to the opponents of the state and its allies as "liberation movements":

“ The Commission interpreted this provision in the broadest sense and was able to establish forums for a variety of topics. Public hearings were held to enquire into the roles of the state, the liberation movements, the political parties and various different sectors of society ” — Truth and Reconciliation Commission, "Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa Report, Volume 5" (Document). 1998. p. 8. {{cite document}}: Cite document requires |publisher= (help); Unknown parameter |chapter= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |url= ignored (help)

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Biased article

This article is highly biased - it fails to mention that the TRC brought just one prosecution (in 2004, which was made for political purposes) or that it was packed with ANC sympathizers and religious figures who were absurdly biased. Remember when the AWB tried to storm the proceedings having deemed them moot, or when PW Botha refused to show up and called the TRC a 'circus'? Remember when its interim report of 1998 had to be re-edited to remove outrageously biased reports concerning political figures? To say it was 'generally regarded as very successful' or that it was a 'crucial component of the transition' is erroneous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdpalmas (talk • contribs) 12:34, 11 July 2006

The Second paragraph of the Criticisms Section seems heavily laced with author opinion:

While former president F.W. de Klerk appeared before the commission and reiterated his apology for the suffering caused by apartheid, many black South Africans were angered at amnesty being granted for human rights abuses committed by the apartheid government. The BBC has described such criticisms as stemming from a "basic misunderstanding" about the TRC's mandate,[3] which was to uncover the truth about past abuse, using amnesty as a mechanism, rather than to punish past crimes. But such criticims might more accurately be described as principled objections to the TRC's mandate - namely that, by offering an irrevocable amnesty to self-confessed torturers and murderers, albeit with the lauded aim of revealing truth, the TRC was actually engaging in a further abuse of victims' rights by denying them any possibility of justice.

Whilst the use of the BBC citation is good, the alternative interpretation is wholly author opinion and should probably be replaced with citation from a source who stated a similar view-point. The author then effectively concludes that the TRC 'abused' victims rights. This does not meet the impartiality standards I would expect from a Wikipedia entry. DavidParkes 15:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Somebody definitely needs to find a valid source for that that alternate interpretation. I find the BBC's conclusion that opposition to the commission must be a result of "misunderstanding" its purpose to be baseless, when it's far more plausible that critics simply considered the idea of truth without justice to be invalid. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Intro: Timeline needed, as well as statement comparing Nuremburg trials vs TaR

Not only does not article need a complete timeline, there should also be a line in the intro summarising the timeline. It would also be of use that the intro inform that the South African TaRC is the original of such TaRCs. Also, the philosophical underpinnings trading justice for truth need to be introduced. Thank you to further editors — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.189.245.231 (talk) 07:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Truth and Reconciliation Commission (South Africa). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150527195343/http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/98-4NRwint98/Thloloe.html to http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/98-4NRwint98/Thloloe.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070726044915/http://www.jannturner.co.za/films.php to http://www.jannturner.co.za/films.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Truth and Reconciliation Commission (South Africa). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060617145105/http://gbgm-umc.org/nwo/99ja/different.html to http://gbgm-umc.org/NWO/99ja/different.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sahistory.org.za/pages/people/biko%2Cs.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Comparison with Nuremburg trials

The article states the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was different from the Nuremburg trials, but it doesn't say in what way or ways it was different. I think it would help to put in some explanatory text there. Wile E. Heresiarch (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it didn't dish out 'sentences' in that way those mock trials were different. Both ignored rules of evidence, though. Something the Charta of the IMT Nuremberg mentions even explicitly (Articles 19,21 of its charta). Robert Jackson (Chief of Counsel for the United States) also said: "As a military tribunal, this Tribunal is a continuation of the war effort of the Allied nations". The TRC wasn't that frank in its approach, but by its cast of characters like Desmond Tutu and others, it actually was quite clear that the purpose was to put the old regime and Afrikaners in general on the accusation bench. So both were an effort in gaslighting a nation or population group after all. That's of course not how it's portrayed nowadays, but careful reading of the records (and knowing the atmosphere) reveals exactly this. --105.12.4.132 (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

End of TRC

I want to know how did the TRC ended 41.116.128.102 (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)