Talk:Sharpeville massacre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Number Killed Discrepancy 2 Article problems 3 This Is Wrong! 4 Editorial in The Times 5 Picture 6 Loaded Language 7 UN Reaction

[edit] Number Killed Discrepancy

the number of people killed differs in Sharpeville massacre from Pan_Africanist_Congress which is correct? Engleman 02:33, 2004 Jun 1 (UTC)

There was no command given to shoot, it wasn't the apartheid goverments policy to shoot at black protestors.

[edit] Article problems

I've flagged the article for several issues, but mainly they can all be summarised as so: the article presents the information in a narrative form as if the article itself is a report on the incident. It does not have the correct encyclopedic "arm's length" view, which could be achieved by properly referencing other published works. In one fell swoop this means the article has problems of verifiability, original research, neutrality and bias. This should be addressed by rewriting in said arm's length "encyclopedic tone". In addition, the title, although popular in the media, implies a very clear and strong point of view which should be avoided. "Sharpville shootings" seems like a viable alternative. Zunaid 15:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Then go right ahead and fix it Zunaid. mhunter 06:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought the people gathered was 3000-5000?...LazyManJackson 14:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This Is Wrong!

My textbooks say that the pass books were passed in S.Africa before the Sharpeville Massacre! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skippytim (talk • contribs) 04:43, 24 October 2006

That is correct. The article dose not state the the pass books were passed after Sharepeville, but it is not clear on the time reference. I will try improve this. —Gary van der Merwe ^(Talk) 13:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editorial in The Times

The article currently has a very dubious section added in a single anonymous submission in February 2005, saying the following:

"According to the Times newspaper ... the young police officers, shocked by the carnage they had created, rushed to help casualties into the ambulances."

This portrayal of the police is ludicrous - it sounds like PW at his most cynical, or Cliff Saunders the SABC apartheid apologist. I don't have the 1960 text of The Times article, but I found other sources referring to it. The White Tribe of Africa (BBC, 1987) quotes it referring to the "wicked myth of apartheid" and the "blind obstinacy of Verwoerd", and [1] refers to "an editorial in The Times of London uncharacteristically critical of the police". I think it's very unlikely that it portrayed shocked and helpful policeman rushing forward to help their victims.

The paragraph goes on to water it down further, portraying the massacre as a sort of accident, with the following POV excuse:

It could therefore be concluded that the cause of the Sharpeville massacre was not only that the government was oppressive, but also because of the inexperience of the police officers present which caused them to lose control of the situation and start firing on the crowd.

Can anyone supply the actual text of the Times article? Otherwise I think this section should be completely removed or rewritten. Zaian 20:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is it: [2]. —Gary van der Merwe ^(Talk) 20:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, useful reference, but the source is The Times of London newspaper rather than Time Magazine. Zaian 04:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have now removed the offensive paragraph. Zaian 20:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

Is there any picture of this event? --Vojvodaen 13:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Given the (relatively) recent nature of the event, I doubt there is a public domain picture. There are certainly photos of the casualties, and there were reporters from Drum present at the scene. I'm almost certain the copyright status of the images won't make them usable. (Well, unless you could approach one of the photographers personally, and get them to release a pic under a GFDL-compatible license...) -Kieran 17:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Loaded Language

The term for the tragical incident is loaded language. The police actually acted in self defence. (41.208.204.69 16:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)).

If by this you are trying to say that the term "tragic event" is not very neutral or encyclopaedic, then I agree. That paragraph needs a serious edit, which I'll probably tackle at some point when I feel motivated.

As to your other points: If you read the article, you will see some of the analysis regarding whether or not the police acted in self defence. Even if they did, it's quite hard to argue that they used anything other than excessive force. It's also hard to argue that the event was not tragic: A lot of people were shot to death, including women and children. That's tragic, however it may have occurred. -Kieran 00:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The picture shown here was branded a fake at the time. This is mentioned in several History books including the one I used at school in the 1970's (sorry I haven't a reference). If you look carefully in the centre of the picture a guy who appears to be dead is looking up at the camera.

In addition the emotive term massacre used here was a media invention. I believe in terms of the definition of the word this does not qualify since there was clearly provocation although its disputed whether it was armed or unarmed (ie if stones were thrown or not). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.161.173.180 (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UN Reaction

I just wrote an article on United Nations Security Council Resolution 134 and while it does indeed condemn the actions of the Government of the Union of South Africa, as far as I can tell, the Council never "sat to "consider seriously the apartheid colonial oppression of the African people in South Africa"". Unless a somebody can find a refference to that I'm going to change it. - Schrandit 07:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)