Talk:Soweto uprising

Accuracy

to a brief period of relative internal peace in South Africa, but by the mid 1970s the victories of the MPLA and Frelimo in Angola and Mozambique showed that white colonialists could be beaten by military force and at the

The above sentence is inaccurate and uncited. The MPLA and its Cuban/Soviet military sponsors had little success in Angola.

Indeed, but impressions were created. "The number of protesters killed by police is usually given as 176, but estimates of up to 700 have been made". The figures are also BS. What happened was that protesters killed civilians, and civilians also fought back. And that must be included in the figures. --105.12.5.10 (talk) 11:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Accuracy

There are also some problems with the accuracy of statements and events.

Improvement drive

Black Consciousness Movement has been nominated to be improved on WP:IDRIVE. If you want to see it improved, vote for it here! --Fenice 11:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a racist article

I think this page is quite impartial and I would say even racist as it condemns the high school kids more than the police who killed innocent children who were just protesting for their rights! It's another racist and fascist white man view of a massacre of black children. I think this phrase should be eliminated: "Many senior pupils were also worried about the forthcoming Afrikaans language exams they had to take", as it looks like it is suggesting that the riots were started because black kids were lazy and didn't want to learn! This is crazy! This paragraph should be cancelled too: "The violence escalated as the students panicked and many began to throw various projectiles at police. The police opened fire as the students went on the rampage destroying anything related to the government. Administrative buildings were burned, shops looted, and some government officials were murdered by the enraged mob of students. Clashes and protests continued throughout the day, particularly in the area around the Regina Mhundi Church in Orlando and the Esso garage in Chiawelo. Schools closed early and Soweto burned as more children joined the riots. Bottle stores and beerhalls were targeted as it was felt that alcohol was used by the government to control black people," as it concentrates on the violence by the blacks while it leaves out the massacre made by the white police. I really think that this article should concentrate more on how white police officers killed black innocent kids! By the way I'm white so you can't accuse me of racism!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theblues (talk • contribs) 01:47, 6 January 2006

You are fairly emotional and ill informed. The ANC had a policy of "liberation before education". In this they used children as political pawns to further their policy. The above paragraph you cited documented property damage (which was extensive) and it is factually correct. The SAPS crowd control wasn't up to standard - but the scale of the riot was so large that they were overwhelmed.

I have cancelled the parts of the article which were not neutral and racist. 195.210.65.41 00:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I have canceled the parts of the article which were extremely not neutral and racist.Theblues 00:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The reason that the police opened fire was because of provocation by the actions of the students, and while it was terrible what transpired, a lot of what is perceived of the '76 disturbances is due to the exaggeration and alteration by the ANC

The riots started first, and police responded to this. So-called children attacked and burnt schools , shops, etc. They murdered any white people they found, including their own teachers. The police are not 100% to blame for this tragedy.JohnC (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between "riots," and "peaceful demonstration," which is how multiple references have point out this began. Your statements come off as particularly biased here, JohnC. Also, I would really like to see a single (non-Apartheid-era South African/KKK/White Supremacist propaganda) reference to students "murder[ing] any white people they found." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.101.1.120 (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about "liberation before education" policy of the ANC, I mean Mandela who is the founding father of the ANC youth league woudln't allow his kids or relatives to visit him in Jail if they were not studying I also don't think the ANC was deliberately using children to push their agenda or to fight the apartheid system, I think the children were forced by the system to leave school and joined the ANC and fight the system.Bobbyshabangu _talk 14:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Tsietsi

The role of Tsietsi Mashinini needs to be added. I'd do it, but I'm not the most knowledgable. 782 Naumova 10:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Article name

A couple of years ago, if I recall correctly, I heard a (black) radio talkshow host correcting a listener who referred to the subject of this article as riots. In South Africa, I think the term used is Soweto Uprising. I have no personal preference, but this needs to be borne in mind, if ever an objection is raised to the title. Park3r 10:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Ya, in fact I have never heard it refered to as a riot. How about a name change? --nocturnal omnivorous canine 00:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Now renamed. --Ezeu 01:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I also challenge the partiality of this account. I would even go so far as to change the title of the article to the "Soweto Massacre." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.31.105.62 (talk) 23:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I vote for sticking to names that are well-known. The term "Soweto Massacre" occurs less than 1/15th as many times as "Soweto Riots" and less than 1/42nd as many times as "Soweto Uprising" on the web. -- leuce (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Grootbaas

I suspect Punt Janson's Afrikaans words were "grootbaas" (here translated as "the big boss"). This would be a mistranslation, for "grootbaas" was simply a way used by non-adult black people to refer to or address an adult male. The term "groot" in this sense means "adult", not "big". The term "grootbaas" was not translated when used in English, so I suggest the quote is changed to include either "grootbaas" or just "baas". -- leuce (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Adding references

I've added references to most of the historic stuff, but the sections Political Context, Aftermath and Legacy still needs references. I've seen the BBC/SABC documentary twice, but I can't find any references to it on the web; please help. -- leuce (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Still biased

Despite amendments post the comments above, I still find this article biased and euphemistic. There are many statements in this article which still paint the children as the aggressors who used excessive violence and also depicts the police as reacting to the situation, as opposed to igniting it, which certainly contradicts the version of events we are taught here in our South African schools.

For example "The rioting continued and 23 people, including two whites, died on the first day in Soweto. Among them was Dr Melville Edelstein who had devoted his life to social welfare among blacks.[9] He was stoned to death by the mob and left with a sign around his neck proclaiming 'Beware Afrikaaners'." Why is this particular event singled out? It makes the children appear as an unruly, ungrateful mob who turned on the people who helped them, which is certainly not a fair depiction.

While I wasn't there and I don't know the full story, I'm quite sure this article is not an accurate or fair reflection. Considering the number of people who treat wikipedia as a definitive source of information, its disconcerting that this historic event in our history is being portrayed to the world thus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.245.183.52 (talk) 07:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The mention of what happened to Dr Edelstein does not signal to me that the children were unruly. It simply shows how ironic it is that a person who wanted to help, got killed. Clearly he was killed by people who didn't know him.

As for the fact that it is taught in South African schools that the police had incited the violence, well, the fact that the police had reacted to incitement by the children are well-documented. So what if an idealised version of the story is taught in South African schools. The Wikipedia article shouldn't ignore the overwhelming evidence to the contrary simply because it is an unpopular truth.

History taught in schools reflect what the current government wants its next generation to believe. leuce (talk) 07:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"People who didn't him"? So it is fine for rioters to kills elderly teachers, provided that they don't know him. Those who criticise lynchings in America should consider whether they can defend murderous mobs in Africa.

The reference to Stander ought to be removed. He was a simply a criminal.JohnC (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, JohnC, after reading your comments, I've devised a test for you. Is it Jewish people's fault the Holocaust happened, because they "incited" Nazis by existing? Better yet, did the Holocaust happen at all, or was it just a police action to control all the criminals in Nazi-occupied areas, who just happened to all be Jewish? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.101.1.120 (talk) 21:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to add my 2 cents worth: as I gathered, the state wanted all the pupils to learn in the official languages of the state. Some didn't want and they took to the streets. While protesting, they started killing elderly people, throwing stones at the public security forces, etc. As a consequence some of them got killed. Well, blimey, the same would happen to anybody in any of the civilised states you'd care to name. Uprising? Better make it attempted coup d'etat ... obviously some people have no legal education and no idea of legality, either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.166.143.111 (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Afrikaans widely used?

I removed this quote, contributed by an IP: Most blacks came from Afrikaans farms, and on the mines Afrikaans was spoken widely (diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soweto_uprising&action=edit&undoafter=197821859&undo=197822510). The numbers don't make sense; there simply weren't enough "Afrikaans farms" for 50% +1 of blacks to hail from them, and on the mines Afrikaans was a (small?) part of the mash-up languages used. But if anyone thinks (or, better yet, can provide references) the contrary, I'd like to hear about it please. 9Nak (talk) 11:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

the article is not neutral

I still think this article is biased. "The rioting continued and 23 people, including two white people, died on the first day in Soweto. Among them was Dr Melville Edelstein who had devoted his life to social welfare among blacks.[9] He was stoned to death by the mob and left with a sign around his neck proclaiming 'Beware Afrikaaners'." This tends to show the children as brutal animals without even no gratitude to their white friend. Parts of the article are chosen to depict the children in a certain, surely not positive, way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theblues (talk • contribs) 10:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

A violently rioting mob (in any country) is no friend of anyone.JohnC (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Stop making these claims! I think it has been universally agreed that this article is as neutral as it is going to get. Its not like the police busted up a picnic in the park here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.255.118.205 (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, if people are still making the claims, then it obviously isn't "universally agreed." Personally, I still find they way the article is worded in certain sections troubling. However, I would agree that it has been improved upon from prior "the lazy black thugs burned down the city, and the poor police did whatever they could" versions. It seems to me that some contributors to this page would blame MLK and Gandhi for "making" the police beat the crap out of them. I would recommend further edits in order to make it more even toned. Despite several instances where violence is specifically attributed to black students, I did not notice any reference to police violence (e.g. numerous students shot in the back by police). In fact, despite numerous references to shots being fired, I do not note any instance where said shots are actually attributed to police. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.101.1.120 (talk) 21:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

At the moment the article is exactly the opposite of what you describe her. It's riddled with falsehood and propaganda terminology. Concerning South Africa, this has become so widespread that a lot of people don't notice this even more. --105.4.0.21 (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I edited the sentence "Black students also killed two people for being white" because I read the cited sources and they don't support that ideologically loaded claim. Angrynative (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Bibliography

Moving a section of text from the article here; more appropriate to put together a bibliography here and then publish. From [[User:Francoiskhayelitsha}:

Numerous books have been written about the Uprising, perhaps the most recent being Helena Pohlandt-McCormick's electronic monograph, "I Saw a Nightmare..." Doing Violence to Memory: The Soweto Uprising, June 16, 1976. Published by Columbia U Press in 2005, the entire book is online. http://www.gutenberg-e.org/pohlandt-mccormick/index.html

Please add to the bibliography!
9Nak (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hector Pieterson image

User:Damiens.rf want's to remove the Pieterson image in the article, as he believes that it does not satisfy fair-use. I, however, disagee. My reason for the image to be kept, is that the image of Antoinette Sithole and Mbuyisa Makhubo carrying a 12-year-old Hector Pieterson moments after he was shot by South African police, was an iconic image of the uprising. As such, it should be kept. Any opinions? Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 21:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

We can only use that famous non-free photo tranformatively, that is, in texts about the image itself. We already have two articles that does that. This article is about the events captured in the image, and we don't have a fair use case for using the image here. --Damiens.rf 21:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, notice that WP:NFCC#9WP:NFCC#10 alone is enough to remove this image from this article. --Damiens.rf 21:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#9 clearly states with limited exceptions. In this case, Hector Pieterson's death happened during the course of the event, and became an iconic symbol of the Apartheid regime's atrocities against Black South Africans. An exception can be made in this case. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 21:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

My bad, I meant WP:NFCC#10 (but I believe what you read wasn't #9 or #10 anyways, since none of them sates "with limited exceptions"). --Damiens.rf 21:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I visited this link. Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria_compliance#Ensuring_compliance. How does it violate Wikipedia:NFCC#10, by the way? Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 22:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I does not have a non-free use rationale for this article. --Damiens.rf 22:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Added fair-use rationale. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 22:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The rationale you created makes it clear this is an instance of the unacceptable use #6 at Wikipedia:NFC#UUI. --Damiens.rf 23:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

And the fact that you simply copy'n pasted the from a rationale for a completely different article shows how the use here is redundant. --Damiens.rf 23:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

For a clear example of why we can't use this image here, see the much more famous image called Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, that became an iconic symbol of the Battle of Iwo Jima but that we don't use to illustrate the article about the battle. --Damiens.rf 22:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

That's because, in that particular article, there are alternative free equivalents. The use of a copyrighted image to illustrate the event is not necessary. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 22:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not the reason. Even if we had no other images of the battle, we wouldn't use the famous image there. --Damiens.rf 23:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, maybe another non-free image, but that's another issue. Any third opinions? Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 08:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Instead of an RFC, we could use Wikipedia:Non-free content review, that is exactly for those discussions. Would you like to post it there yourself? --Damiens.rf 16:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I shall do it. Thanks. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 18:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

why "uprising" and not massecre?

and why " The number of people who died is usually given as 176 with estimates up to 700." why not killed? just wondering vap (talk) 03:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you there vap, it started as a peaceful protest then turned to an uprising then again turned into a massacre but again this is what the media chose to coin this incident/event otherwise to me personally it will always remain a massacre Bobbyshabangu _talk 14:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion

In the article, as it exists, there is an unsourced reference to a 2006 BBC/SABC documentary in which Colonel Kleingeld's testimony is "corroborated." While I can find evidence of the documentary in question, I can't find evidence of said corroboration, except for numerous similarly unsourced references in which this statement is repeated, verbatim. I propose deletion of this reference, as it appears unsourced, and possibly plagiarized. Additionally, I propose deletion of the "to death" in the statement "stoning the dogs to death." Additional research shows that the only time mention of "stoning the dogs to death" occurs is in instances where the Wikipedia article has obviously been plagiarized, or vice versa. Otherwise, the only mention is that the dogs were stoned. I'm opening this up for discussion. Otherwise, I'll make the proposed edits, and assume they're good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G1811 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like an uncited 2006 documentary is notable or necessary to "corroborate" anything, so removing that part of the sentence. There are quite a few references to a dog or dogs being killed by the crowd - e.g. Kleingeld's statement, a claim at the TRC in 1996 (http://www.justice.gov.za/trc/media%5C1996%5C9607/s960723k.htm) and a survivor stating that they "stubbed" (stabbed?) the dogs. (http://www.sanews.gov.za/features/survivor-recalls-16-june-1976). I suggest changing the wording from "stoning the dogs to death" to "stoning and killing the dogs". Zaian (talk) 12:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that the entire sentence be deleted, due to the lack of actual sourcing. A fair amount of time has elapsed, and you're the only one who has responded. I'd be more than happy to discuss it further, but if I don't hear back, I'll go ahead and delete it. As far as the dog reference goes, one of your references refers to a dog dying, and the other one refers to a dog being stubbed (sic), so I'll leave that be. That said, the fact that that typo occurred suggests to me that it might not be a reputable source.G1811 (talk) 08:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Talk page discussions don't always get much attention. I don't think deleting this is necessary. I've cited the statement and changed the wording from "stoning to death" to "killing". Apart from the 1996 article I provided, there's also a book called "Soweto, 16 June 1976: It All Started with a Dog" by Elsabé Brink (2001) which predates the Wikipedia article, and presumably deals with the same incident, although I haven't read it.Zaian (talk) 12:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

While I don't think relying on the title of a book without reading it should be considered a verified backup source, I've further edited to reflect that one dog was let loose, and subsequently killed, as the cited source states. I've also deleted the paragraph regarding the BBC documentary, and the claimed assertions, as I didn't hear anything about it, and my initial doubts regarding it's claim weren't assuaged.G1811 (talk) 06:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, here we are, a month later, and all we know is that a dog was involved. So, I'm going to go ahead and change the sentence to "a dog was let loosed," and leave it at that. Any actual sourced statements to the contrary are welcomed.G1811 (talk) 06:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Why are you proposing this deletion? The two links I gave above both have survivors stating that a dog was killed or stabbed. "Morobe said police opened fire after pupils killed a police dog". "Police dogs were released and the brave guys among us started stubbing the dogs". Also see "Canis Africanis: A Dog History of Southern Africa" (https://books.google.com/books?isbn=9004154191) which has a couple of paragraphs about a dog being stabbed and killed, including a witness statement saying "The kids started stoning this dog. Some with knives were stabbing the dog." That reference in turn refers to the book "It all started with a dog" which I mentioned earlier and makes it clear that the book title refers to this incident. Zaian (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Soweto uprising. 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/20150906111057/http://www.praesa.org.za/files/2012/07/Paper14.pdf to http://www.praesa.org.za/files/2012/07/Paper14.pdf

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) 04:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Recollections

Hi Thabiso, thanks for your contributions but unfortunately Wikipedia is not the place for personal recollections. Primary sources can't be included directly - they can only be used as references, and only if they have appeared in a reliable source. Zaian (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Were most of the protesters/rioters/victims of violence school children?

The current article looks very ambiguous to me as to the identity of the protesters in the uprising. The first paragraph states that it was "led by black school children", while the second talks more ambiguously about "the number of protesters killed". "Protesters" killed the police dog, but "the police then began to shoot directly at the children". Hospitals were "swamped with injured and bloody children", while beer halls were "targeted" by someone. Estimates of the dead range from "23 students" to 700 "people". What I want to know is, should the majority of the "protesters" mentioned above be interpreted as school children (and the occasional teacher)? Since noone else is mentioned, that is the natural implication; but it's hard to imagine a mob of angry school children in uniform rioting in the streets and burning down beer halls. I suspect that groups of adults joined this uprising at some point, and are probably among the dead and injured; but the current article never mentions this, so it is only a hunch based on the ambiguity of the wording. If virtually all the protesters at all stages of the uprising were school children, and virtually all of the cited dead and wounded were school children, this should be made very explicit. If, on the other hand, the uprising at some point was partly taken over by adult protesters, this should also be made explicit. Ornilnas (talk) 22:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Misleading statement in the introduction!

"It is estimated that 20,000 students took part in the protests. They were met with fierce police brutality. The number of protesters killed by police is usually given as 176, but estimates of up to 700 have been made." That statement is certainly untrue. While indeed a larger number has been killed few of the killings can be attributed to the police there. The killing took place within the Black community since there was a conflict between the protesters and others in the Black community (The majority that wanted to have peace) --105.4.0.21 (talk) 14:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Language policy

What happened with the language of instruction in schools after the uprising? Beland (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)