Talk:List of people subject to banning orders under apartheid

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

South Africa: Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the South African politics task force. Lists Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Human rights Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

TODO: Add a link to the corresponding entry at SA History Online wherever possible. Possibly reformat the whole list as a table, with the SAHO links in a column on the right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KindaQuantum (talk • contribs) 13:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a line explaining that details for most entries are to be found in their linked WP article. I hope this adequately addresses the concerns raised but I have not immediately removed the "citations" template.KindaQuantum (talk) 19:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Each person needs a ref, and the lead is entirely unreferenced. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me with a little more guidance. What should each person be referenced to/with/by? Are you really saying that their own WP page is necessarily and invariably insufficient? I acknowledge the lack of refs in the lead and will try to rectify this.

They don't necessarily need their own page, but they should have a reference that they were banned, using the ref tags. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I fear I'm being obtuse, but I'm still not clear what the content of the ref tag should be.

After the person's name, you should include a reference to show that the person was banned. Many of the people on the list already have that. More importantly, I think is the lead which needs references, especially if there is no context in the article to reference. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I get that now, thanks for your patience. I was operating on the assumption that linking the person's name in the list to their WP page was sufficient if the page records their banning, but I see that assumption was wrong; poor "affordance" in the UI jargon. I'm thinking now that a ref link to a specific anchor on their WP page would be better. As for refs in the lead, you're right of course. I did add a link to the text of the legislation after your earlier comment. KindaQuantum (talk) 14:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so too as well, but I was told otherwise. Honestly, in lists, I wouldn't worry too much on that, as opposed to making sure the lead is fully referenced. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going ahead and removing the citations template now.

Thanks @anonymous. I will get around to adding those people (with references) Real Soon Now.

If you had your own named account, I could use the "Thank publicly" feature! KindaQuantum (talk) 12:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As this article seems to have grown into more than a list, what about renaming it something like Banning orders in apartheid South Africa or something like that? I found my way here after doing a bit of editing another article about some events in South Africa, but only via

Great idea, given (as you say) a bit more detail and citations. As for the photos: they're there because they're there, if you see what I mean. They seemed like a nice idea, basically, nothing more than that. I've had some trouble from an automated Wikipedia copyright-enforcement bot automatically removing some of the pictures, all of which are on other WP pages already, including, absurdly IMO, the Biko one, which apparently is OK from the source I'm currently using but wasn't for the (exact same image) sourced from some other page. Thanks so much for getting involved! KindaQuantum (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, @KindaQuantum:. I will come back to it at some point but must try to keep my focus instead of wandering off-topic from where I started this bout of editing! I suggest that you remove all of the photos - their placement is not within Wiki guidelines and if you don't, someone else will. Alternatively you could put some of the more notable ones alongside the actual list.

I'm now wondering whether it would be even better to create a second article about banning orders, with more content and citations, and retain this one as purely a list article, with each referring to the other (and other links to related articles). What do you think? (Incidentally I don't think that the word "racist" in the first sentence is necessary, and it contravenes

WP:SYNTH.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Sedick Isaacs is described by South African History Online as having been banned, but I don’t know how credible is that source. JDAWiseman (talk) 10:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second citation: "When he was released from Robben Island in September 1977, Sedick was placed under restrictions for another seven years. He was confined to the magisterial district of Cape Town which were as undefined as the borders of the State of Israel. Here was a mathematician who was not allowed to take up a teaching post or even to enter a school or a factory. He was a qualified Librarian who could not get a job despite vacancies in the local authority owned libraries. He did some mathematics tutoring but that was risky because of the banning order" https://www.ihrc.org.uk/news/comment/10308-my-heart-goes-through-leaps-and-bounds/ -- KindaQuantum (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• FAROUK ASVAT (17.04.991).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:52, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Ruth First.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]