Talk:Makwerekwere

Makwerekwere is currently a World history good article nominee. Nominated by FuzzyMagma (talk) at 12:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

An editor has placed this article on hold to allow improvements to be made to satisfy the good article criteria. Recommendations have been left on the review page, and editors have seven days to address these issues. Improvements made in this period will influence the reviewer's decision whether or not to list the article as a good article.

Short description: South African afrophobic slur

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Makwerekwere article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

South Africa Low‑importance

	South Africa portal 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.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics 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.

Discrimination Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination 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.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

African diaspora Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora 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.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in South African English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

A fact from Makwerekwere appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 19 May 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that makwerekwere is the South African equivalent of "barbarians", an offensive and derogatory slur used to refer to foreigners?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2023/May. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Makwerekwere.

Wikipedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that Makwerekwere is the South African equivalent of "barbarians", an offensive and derogatory slur used to refer to foreigners? Source: The Atlantic and The Economist
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Monster Max

Created by FuzzyMagma (talk). Self-nominated at 21:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Makwerekwere; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

Article was nominated the same day it was made, so is new enough. It is more than long enough, reads neutrally, and properly uses inline citations with no copyvio issues. The hook is short enough, interesting, and cited inline. The QPQ has been done and there's no image to review. Looks good to go! Silver seren^C 17:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting. Just wanted to say that it suffers a bit from WP:OVERCITE. It is distracting to read through. Bruxton (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Makwerekwere/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: FuzzyMagma (talk · contribs) 12:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	some questions about sources below
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	~~one sentence with very close paraphrasing~~
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	File:Julius Malema 2011-09-14.jpg is released under cc-sa licence
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Comments on prose[edit]

~~"Matsinhe argued..." – Please define/introduce Matsinhe. I suggest "Sociologist David Matsinge argued..."~~

Y fixed.

Reference spotchecks[edit]

" Zambia (where many South African exiles lived before 1994)" is not supported by ref 2

Y Fixed by adding a source for the information in brackets

The new reference discusses the ANC in exile in Zambia. It doesn't support that "a significant number of South African exiles resided prior to 1994".

removed weasel wording, i.e., significant

~~Phrasing of "(in a non-derogatory sense) to refer to all Shonas from Zimbabwe (then known as Rhodesia)" is directly from Ref 2. Suggest paraphrasing~~

Y paraphrased. FYI, It was not me who added this line including the unreferenced part, see this edit. Anyhow, it is now fixed.

Y Refs 10 and 11 verify statement
"The term has become so pervasive that it has been included in dictionaries as “an offensive and derogatory slur used in South Africa to describe foreigners from other African countries.”[19]" – This is only supported by reference one dictionary (which has now closed)

Y I have now added Oxford and Collins Dictionary too

None of these references supports the quotation. The Collins and Dictionary.com entries are for amakwerekwere. Is this term a variation of makwerekwere? If so, this should be mentioned in the article.

removed the quotation, but kept "The term has become so pervasive that it has been included in dictionaries". makwerekwere, kwerekwere, and amakwerekwere are variance, see the Etymology section.

The Macmillan link is broken as the dictionary has closed.

I tried to find it in the hard copy but the one I have is the 2007 and it is not there. I removed the link

The Ray Leathern article doesn't even mention the word.

It mention it in the comment sections. I should have looked better. Removed the ref

Are refs 28 and 29 (Khanya/Somali Christians) reliable? They look like self-published sources

Y 28 (now 29) is a BBC video on YouTube. 29 (was 30) is surely self published, thus the sentence was removed.

The BBC video is interesting, but it doesn't support the sentence "These victims are often scapegoated for various issues[...]and are used as a physical reminder of difference"

Removed the "and are used as a physical reminder of difference"

Sorry, I could have been clearer that somalichristians.org looks to be a self-published blog

I am not sure if it self referenced, but found the same information - although fragmented on on South African Human Rights Commission website and the other part on a 2011 article.

" In 2004, Boom Shaka released the kwaito classic "Makwerekwere"[37] which discouraged xenophobia.[38]" – Not supported by references

Y 37 is a link to the song itself on YouTube, replaced by 39 which mention the song. add new 40 and 41 commenting on the song itself. I got the release date wrong also, it should be 1993 and not 2004. I confused it with Lolilo - Makwerekwere (really bad song)

Ref 39 doesn't support any content in the sentence; is it needed?

it support the kwaito part of the sentence and the song existence. but I will remove it as redundant as the information can be found on the other sources

Sunday News calls the song "Amakwere" and Viljoen calls it "Kwere Kwere", but the article text says "KwereKwere"

The name on the CD is "KwereKwere" Track 2 (no included next to the name) but "Amakwere" or any other variance is the same word.

I'm playing the review on hold while the comments I've made above are considered. Adabow (talk) 00:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review the page and for the feedback to improve it. I have fixed the issues that you have raised FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work, FuzzyMagma. I've commented on your responses inline. I still have concerns about the verifiability of some content by reliable sources. I will go through and do further source spotchecking later. I strongly recommend that you go through the article and ensure that each statement is supported by the reference used in the article. Adabow (talk) 22:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]