Talk:Sarah Baartman/Archive 1

Archive 1

More detail please

The article and its context suggest that there was something about this woman, perhaps her genitalia, that was considered highly unusual to Western eyes, but fails to describe what it was. I can understand even a Wikipedian author's desire to be discreet, but would appreciate learning what, if anything, made this woman a sideshow attraction, other than the fact that she was unusual to her observers as a Hottentot and that they could fondle her buttocks for an additional fee.

In an article by P.V. Tobias from South African Journal of Science in 2002 it says that nude paintings were done. "Cuvier arranged for her to be examined in the Jardin du Roi in March 1815. There, as Saint-Hilaire and Frédéric Cuvier (a younger brother of Georges) reported, 'she was obliging enough to undress and to allow herself to be painted in the nude.' So it appears that some people may have seen her genitalia, plus she had two children with a West Indian. The Tobias article also says she died Jan 1, 1816.

Fascinating story; deserves more. --154.20.212.5 07:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

request for move to own article

Could somebody move this to a new "Saartjie Baartman" article? I don't remember the way this is done or how such a request is supposed to be made. Khepidjemwa'atnefru 01:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Removal of speculative comment

With reference to the name "Hottentot Venus":

The term was intended to be ironic, because it was inconceivable to Europeans at the time that a black woman could be considered as beautiful as a white one, still less that she could embody a goddess.

Without a source, this sounds like original research. If anyone can prove this, then go ahead and re-integrate it inot the article. BrainyBabe 19:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Boat named after her

Wouldn't this fit better in the Legacy section rather than under Cultural References? Roger 15:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Documentary

Removed, because it is not a documentary: http://youtube.com/watch?v=iQ7mmMe4klQ&feature=related —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.242.89.219 (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Use of term "freak show"

I added a link in the "see also" section to freak show and this was removed. I think it is relevant that it remains. However distasteful to us now, Baartman was treated as a freak of nature and was shown to the public as such. She may have seen herself as perfectly ordinary, but she earned her living from submitting herself to the eyes of people who saw her as quite extraordinary, bizarre, freakish. Definitions for "freak" and "freak show", and some of the examples, from the Oxford English Dictionary:

4b(More fully freak of nature, = lusus naturæ): A monstrosity, an abnormally developed individual of any species; in recent use (esp. U.S.), a living curiosity exhibited in a show.

1883 Daily News 11 Sept. 2/5 An association of..natural curiosities usually exhibited at booths..called the ‘Freaks' Union’, the word freaks being an abbreviation of the term ‘freaks of nature’ by which these monstrosities are described.

5. freak show, at a fair, etc.: a sideshow featuring freaks (sense 4b).

1887 E. R. PENNELL in Contemp. Rev. Mar. 400 note, What I should call penny peep, or rather freak, shows. 1939 G. GREENE Lawless Roads i. 30 A freak show in a little booth.

If there are no further objections, in a day or two I will re-add the link. (I have also taken this opportunity to create section titles for some of the separate comments above.)BrainyBabe (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I just don't see why this is necessary. There are plenty of degrading things we could add to the See Also of, for instance, George W. Bush, and with more compelling arguments than you've offered, but we don't do that. I find that you're selecting an arbitrary axis on which to classify Saartje; why not genetic drift, why not racism in Europe? And is she necessarily akin to a freak, or could we See Also freak under, say, Pamela Anderson, for her own disproportionate figure?

It looks like original research of a subtle sort, which I wouldn't object to on that grounds if not for its being unnecessarily demeaning. Cheers, DBaba (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

molded casting in Paris

It was still visible around 1979. See "moulage" in French version of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pascal Boulerie (talk • contribs) 16:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Additional Picture

Can we use this? http://fr.wiki.x.io/wiki/Fichier:Venus_de_Lespugue_(replica).jpg Superjustinbros. (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Stage performance

What, if anything, is known about her stage performances? There's really nothing here in the article. - Jmabel | Talk 22:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect link in article

I noticed in the sentence, "She was orphaned by a commando raid.", the word commando links to the article on the general meaning of commando in military science, which is about the polar opposite of what a commando was in South Africa at the time. South African "commandos" were simply white militia, often roving the black homelands and killing at will at the time, as I would imagine were her parents in the "commando raid". Today, these units are still used in South Africa(albeit regulated and desegregated) and they are volunteers within the police, not the military, thus even today the word commando, in a South African context, does not mean elite soldier. This link should be changed to direct to "http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/South_African_Commando_System".KVND 05:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KVND (talk • contribs)

Done, although I see no reason why you couldn't have done it yourself. Crusoe (talk) 14:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Involvement of William Dunlop

Dunlop is cited in two sources as having been instrumental in her leaving home for England.

"British ship’s doctor William Dunlop, who persuaded her to travel with him to England. We’ll never know what she had in mind when she stepped on board – of her own free will - a ship for London. But it’s clear what Dunlop had in mind – to display her as a “freak”, a “scientific curiosity”, and make money from these shows, some of which he promised to give to her. " South African Information Office

How should this be included in the article - as replacement of Hendrick Cezar, or in addition to him? Ohconfucius (talk) 02:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Naming

Would anyone object if I move this article to Sarah Baartman and change the first few words to read "Sarah "Saartjie" Baartman (1789 – 29 December 1815)..."? - htonl (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

You'll first have to move Sarah Baartman to Sarah Baartman (ship). Roger (talk) 06:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

In fact, surely the article on the ship should be at SAS Sarah Baartman? - htonl (talk) 13:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

No. Only SA Navy ships have the SAS prefix. The Sarah Baartman belongs to the Fisheries department, not the Navy. Roger (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there a specific prefix for non-navy Government vessels? - htonl (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Not as far as I know, but I'll ask a few friends who know about ships. Roger (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I support moving both articles to correct the names. --NJR_ZA (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, so I've gone ahead and done it; I'm just waiting for an administrator to handle the delete/move request on Sarah Baartman. edit: as to the ship, every reference just calls it the Sarah Baartman, so I've moved it to Sarah Baartman (ship) as Roger suggested. - htonl (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Cuvier

It claims in the article that Cuvier dissected the brain and said "Cuvier notes in his monograph that Baartman was an intelligent woman who had an excellent memory and spoke Dutch fluently" Interesting, because he also claimed that "I have never seen a human head more like an ape than that of this woman" [1] Is that relevant enough to put in the article? 68.205.153.215 (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Certainly it's relevant. I think though, like the earlier reference, on its own it risks giving an incomplete and so misleading picture of how an eminent anthropologist of the day regarded a "hottentot". Cuvier met Bartmann when she was alive, which is presumably how he comes to know she was intelligent and fluent in Dutch: obviously even the best anatomist couldn't work that out from her dissected brain. From the three references to Cuvier's monograph I've seen - the one in the article, yours, and one elsewhere which quotes Cuvier as saying Bartmann's movements were sometimes quick, "like a monkey's" - I'd suspect current anthropological theory led him to expect a being less human and more ape-like than a European. Consequently, if he was honest as a scientist, he'd have some difficulty reconciling the impression the living woman had made on him with his expectations. That's all pure guesswork. I haven't seen the monograph, or even a source which deals with it in detail. Have you? It would certainly be helpful to put Cuvier in context.RLamb (talk) 09:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Cause of death

The artical claims that Saartjie died "of an inflammatory ailment" - whilst reading "In The Blood" by Steve Jones it is said that it can be seen from the cast of her body that was taken after her death that "Saartje's hands are covered by the marks of the smallpox that killed her" (p.204) - certainly a quick search on Google seems to suggest that she did die of smallpox, but I wouldn't want to change the article in case the reference books, of which I have none, are more reliable --Firetrap 20:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The article implies Baartman was nearly destitute at the time of her death, but her regular advertisements continued in the Paris papers in the month she died. And if she had really lost the interest of Parisians, there seems no reason for her not to have toured France as she did Britain.RLamb (talk) 09:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Help with conflicting sources

I see that in part of the article we assert that "Once her novelty had worn thin with Parisians, she began to drink heavily and support herself with prostitution." There is a source given for this, Lucille Davie, but is she reliable?

The trouble is that when I looked in a contemporary French newspaper (Journal des débats politiques et littéraires) for references to Baartman, you can see ads for her Paris show right up to 21st December 1815. This is practically the week before she died. And she was clearly a very big draw. The same paper thirteen years later uses her popularity with the Paris crowds as a yardstick for a more recent attraction. It seems in 1828 everybody was queuing to see something called The Fossilized Man and the paper comments that “...idlers are going in droves to see him, as not so long ago they went to visit...the Hottentot Venus”. So - Baartman was so popular in Paris that people are still talking about her show after thirteen years: there's a newspaper ad for her exhibition a week before she died: and yet she sank so low she was driven to selling herself? In spring 1815 she has enough self-respect to tell a bunch of scientists offering cash for a peek at her genitals to take a hike - and she's a prostitute only a few months later?? It doesn't add up.

Also, the only contemporary reference I've seen yet to Baartman being a heavy drinker is in Cuvier's monograph, where he claims she was so fond of cognac she wouldn't give it up even during medical treatment. Which, of course, completely explains why his doctor pals failed to cure her. RLamb (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The article by Lucille Davie does not contain any references; if you have references that dispute her claims, please update the article accordingly. One should keep political context in mind, not just that of 19th century Europe, but also that of 21st century South Africa. Just as it would have been common for news papers at the time to report on and portray the actions of Europeans and the colonial empires as superior to the rest of the world, it is now also common in South Africa to attribute blame on Europeans and the old colonial empires, in some cases that blame might be well deserved, but in other instances it is often completely unfounded. --NJR_ZA (talk) 15:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Tone

Hey everyone. I'm relatively new to wikipedia, and I don't exactly remember how to create templates for things like weight and POV. This article, in my opinion, needs a tone template (WP:TONE). As I am reading the article, it keeps stringing you along giving you more and more but never fully reaching the point. Although it is rather obvious from the picture, the article never explicitly states the purpose of her fame until the third section. This should be done in the opening paragraph. I don't know if this happened because of some notion of political correctness or just that the article was translated from a non-encyclopedic medium, but either way, it should be fixed. Charles35 (talk) 03:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I've tried to adjust it. Feel free to make changes. Dispassionate tone is difficult to achieve in this article as Baartman's treatment arouses strong feelings.RLamb (talk) 13:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi RLamb. Thanks for your reply. I understand that this is a particularly sensitive article and is very difficult to edit. I believe that we can still achieve a neutral point of view and proper encyclopedic tone without sacrificing politeness and political correctness and sounding insensitive. Thanks especially for adding the reason for her fame to the intro. Do you know how to add a WP:TONE template to the top of the article? Charles35 (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Sadly no, I have never explored templates, I spend most of my time adding citations from old newspapers. A harmless occupation. :) RLamb (talk) 11:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the article is quite poorly written so I've added the tone template. The "Great Britain" subsection, for example, suffers from massive repetitivness in parts:

e.g. "While being exposed on stage, Sarah had to forget her own identity in order to play the role of the Hottentot Venus so it was credible to the audience. Sara Baartman had to learn to act the part of the Hottentot Venus. On stage, Baartman had to erase aspects of her personal history, experience, and identity in order to make her performance of the Venus credible to the audience that was staring at her."

That's essentially the same sentence reworded three times in a row! -Thibbs (talk) 06:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The Great Britain section has many problems. Far too many direct quotes are included within (badly formatted) references instead of being presented directly in the text itself - followed by the relevant cite. Curly quotes “” should not be used at all in ordinary text, only straight quotes "" are correctly parsed by Mediawiki software. There are several wikilinks presented parenthetically after the term they relate to - they should be linked direcly within the sentence text, using piping where needed. It looks like the section was written by someone experienced in academic writing but without much knowledge of Wikipedia rules and conventions. Roger (talk) 11:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree about the parenthetical wikilink problem. And in my experience the issue with the curly quotes usually means someone copy&pasted from another web source which might imply copyright issues. The whole part about the labia minora is also completely irrelevant to the topic. If she never displayed this anatomical feature then it clearly has nothing to do with why she was famous. Beyond the distinct possibility of this being entirely original synthesis, it reads like a generalization or stereotype (i.e. "all Khoikhoi women have enlarged labia minora, therefore Sarah Baartman must have had the same even though she never displayed it."). The inline attribution of Stephen Jay Gould is misleading since he was not talking about Sarah Baartman, but only about anatomy in a general evolutionary context. I'd just cut the whole mention of the labia minora since it has absolutely no relation to why Sarah Baartman is notable. -Thibbs (talk) 13:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Baartman did have the enlarged labia - Cuvier wrote it up triumphantly in his monograph. He also preserved her genitals, along with her brain, after he dissected her. Presumably all was returned to SA when her remains were repatriated. This feature of Khoi women was already a subject of speculation in Europe because it had been reported by sailors, travellers etc. What was unclear at the time was whether Khoi women possessed some extra anatomical feature women of other races did not, or just a modified version of the usual female genitalia. Cuvier settled the matter when he finally dissected her.

I think it's important to stress contemporary sources indicate Baartman would not allow this feature to be shown during her career, even when offered money by French scientists when they examined her. It was of course the feature they were most curious to see, and the fact they couldn't pester, persuade, or even bribe her to show them indicates Baartman had both her own standards of modesty and final control over her own body. Both these points are often obscured in accounts of her story given on other sites, where indignation at the racist treatment meted out to her carries people beyond the (bad) facts to imagine even worse.

Also, the weird quote marks in the Great Britain section are probably mine. They're the result of typing stuff up in Word and then pasting it in. Most of my quotes are laboriously copied from the online version of 'The Times' and none lifted from other websites. By all means correct it to your own satisfaction.RLamb (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

OK well maybe it just needs to be reworded then. As it stands the section lacks the context that you suggest above so it looks like nothing more than an editorial comment. And reliable sourcing would of course be required to back up the claim that "This feature of Khoi women was already a subject of speculation in Europe..." Perhaps a better solution would be to shift all mention of this feature to the "France" section where her modesty could be put in context with the scientific interest in her genitals. -Thibbs (talk) 15:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

On a slightly unrelated note, I'm not sure how I feel about these sections. "Southern Africa", "Britain", "France". That isn't a very conventional way of making sections for wikipedia articles. Usually chronological order is frowned upon, unless the section is called "Timeline" and then the different locations sub-sections. That I could see. What do you guys think of that? Charles35 (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It's my understanding that chronological order is the usual standard for biographies. Roger (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Dutch or Afrikaans?

"Baartman was questioned before a court in Dutch, in which she was fluent"

I'm inclined to think she spoke Afrikaans, rather than Dutch. Afrikaans is part of the Dutch language family but it is a separate language. What complicates matters is that Afrikaans only branched off from Dutch in the mid 18th century, so the Afrikaans Baartman spoke would probably have been closer to Dutch compared to 21st century Afrikaans. 212.182.133.214 (talk) 06:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Considering the period she lived, she would probably have spoken Cape Dutch, a Dutch dialect influenced by the cultural diversity at the Cape, but still a lot closer to the Dutch of the time than what we consider to be Afrikaans today. --NJR_ZA (talk) 08:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

A reference in a contemporary paper refers only to her speaking 'Dutch'. But I'd guess it's unlikely the reporter, or the officials of the court, would have been able to distinguish between dialects.

'Law Report. The Times (London, England), Monday, Nov 26, 1810; pg. 3; Issue 8150. Court of King’s Bench, Saturday November 24 (1810)

(At a court hearing the Attorney-General had asked that Baartman might be interviewed by someone who could converse with her directly, and without her keeper's presence. An attempt to speak to her had been made already by the African Association, but she had not answered.)

‘Two gentlemen, one a native of Holland, were sent there’(i.e. to the London exhibition)’ to converse with her; and being told that she could speak Dutch, they asked her..if she felt herself comfortable – if she wished to return to her own country; but to these questions...she returned no answer.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH – “Is it ascertained that she speaks Dutch?”

Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL – “ Yes; the keeper spoke Dutch to her...”

The 'keeper' in question was Hend Cezar, about whom little seems to be known, but who told Mr. M'Cartney of the African Association that he had 'got her from the Dutch Boors'.RLamb (talk) 20:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

A few sentences in the Sexism section

From the very beginning of the scientific revolution, scientists viewed the Earth or nature as female, a territory to be explored, exploited, and controlled.[31] By giving the foreign land a female gender this allowed the rape and exploitation of this land to be seen as natural. Therefore foreign or African women were allowed to be exploited for this was natural.

These sentences seem utterly out of place in an encyclopedia article of this sort. They are a controversial view claiming that there's a connection between referring to Africa as a female and mistreating the peoples there. I can't see why it should be included here as if it's a widely accepted fact beyond dispute. Phiwum (talk) 13:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the "Sexism" section should be removed. I can find very little in it that's about sexism rather than the previously discussed themes of racism, colonialism, etc. Much of it is redundant, some is incoherent; bias is pervasive. (Though a section on sexism could be worth keeping if it could be up to standard.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmsbye (talk • contribs) 00:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

cultural reference

entry was removed without explanation: "Polish novellist Joanna Bator refers to a fictional descendant in Chmurdalia ('Cloudalia'), 2010". Could anyone comment, please? --Ol hogger (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Question regarding Saartije Baartman's repatriation to South Africa.

Very little is noted of her repatriation to South Africa article , which seems quite strange to me seeing as I've read other writings around Ssartije Baartman which have given the understanding that her repatriation was a great joy to the nation because she was re-humanized. I'm not South African and am unclear on how one might go about accomplishing this goal - but it seems valuable to talk about her place in South African history and the conceptualization of a nation-state.

Moved from Sara/Sarah Baartman to Saartjie Baartman

I moved this page to Saartjie Baartman because:

• This is the page name on the Dutch, Afrikaans, Arabic, and French wikipedia pages on this topic
• This is how she is more commonly referred to in academic articles
• There is talk earlier on this page about changing her page name to be as accurate as possible

Do people agree with this move? Does anyone think this was a bad choice and should be moved back/somewhere else? Rue-chan (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Listing the page under "Saartjie Baartman" might be a good choice if that is the way that the majority of authors refer to her and would make the article easier to find. However, I think it's important to note that the name "Saartjie" or the alternative spelling "Saartje" was actually kind of pejorative at the time. This was the Dutch diminutive of Sara, but rather than denoting affection, diminutives in the Cape signified servile status. In some sense it might be better to list the article under "Sara Baartman," since the name Saartjie was used as a way to oppress her and emphasize her lower status.

--Margarsully (talk) 11:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Saartjie Baartman. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20041206181228/http://www.english.emory.edu:80/Bahri/Hott.html to http://www.english.emory.edu/Bahri/Hott.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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} 06:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia Primary School invitation

Hi everybody. On behalf of the teams behind the Wikipedia Primary School research project, I would like to announce that this article was selected a while ago to be reviewed by an external expert. We'd now like to ask interested editors to join our efforts and improve the article before May 15th, 2016 as they see fit; a revision will be then sent to the designated expert for review. Any notes and remarks written by the external expert will be made available on this page under a CC-BY-SA license as soon as possible, so that you can read them, discuss them and then decide if and how to use them. Please sign up here to let us know you're collaborating. Thanks a lot for your support! -- Anthere (talk) 14:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Not a "foundation for scientific racism"

I would suggest that there is no foundation for the suggestion that her body for the "foundation for scientific racism" - whatever that means. Her body was highly unusual as far as the European doctors were concerned, and she was highly unusual, featuring a number of unusual characteristics not seen in Europe. For that to be studied is not racism.Royalcourtier (talk) 09:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 21 February 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved  — Amakuru (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

---

Saartjie Baartman → Sarah Baartman – Current and recent sources use the "Sarah" form of her name. Saartjie is the diminutive "nickname" form of the name, in the context of her history it amounts to patronising infantilisation. Referring to an adult with a childish nickname is also a common way to "other" a person (motivated by racism). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose as currently (barely) proposed: 1.) You say that "Current and recent sources use the 'Sarah' form of her name", but provide no sources of any kind for discussion. 2.) You say that "Current and recent sources use the 'Sarah' form of her name", but the admittedly few sources present in the article use the spelling "Sara", arguing against your proposed spelling. 3.) Any "patronising infantilisation" happened in the 19th century; implying that Wikipedia editors participate in this merely through disinterest is utterly poisonous to discussion and ought to be grounds to close this move request until an acceptable rationale is provided 4.) Likewise the claim that "Referring to an adult with a childish nickname" is likely "[...] motivated by racism" - with the added comment that this is plainly false in modern discourse. N.B., I would support a move to Sara Baartman based on the current sources in the article, but I cannot support the use of such poison for move requests. If such a move is wanted, I would suggest closing this request and opening a new one. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 14:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• This and this other academic article both call "Saartjie" a derogatory diminutive. The use of diminutives, or referring to black adults as "boy" or "girl", is a well known feature of racist language in South Africa (and elsewhere), see Boy#Race. I am agnostic about the choice between "Sarah" or "Sara" - as long as it is not the derogatory "Saartjie". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support. "Sarah Baartman" is the version written on her baptismal register. Nearly all South African memorials to Baartman spell the first name "Sarah." In fact, the South African government considers "Sarah Baartman" the only legitimate rendering of her name. Furthermore, scholarly writing on Baartman renders the name either "Sara" or "Sarah." Am86 (talk) 07:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Birth Name

In "Human Zoos: Science and Spectacle in the Age of Colonial Empires" (P. Blanchard, G. Boetsch) on page 62 (the first page of chapter 2: "The Hottentot Venus: Birth of a 'Freak'"), it says "her real name was Sawtche". I also noticed that in the French Wikipedia, it says her "Nom de naissance" is Sawtche, and the Polish Wikipedia seems to say as much as well. I haven't looked into this further, but it seems the lack of mention of "Sawtche" should perhaps be re-reviewed? Though, there is much discussion on the name of "Saartjie" and I could not tell if that is an alternative spelling of the same pronunciation. -- GenkiDesu (talk) 04:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Fashion

Was Baartman the inspiration for the ”bustle” fad of 1881-1889?96.235.138.179 (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)OS/2Forever

Date of Birth

Crais and Scully claim the 1789 date is incorrect, and they instead place her birth in the 1770s. As this is the most recent scholarship on the topic, I propose noting her birth year is ambiguous. Atcack (talk) 17:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Who are Crais and Scully and why should we care what they think? (Please use a complete reference.) Roger (talk) 08:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Craig and Scully [2] makes quite a compelling argument. Since the current birth date is not referenced I have changed it to before 1880 as per the above link --NJR_ZA (talk) 09:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Roger (talk) 09:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The New Encyclopedia of Africa (ISBN 0-684-31455-X, 2008) gives the "mid-1770s" date for her birth. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Sarah Baartman Hall

Sarah Baartman Hall, University of Cape Town, 8 December 2018 made the historic decision to rename Memorial Hall. Axxter99 (talk) 11:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Life section

Why is there what appears to be something like a precis of the biography including her death, and then it starts over again, but omitting some details from the precis like her d.o.b. etc. This is a very odd feature and something I've not seen in other biography articles.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, ZarhanFastfire, it's certainly non-standard according to MOS:BIO. Needs a bit of work integrating the first brief version into the longer sections. Go for it if you have time! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Lead paragraph needs expanding

Another editor removed the {Lead too short} template that I placed yesterday. A two-sentence lead is not sufficient for an article this length and does not provide an adequate summary of the article’s key points. Per MOS:LEADLENGTH the lead paragraph needs to provide a “useful and complete summary of the topic”. The 2 sentences that currently comprise the lead paragraph touch upon what these individuals were subjected to, but it does not explain why they were treated this way. The purpose of a lead paragraph is to provide the key elements of the article in a nutshell so that readers have an outline of what the article includes at a glance. The current lead doesn’t accomplish that. The women were objectified because of specific physical characteristics, chiefly steatopygia, which is addressed later in the article. (Baartman is also mentioned in the Wikipedia article about steatopygia because of her important relation to the topic). Why these women were exploited is the core of their story. That core component is currently not part of the lead and needs to be added. In an effort to make this article more useful to general readers I will be adding additional content to help expand the lead paragraph so it aligns with MOS guidelines and I hope other editors will participate in reaching this goal. I will be reinstating the {Lead too short} template until after there is consensus that this goal has been achieved. In keeping with Wikipedia guidelines, if there is problematic wording within a properly cited sentence, do not alter the content, instead, please meet on the talk page so editors can work together as a community to craft wordage that is agreeable to everyone. Down time (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Steatopygia has been introduced now. However, "perceived as curiosity by white society" falls short of the mark. The source given does not contain the quoted wording, rather support a more general approach. It readily mentions that this bodily feature was a desirable part of the contemporary fashion. Reference should be made to the general perspective towards exoticism of the contemporaries, where other features as well of body and behavior were subject of exhibitions. An attitude made laugh of in the accompanying french print, where kilt-wearing soldiers look just as exotic. Ol hogger (talk) 07:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Another thing: I don't believe in lead word count quotas. If the lead is not concise it has probably missed the point. TLDR - remember? Ol hogger (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Greetings @Ol hogger: thanks very much for joining in. I agree with everything you mentioned and those are the things I was thinking about when I added my content to the lead. I will explain the thought process that was occurring while I was formulating what I added to the lead paragraph: Wording is huge and it’s easy to come across wrong, even to fellow team members, so I didn't get too detailed, I just added a framework to the lead that I hoped people would expand upon. I chose the wording “perceived as a curiosity" to sum up the information in the source I cited because I didn’t feel quoting the wording used in the source was appropriate for a lead paragraph; I.e., “she was paraded around freak shows with crowds invited to look at her large buttocks… extremely protuberant buttocks due to a build-up of fat… made her a cause of fascination when she was exhibited” etc. I was trying to convey those events in an admittedly generic and polite manner so my tone wouldn't seem unencyclopedic. At the forefront of my mind was the sensitive nature of this Wikipedia article and how many online news websites now place a warning ahead of some news stories that have the potential to be upsetting or offensive to people, then the reader can decide if they still want to continue to read the news piece. Along those lines, I wanted what I wrote to convey to people that the Wikipedia page they were about to read was about the exploitation of black women at the hands of whites. Knowing that is the theme of the article, readers could then decide if they wanted to continue for a detailed account of what happened. It was a hard mark to hit so I’m not surprised I fell short of it. To address the issue that you brought up about my content, I purpose this to remedy the situation: I would like to keep the current wording until a few other editors chime in and see if they think what I wrote is in keeping with the information contained in my cited source. If other editors think my addition to the lead needs to quote the source more closely then we can remove the citation from it. I feel what I added to the lead sums up information within the Wikipedia article so I think my content could stand on its own even without that citation. But, if the sentence is ultimately problematic with anyone, I won’t get in the way of it being removed and being replaced with more descriptive material that other editors deem more appropriate. Please let me know if this plan sounds reasonable to you. I’m about working with people to find solutions, never edit wars.

I agree TLDR is always of concern, the lead needs to be succinct. I wasn’t aiming for a specific number of sentences, just for something that feels right. The depth of this article can’t be summarized in two sentences and clearly is still not there with three. As you made reference to, the source I cited says “it was highly fashionable and desirable for women to have large bottoms, so lots of people envied what she had naturally, without having to accentuate her figure [with a bustle]” and that wealthy individuals would hire her for private demonstrations where people were allowed to touch her body. Sections of the Wikipedia page have already brought racial fetishism and exoticism into the story, so I agree with you that it should also be touched upon in the lead. I hope you will consider adding this type of content. It’s among the things I thought the lead was lacking when I first read this article. In any event, I thank you again for meeting me here. I respect your time and appreciate the conversation. Down time (talk)

@Ol hogger: I just noticed that you replaced “white” with “local” in my lead content. I’m not sure that word works either because the term could be misinterpreted to encompass everyone who lives in an area, including people of color. It also makes it sound like a relatively small region of people. I changed it to “European” because the cited source names Europeans as the group you and I are both referring to. This lead really needs to make it clear the article deals with race and who was exploiting her. I would hate for general readers skimming the lead to miss the point. (“State facts that may be obvious to you, but are not necessarily obvious to the reader.” Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#State_the_obvious) Let me know if this change in wording seems logical to you as well. If not, let’s keep working on it. Thank you again for the communication Down time (talk)

Thank you for your elaborate consideration! I was no entirely happy with "local", either. However, all we know is, that the exhibitions took place during a definite time span in a definite locale. And were visited by a comparatively small proportion of the Western Europeans. What we do not know: Whether this body feature would have gone unnoticed by any member of another group of the world population not in the habit of contact with the Khoi. We have no reason to blame Western Europeans neither in general, nor in particular. Compare the effect of "long European noses" to say Japanese people. The contemporary female fashion of artificially stressing hips and behinds may even explain, not justify! the childish desire to verify by touching. Ol hogger (talk) 08:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Draft:

The women were exhibited because a steatopygic body type - uncommon in Western Europe - was perceived as a curiosity during this time.

What do you think?" Ol hogger (talk) 07:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Or rather:

The women were exhibited for their steatopygic body type, which - uncommon in Western Europe - was perceived as a curiosity during this time.

Ol hogger (talk) 07:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Or even:

The women were exhibited for their steatopygic body type uncommon in Western Europe. This was perceived as a curiosity during this time.

Facts and perception in separate sentences.Ol hogger (talk) 07:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Ol hogger I understand what you mean – stating “Western Europeans” is rather vague. The preexisting first sentence in the lead simply states she was exhibited in “Europe”, which is also very broad. Thankfully these generalization issues are cleared up by the Wikipedia article which includes specific places where everything occurred. But to address your proposed wordage changes: I like that you have introduced “uncommon” into the wording. That does in fact sum up why steatopygia was a curiosity in this situation. My thoughts on the three variations you offered: I think it needs to remain a single sentence so I’m looking at your first and second suggestions. I know there are many editors out their who focus specifically on making grammar edits and I have noticed the use of hyphens as a form of punctuation tends to get frowned upon, so I hope you don’t mind that I took the liberty of slightly rewording what you purposed in order to eliminate them. At this point, what do you think about us both sitting back and waiting to see what other editors think about the wording we have come up with? I’m curious if other editors think my softened synopsis of the cited material is acceptable, or if it needs to more closely mirror the graphic wording used in the source. BTW, I like the way you expanded upon Venus terminology. Perfect. Down time (talk)

Right. Let's be patient. More aspects may come up:

The women were exhibited for their steatopygic body type uncommon in Western Europe. At that time this was not only perceived as a curiosity, but became subject of scientific interest, if frequently of racist bias, as well as of erotic projection.

Three components: Somewhat innocent curiosity, racist science, and sexual objectification. Don't you think this will justify separate sentences? Ol hogger (talk) 06:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ol hogger: I like what you have written here. I absolutely agree that all three of those aspects should be in the lead. Please feel free to rearrange and/or break up my sentence in a way that allows you to add more information from the news article I cited. I hope you will dive in! WP:BOLD