User talk:Alfred Beit

This is Alfred Beit's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

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

Welcome!

Hi Alfred Beit! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Beit, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Alfred Beit! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Lectonar (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Apartheid Studies (May 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Timtrent was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This is a prime example of WP:CITEKILL. Instead we need one excellent reference per fact asserted. If you are sure it is beneficial, two, and at an absolute maximum, three. Three is not a target, it's a limit. Aim for one. A fact you assert, once verified in a reliable source, is verified. More is gilding the lily. Please choose the very best in each case of multiple referencing for a single point and either drop or repurpose the remainder.

All inline links should be removed, please, and turned into references if appropriate, Wikilinks, or external links in a section so named. See Wikipedia:External links. There should be no links pointing to external sources until those in the 'References' section (with the exception of one optional link in any infobox).

This is WP:BOMBARD

Researchgate is a deprecated source, as is Spotify. Please also read WP:YOUTUBE. Your references must pass WP:42

There is little point in a deeper review until you have sorted out. the referencing.

I have corrected your headings. Please read MOS:HEAD for your future use

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Apartheid Studies and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Apartheid Studies (June 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MCE89 was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

None of the sources apart from those authored by Nyasha Mboti appear to use the term "apartheid studies" in the way that this draft does. You need additional references to demonstrate that this is truly an emerging field of study, as opposed to something invented by Mboti.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Apartheid Studies and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MCE89 (talk) 04:46, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"as opposed to something invented by Mboti". I don't understand this objection. Apartheid Studies was developed, pioneered and invented by Mboti, just as semiotics was invented by Saussure and CS Pierce, or deconstruction by Derrida, or cultural studies by British Marxists such as Stuart Hall. Should there have been somebody else other than Mboti? And is it wrong for a concept or field of study to be founded by an individual scholar or scholars? Please explain for me to understand. Apartheid Studies is a novel idea first introduced by Mboti. All the accredited published sources that mention it, since 2019, are by Mboti. Or are you saying that I must include other sources that mention the term "apartheid studies" by other scholars who are not Mboti? I do know of several such sources, and I can include them. I just want to be sure that this is what you are asking for. I hope my question makes sense. This is my first stab at a Wikipedia article and any clarity helps. Alfred Beit (talk) 20:55, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! That's essentially correct — it's not a problem that it was introduced by Mboti per se, but Wikipedia requires that multiple independent sources discuss the idea in detail. So if the only sources that are discussing Apartheid Studies were written by Mboti, that is not enough to show that the concept is notable. If you can add sources that show that this field has gained traction among other scholars, that would help to establish notability. MCE89 (talk) 02:34, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your clarification and for the critical constructive comments you provide. I found them very helpful. My interest in this topic is because I am a PhD student whose study uses Apartheid Studies significantly. The origin of Apartheid Studies is quite recent (and, hence, emerging), yet significant enough to merit international academic interest.

I have now addressed the query regarding additional, independent and in-depth references. See footnote 2 which cites Heron (2024) (the article provides a major analysis and interpretation of Apartheid Studies as a theoretical framework) and footnote 3 which cites Tagwirei (2025) (the whole book is based on the AS framework); see also footnote 6 which cites Tufte (2024) (the article refers to Mboti’s work) and footnote 9 which cites Koot, Büscher and Thakholi (2022) who refer to Apartheid Studies. See Footnote 38 for a major study of social movements at Loughborough University which is based on Apartheid Studies. I hope that these changes address your concern. Alfred Beit (talk) 16:19, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See also footnote 39 for the literary study by Ngcobo and Roya which references Apartheid Studies. All in all, about half a dozen original, independent secondary studies refer to Apartheid Studies, with the most in-depth being Heron (2024) and Tagwirei (2025). The rest touch on the subject to varying degrees of depth and breadth. Alfred Beit (talk) 16:41, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]