Jump to content

Talk:Cyril Ramaphosa

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Migy007 (talk | contribs) at 09:32, 16 October 2022 (→‎Presidency (2018–present), Domestic Policy, Paragraph 4 - Citation 93: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Template:Vital article

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cyril Ramaphosa. 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:

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

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 07:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is he acting on corruption?

The article mentions what he said and demanded to be done about corruption. However that was years ago. Now, installed into highest office and confirmed by a public vote with absolute majority, one naturally wonders what he is actually doing about the issue previosuly declared to be of central and vital importance. I could not detect anything about this in the article. If someone familiar with South African politics could add information to this topic, including how the public reacts to what he is doing - or not (yet) doing? - to address this root problem (as he described it himself), that would be helpful. --129.206.185.172 (talk) 10:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@129.206.185.172: You have a fair point. More information about his recent political views and policies, especially on corruption, should be added to the article. I am honestly quite disappointed with the layout of the article. It is very, very minimalist and outdated, if you could say. Sections need to be expanded, more details need to be added, etc. I would love to expand it but it would be a massive task. Lefcentreright (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you have no intentions of expanding the page,you have no right to criticize it.Queen mash (talk) 10:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Queen mash: Hi, new user. I was just giving my honest opinion at that stage. Also, I have the right to criticise this article because I have edited and expanded this article a lot. If you do not trust the claim "I have edited and expanded this article a lot", please refer to the "View History" section. You will clearly see that I have contributed to it. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 10:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay,I get that you've edited this page a lot,maybe that's what you should do again to ensure that this article exposes the truth and nothing but the truth Queen mash (talk) 15:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge 2020 Phala Phala Robbery

Notable event, but it doesn't really warrant a standalone article. The page is short and unlikely to be substantially expanded anytime soon. Cyril Ramaphosa is not overly long and difficult to navigate, so it wouldn't hurt to incorporate any content from 2022 Phala Phala Robbery. Mooonswimmer 17:53, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge. The other controversy in Ramaphosa's article has a separate page, but it's an event of a completely different nature and scale. This is only "news" because Ramaphosa didn't report the theft to police and now someone else is making a big deal out of it. It can be covered sufficiently in the Ramaphosa article without adding undue length to the page. Schazjmd (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The severity of this article is much worse than expected, especially when opposing parties are asking the president to step down and allegations of Money laundering are being laid against the President. This controversy would add a lot of undue length to this page TapticInfo (talk) 06:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge In its current form it should be merged. If it expands drastically over time it can be split out in future, but there's no certainty yet that it will do so. Greenman (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC) Oppose Merge The changes since June more than warrant it remaining a separate article. Greenman (talk) 11:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: The robbery article:
1) concernes, before all, the person of R., only he was robbed,
2) consists of very few lines.
If, however, there comes much more about it to public knowledge, PPR can be made into it's own article again.
Steue (talk) 04:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Another article on the same topic has been created: Farmgate (scandal). I noted on its talk page that it duplicates the subject of 2020 Phala Phala Robbery. Schazjmd (talk) 17:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For two reasons. One is the seriousness of this incident and the extent to which it has already been covered in the media suggests to me that it will likely expand further, also also strongly indicates to me that the event does warrant a standalone article at this point. This is partly reflected by the moniker "Farmgate" coined and often cited in the media to refer to it. The second is that the Ramaphosa article is already quite long so creating a forked article for this subject will keep the Ramaphosa article at a reasonable length.--Discott (talk) 10:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On an important side note, it is obvious to me that at the very least the Farmgate (scandal) and 2022 Phala Phala Robbery articles need to be merged. We would just need to figure out the most commonly known name for the incident to merge the articles under. I must admit that I was not aware of the 2022 Phala Phala Robbery article at the time that I created the Farmgate article.--Discott (talk) 11:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. When this discussion was started on the 8th of June, the 2020 Phala Phala Robbery was a new, stub-class article with only a lede. At that stage, it would've been logical to merge it to Ramaphosa's article, however, since then, the article has been drastically expanded. Also, more of the robbery has come to public knowledge, opposition parties have called for a parliamentary probe into the robbery, etc. The robbery has become a huge political scandal in SA, like what Partygate became in the UK. Basically, it can now be be its own standalone article. What should be done is that the Farmgate (scandal) article written by @Discott: should be merged into the article about the robbery or vice-versa. Best, LefcentrerightDiscuss 12:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge Guptagate and Nkandlagate both don't have their own pages, which were greater in scale. Farmgate (scandal) and 2022 Phala Phala Robbery should be merged at the very least. Maqdisi (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge per Discott and Lefcentreright's reasoning. The articles are getting very lengthy and there's no sign the scandal is going away. CR's article will also keep getting longer so worth keeping it trim where possible. Also agree strongly on the Farmgate (scandal) and 2022 Phala Phala Robbery merger – on the name of the merged article, I think the most common descriptor at this point is just "Phala Phala", which is not ideal. "Phala Phala robbery scandal"? Jlalbion (talk) 21:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Greenman and Steue: In your responses above, you indicated that you may change your mind to support a separate page if the article expands drastically or if much more comes to public knowledge. Have Leftcentrerights's assertions swayed you that this has happened? Felix QW (talk) 10:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ Felix QW,
I wrote my opinion before [Lefcentreright] his/hers;
and I'm not keeping up to date on this issue.
As I wrote above: If things have changed, which they seem to have done, as I read above, it's perfectly OK with me to seperate the two topics.
Ping welcome, Steue (talk) 01:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of his name?

I guess, from "Phala phala", it is soft, like "Philadelphia", but I'm uncertain, because. e.g. in the Italian language, also in Indian transcriptions of names, an "h" (behind) indicates "hard".
Ping welcome, Steue (talk) 04:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Steue: It's a hard "p" in both Ramaphosa and Phala Phala – the "h" indicates it's aspirated. Acceptable variations of both can be heard e.g. here and here. Jlalbion (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, Jlalbion, and especially for the ping.
Steue (talk) 23:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jlalbion
I Just listened to both videos. To me these "p"s sound pretty normal.
So, why are these "p"s hardened ? or:
How would a soft "p" sound?
What is more often in this language?

Ping welcome, Steue (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right, I just meant hard as in (1) distinguished to what you called the soft ("f") sound of "ph" in "Philadelphia" and (2) aspirated. Full warning that I don't know a lot about linguistics! But whereas in English the consonant "p" might be aspirated or not depending on the word, in many (most? all?) Southern African languages, "ph" is always an aspirated "p" (like in "pat") and "p" is always unaspirated (like in "split"). Generally if you get the subsequent vowel sound right, you'll aspirate the "ph" automatically, and anyway if you pronounced it "Ramaposa" nobody would bat an eye. Jlalbion (talk) 10:26, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jlalbion
Thanks. In my (first) language (German) and in English I'm not aware of such (to me) tiny differences (which do exist in South African). But sometimes (when I study a sound in [IPA]) I do become aware that there are tiny differences in my language of which I have not been aware before.

Ping welcome, Steue (talk) 02:01, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Presidency (2018–present), Domestic Policy, Paragraph 4 - Citation 93

New to Wikipedia editing.

"He has said that the state having the power to seize property for no compensation will encourage economic growth."

I don't understand the reference cited in this paragraph, number 93. It does not cite any source which supports the statement. The statement should be removed if it cannot be supported by a source. Migy007 (talk) 09:32, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cyril_Ramaphosa&oldid=1116390307"