Talk:South Africa

BRICS Membership

Something must be said about South Africa's recent inclusion in BRICS. Done --User:DiscipleOfKnowledge (talk) 13:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you should spell BRICS out in full, 'cos nobody probably knows what it means. Meanwhile, I've added BRICS material at foreign and military relations section. Small problem with refs which I can't figure out & would be obliged if someone could fix on my behalf pse. Thanks. Communikat (talk) 22:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Why read only?

How come the article is now 'read only'? Unable to edit. Communikat (talk) 08:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected to reduce persistent vandalism, but can still be edited - see Wikipedia:Protection Policy and Wikipedia:Rough guide to semi-protection Greenman (talk) 09:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Nah, problem was that my new username had to exist for at least four days before system allowed access to semi-protect article. Now okay. Except that I can't get refs to come right in BRICS material newly added at foreign and military relations section. Can someone pse fix? Thanks. Communikat (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

"copyright violation" undone

Administrator Nick-D, who has never worked on this article, stalked and hounded me here, claiming copyright violation as his "reason" for deleting my recent edits in which I cited reliable UN and SA sources. I have undone his deletions. For his edification, works of the United Nations that are not offered for sale, such as the documents I have cited, are in the public domain. I would further add that works of the South African Government Communications and Information Service, such as the other documents I cited, are inherently in the public domain since they are a source of public information. (See here re "inherently"). Communikat (talk) 02:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Both websites are explicitly marked as being under copyright. Nick-D (talk) 02:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

maybe you're right about the UN, but not about RSA. You could just as well use your own words; it's really not that difficult. If you insist on the UN-stuff ad verbatim, the article needs a footnote-template at the bottom (<find the correct one) to attribute the source and state that it is in the public domain. What's your pleasure? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The UNHCR's website is marked as being under copyright at the bottom of its front page: [1] and the HTML version of the South African country page: [2] so it's probably not in the public domain. Nick-D (talk) 02:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

oh, it's the High Commissioner... yeah, that's copyrighted. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Communicat, why have you re-added the copyvio from the UNHCR's website? This material isn't public domain. It also doesn't support the claim that's attributed to it (that this competition is the main cause of violence). Did you forget to re-word this? Nick-D (talk) 11:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Somebody's "rewording" of text has left a garble in text between refs 152 & 153. Pse fix, whoever did it, probably Edward321. Meanwhile, on the question of UN works that are not for sale, I refer you all again to this re public domain. The copyright notices you're refering to pertain IMO to the website itself, its logo and so on, not the text contents of the site. In any event, since there's now a sudden rush of interest in this long neglected article, I'll leave it in your capable hands; you can do with it whatever takes your fancy, including garbling the text if you like. Thanks for your interest. Communikat (talk) 12:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way, whoever changed the official words "strategic partnership" to "trade agreement" has succeeded in distorting the meaning of the term "strategic partnership". SA and China have longstanding trade agreements that were fomalised long before the Beijing summit; whereas, as anyone who's familiar with the subject will know, "strategic partnership" includes not just economic cooperation but also and especially matters of diplomatic cooperation. South Africa's positions on matters like Darfur, Zimbabwe and Burma (Myanmar) mirror those of China and have been a clear indication of the two governments’ shared outlook on key features of the international system, which the Beijing summit cemented further. So, in their rush to "reword" the text, and then depart the scene just as hurriedly, certain editors unfamiliar with the subject have substantially altered the meaning of "strategic partnership" to suit themselves. Well done. Communikat (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Addressing article bloat

South Africa source is 136KB at the time that I'm writing this, which is far too long per WP:SIZERULE. Current or recent events frequently get added, as well as users' personal specific points of interest. Chopping out sections, or moving information into sub articles will always be met with disagreement, so I wanted to get the ball rolling on nominating areas that are too long or suffer from WP:RECENTISM. Remember, this is the root article giving people an overview of the country. Here are some thoughts to kick things off, discussion is very welcome.

• Economy section devotes a very large paragraph citing numerous stats about income disparity, which could be summarized.
• Economy section has a long paragraph about immigrants.
• Electricity crisis has its own level 3 heading and multiple paragraphs. The amount of text devoted to the electricity crisis is longer than the dismantling of apartheid.
• Demographics is massive, no subheadings.
• Demographics has 3 paragraphs solely on the population, immigration and emigration trends of European South Africans.
• Demographics again deals with illegal immigration and asylum seekers.
• Literature has 3 individuals, each with their own paragraph devoted entirely to them.
• Social problems has yet another long paragraph on illegal immigration, this time from the angle of the 2008 xenophobic attacks.

Hopefully we can pare off sections of this article into more specialized articles. --HiltonLange (talk) 18:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Good suggestions; well thought out and succinctly presented. Has my support. Useful to have someone here who's actually familiar with the subject matter. Communikat (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

My own thoughts, for what they're worth:

• "History" section replicates / ambiguates / forks History of South Africa article. Should be much reduced / redirected to appropriate article History of South Africa
• "Military and international relations" section should comprise two distinctly separate sections. They are two distinctly separate subjects. Presumably they were combined because someone considered there to be insufficient available data for two separate sections. In fact there's a great deal of data around, which could be easily cited and incorporated to satisfactorily fill two separate sections. Communikat (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

map on the infobox contains various mistakes....

Eritrea and South Sudan are shown as part of Ethiopia and Sudan respectively, a border between the former north and south Yemen is also shown on the map whereas it lacks the border between Lebanon and Syria... Please if anyone can fix it. These mistakes are also present in several other African countries' infobox maps such as that of Kenya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecad93 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done — wait for changes to propagate. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

And it'll take a while, because there's some kind of bug with updating thumbnails at the moment. - htonl (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Proper sourcing

This edit by Communikat [3] is sourced to a Wiki [4] and thus not a reliable source. That Wiki claims to cite an actual news source, but that link is dead.[5] Edward321 (talk) 23:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The referenced news article is here. - htonl (talk) 00:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll restore the info with the reliable reference then. Edward321 (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The source is reliable, but I don't believe it's sufficiently notable or current. There is a Transport in South Africa article which covers the road deaths as well as more details on rail. The article is from 6 years ago, and preceded the massive transport investment leading up to 2010. Further to my notability and bloat points, this is an overview of the economy. In the context of the economy, it mentions a few challenges. It devotes one word to AIDS, corruption and crime. And then an entire paragraph about how long roads are lasting compared to how long they should last? --HiltonLange (talk) 07:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Why then don't you add some more text and refs to Aids, corruption and crime (seeing as you've raised the concern)? Communikat (talk) 16:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that they need to be expanded or referenced here. I was using them as contrasts because I think they are appropriately sized. There are 3 paragraphs and a top level heading dedicated to AIDS further down. Crime has it's own 2nd level heading and paragraph. (I've just noticed that corruption actually shouldn't be there, the corruption references show that South Africa scored well on objective corruption metrics). I'm coming from the point of view of looking at what an average reader wanting an overview of South would want to see. They're now reading about the South African economy. They're interested in imports, exports, industry, policy, income equality, revenue. They don't need to reread details of the AIDS pandemic here, nor about specifics of the longevity of roads, IMHO. The foreign debt entirely appropriate to introduce here. --HiltonLange (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Aids, corruption, crime, and the roads issue, among others, have a direct and important impact on the economy of the country, and as such those factors should be elaborated upon in the Economy section, rather than simply be deleted. (Another major, very major, factor is the massive foreign debt run up during the apartheid era and inherited by the post-apartheid government, which the new govt is paying off, and it consumes annually a major portion of GDP).

As already proposed without any objections, I'm changing existing "Military and International Relations" by separating the two subjects and starting an International Relations section, which merits a stand-alone separate from Military. I'll expand with relevant text and refs as and when time allows, though others are of course free and more than welcome to improve and expand with their own valued contributions. Communikat (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Hilton, sorry about roads. Was an edit conflict, so missed your above and restored "roads" again with add about cost to economy. Thought earlier there was apparent consensus between a couple of editors that the "roads" thing should remain. I do get your point. Gets a bit confusing when half a dozen editors suddenly start focusing on some or other minutae, while the big picture remains overlooked.

Speaking of which, on the macro level, do you concur that the longggg History section replicates History of South Africa article and should be reduced radically and appropriately to ease article bloat? Communikat (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

fix white space?

Maybe one of our more technically talented editors can fix the insightly layout gap of white space / bloat of visuals below text of "Largest Municipalities"? Communikat (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I "fixed" it by removing the second language map, which seemed unnecessarily duplicative of the first, and had an enormous legend. - htonl (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

"Copy & paste" complaints

I'd be much obliged, if or when editors complain of "copying and pasting", they provide word-for-word comparisons with the original text, to substantiate their complaints and subsequent "rewording". It might also be worth noting that, as every experienced editor knows, it may sometimes be impossible to "reword" certain instances of hard fact without changing the factual, intended meaning of the original words. For instance, changing the words "comprehensive strategic partnership" to "trade agreement" constitutes a radical departure from what is meant by a comprehensive strategic partnership; namely, not only trade but also diplomatic and political activities. There are other examples, which I won't go into right now. In such instances, the overriding rule should be WP:COMMONSENSE and perhaps also WP:IAR. --Communikat (talk) 01:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Here we are, highlighting Communkat's copy-paste.

• 6/25 edits by Communikat:[6], repeated on 7/6.[7][8]
• Competition over jobs, business opportunities, public services and housing give rise to tension among refugees, asylum-seekers, migrants and host communities, and these factors are identified as a main cause of the xenophobic violence. - Communikat
• Competition over jobs, business opportunities, public services and housing give rise to tension among refugees, asylum-seekers, migrants and host communities. Xenophobic violence continues to occur, though fears of widespread clashes in the wake of the 2010 World Cup proved unfounded. - Source[9]

• 7/1 edit by Communikat:[10] repeated with only changing "crippled" to "inadequate" on 7/14.[11]
• The country's crippled railway system forced more companies to use long-haul trucks rather than trains to transport goods. This caused roads, which were designed to last 20 years, to be worn down after only six or eight years. - Communikat
• The country's crippled railway system forced more companies to use trucks rather than trains to transport goods. This caused a road, which was designed to last 20 years, to be worn down after only six or eight years. - Source[12]

• 7/5 edits by Communikat.[13], repeated on 7/6:[14][ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Africa&action=historysubmit&diff=438032200&oldid=437981263]
• On 24 August 2010, South African President Jacob Zuma and Chinese President Hu Jintao signed a joint declaration in Beijing on the establishment of a comprehensive strategic partnership between SA and China. - Communikat

• South African President Jacob Zuma and Chinese President Hu Jintao shake hands after signing the Beijing Declaration on the establishment of a comprehensive strategic partnership between SA and China, Beijing, 24 August 2010 - Source[15]
• 7/6 edits by Communikat:[16][17]
• South Africa received more than 207,000 individual asylum applications in 2008 and a further 222,300 in 2009, representing nearly a four-fold rise in both years over the levels seen in 2007. - Communikat
• South Africa received more than 207,000 individual asylum applications in 2008 and a further 222,300 in 2009, representing nearly a four-fold rise in both years over the levels seen in 2007. - Source[18]

I find what Communikat changed interestong as well. Edward321 (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Corruption: notability

It is true as Hilton has pointed out, "the corruption references show that South Africa scored well on objective corruption metrics." But what differentiates SA from other countries in comparative studies, is the high-level visibility of the individuals involved: e.g. the convicted former head of police and head of Interpol; former Defence Minister; present Minister of Co-operative Governance; the State President himself (who was implicated formally in "generally corrupt" relationships); advisers close to the President; numerous high-level figures in the multi-billion arms deal, (investigations into which have been successfuly blocked); countless mayors and local government executives; etc etc. Not to mention the almost daily occuring riots in violent protest against corruption. All of which is well-documented and has notability, despite what the "objective corruption metrics" might say. And despite also the word "corruption" being sanitised and substituted for in official reports by the relatively benign word "maladministration". Communikat (talk) 13:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Edward321 has blindly reverted substantial chunk of relevant text and reliable refs in Economy section, dealing with Black Economic Empowerment (BEE). He claims in his edit summary that academic study cited is "corrupted and cannot be read", which is not true. It opens perfectly in my browser. Other editors please check and verify. Further, this chunk of text below, (as deleted in apparent vandalism by Edward321), cites recent, expert economic analysis and reliable refs. Other editors please scrutinise and concur, if appropriate, whether or not alleged vandalism has occured, and/or whether text and refs should be reinstated. Deleted text and refs read as follows: The government's official policy of black economic empowerment (BEE) was intended to improve overall equity in earnings, but in practice this has meant enrichment of a small, black, politically connected elite, rather than addressing the broader economic disparities of society.(ref Witwatersrand University [http://www.wits.ac.za/files/rfk3o_599764001302591200.pdf BEE Reform: The Case for an Institutional Perspective (ends ref) In 2005-06, the national Income and Expenditure Survey found the average income for the top 10% of households was 32 times that of the bottom 50%. The country ranks among the 10 countries with the lowest share of employed adults in the world, according to the International Labour Organisation . (ref Neva Makgetla, http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=105049 "Inequality on scale found in SA bites like acid," Business Day, 31 March 2010 (ends ref) Communikat (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

PS: In "restoring deleted reliable sources and links", Edward321 has also reinstated this inaccurate ref: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jan/22/southafrica.features Race against time]. The Observer. 22 January 2006. Anyone can see that the ref, supposedly from The Guardian, simultaneously cites The Observer. So which is it: The Guardian or The Observer, or both? Clearly the ref is unreliable. That's why I deleted it. What is the view of other editors?Communikat (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not expressing an opinion one way or the other on the merits of the edit, but it's clearly not vandalism; it's a content dispute. Let me point out WP:VAND:

“ Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. ”

Edward321 didn't "blindly" remove the text; he referred to HiltonLange's comments higher up the page to explain the removal. As to the PDF, it opens fine on my computer. But one should assume good faith; it's probably just a software problem on Edward's side. - htonl (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the roads story. That's neither here nor there. I'm talking about the BEE story. What is your objective view on that? Should the reverted BEE text and refs be reinstated? A simple Yes or No will suffice.

Meanwhile, Edward321's reversion of my edits both at this SA article and earlier at History of SA and elsewhere have established what is IMO a distinct pattern of disruption and harassment, making it very difficult for me to assume good faith on his part. Communikat (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I honestly don't have an opinion on the BEE stuff because I haven't read the cited references and I'm busy editing other articles at the moment. As far as I can see, Edward321 has reverted you twice here (and in one case undid the reversion after I linked the original article) and once on the History article. I don't think that stretches to "disruption and harassment" in any sense of the words. In any case, it's clearly not vandalism. - htonl (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

My system still continues to insist the pdf is corrupted and will not open it. I would appreciate if you could confirm the content, Communikat has a history of misinterpreting sources.[19][20] Edward321 (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Comminunkat's claim that http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jan/22/southafrica.features is not a reliable source seems to show a lack of understanding of modern journalism - The Guardian is reprinting an article from The Observer, which it owns, correctly attributing it to that paper. Edward321 (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The link [21] opens for me as a 4.9MB, 19-page PDF document entitled "BEE 
Reform: 
The 
Case 
for 
an 
Institutional
 Perspective". It doesn't indicate who the author is or for what purpose the report was written, but I deduce from this that it was a seminar given by a Don Lindsay from the Wits sociology department. It does support the statement that BEE has not improved the "broader economic disparity", but I think it would be stretching to say that it supports the claim about "enrichment of a small, black, politically connected elite". I didn't read the document very closely, though, so I am open to correction here.

As to the Observer article, it is clear that the Observer article is reliable. If you click on the "Article history" link, you see the message "This article appeared on p38 of the Observer Magazine section of the Observer on Sunday 22 January 2006. It was published on guardian.co.uk at 02.18 GMT on Sunday 22 January 2006." The Observer is part of Guardian Media Group and its articles are published on the Guardian website; there is nothing unreliable about that. - htonl (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

My mistake. I was not aware that an "understanding of modern journalism" was a requirement for editing wikipedia. I will in future do my best to keep up to date on the latest media mergers and acquisitions, which still does not change the fact that Edward321 has a history of hounding me to articles on which he has never worked previously, and vandalising my edits there. Communikat (talk) 21:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)