Talk:South Africa

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2014

The sentence "The Constitution of South Africa is the supreme rule of law in the country. " appears to be incomprehensible. A question mark should be added with a request for clarification.

62.20.173.148 (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - It doesn't seem incomprehensible - the constitution is the supreme law, and cannot be over-ruled by other legislation. Arjayay (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2014

Deputy President should be changed from Kgalema Motlanthe to Cyril Ramaphosa Main Source: http://www.gov.za/aboutgovt/leaders/index.php Other Source: "He did, as expected, appoint African National Congress (ANC) deputy president Cyril Ramaphosa as the country’s deputy president." (http://www.bdlive.co.za/national/politics/2014/05/25/jacob-zuma-announces-new-cabinet) Waddie96 (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Done NQ (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Template for largest cities

Many other countries' "Demographics" sections have a template of largest cities. Is there one for South Africa? If not, could someone make it? B14709 (talk) 02:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2014

|leader_title3 = NCOP chairman |leader_name3 = Mninwa J. Mahlangu |leader_title4 = Speaker of the National Assembly |leader_name4 = Max Sisulu

SHOULD BE CHANGED TO

|leader_title3 = NCOP Madame Chair |leader_name3 = Thandi_Modise |leader_title4 = Speaker of the National Assembly |leader_name4 = Baleka Mbete

REFERENCES

<http://mg.co.za/article/2014-05-21-baleka-mbete-sworn-in-as-speaker-of-the-house>

<http://www.news24.com/elections/news/thandi-modise-is-new-ncop-chair-20140522>

Dualcitizen1 (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for pointing it out. - htonl (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Black African

What is a black African??.....It implies that Africans by default can be "other" than Black. If that's the case, then where are the White European and Yellow Asian articles???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.49.25.115 (talk) 06:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC) Mansu Musa (talk) 01:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It is someone who identifies as such in South Africa's national census, and indeed there can be other Africans such as white Africans. This article is not about Europe or Asia. HelenOnline 07:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Consistency is the cornerstone of truth. Where are the Black & Asian European articles on WIKIPEDIA?? If they are none then same standard should be held for these "white" Africans, if they are indeed "immigrants" even after 2nd, 3rd and 4th generations then the same standard should be held for whites in Africa Mansu Musa (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Arguing about "truth" is pointless here, please read WP:NOTTRUTH. HelenOnline 17:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Who here has claimed that blacks in Europe are "immigrants" after multiple generations? In any case, "Black African" is the term officially used by Stats SA on the census questionnaire which you can see here. If you have an issue with the term, then take it up with the South African authorities. - htonl (talk) 18:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Secondly, I would add that there is a great deal of variation from one country to another (and one region to another) in how ethnicity and nationality is referred to and the names that are used. So I would not expect to see a perfectly logical consistency across the whole of Wikipedia. - htonl (talk) 18:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

On further investigation I think I may realise what your reference to "immigrants" is about: the title Black European redirects to the article African immigration to Europe. I agree with you that this is wrong, and that Black European (or some similar appropriate title) should be a proper article about black people in Europe that doesn't limit itself merely to immigrants and the phenomenon of immigration. Unfortunately I have very little knowledge in that field so I wouldn't want to jump in and make a mess of it myself. - htonl (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback and I would like to state one more thing. The gentleman Mr.Helen states 'arguing about "truth" is pointless.' I find this statement suspect. Suspect because Wikipedia fancies itself and prides itself as being an "Encyclopedia" and from its own journal and I'm quoting here " Encyclopedia articles focus on factual information to cover the thing or concept for which the article name stands." Factual an adjective derived from Facts and I quote again from Wikipedia's vault "Fact is sometimes used synonymously with truth, as distinct from opinions, falsehoods, or matters of taste." So I say, if we can't argue truth on a truth bearing forum then what can we argue?? By Wikipedia's own delineated standards, it doesn't measure up and if its not an Encyclopedia then what is it?

As for your dilemma Htonl the solution is quite easy. Institute consistent universal language across the board, it's that simple. Especially seeing the fact that consistency is being utilized on an intra-area basis where Europe is concern. Of all 49 Sovereign EU countries, I could find no negation from this FACT. Code term usages such as "Ethnic" Germans, "Native" Spaniards, "Foreign born descendants" and my personal favorite "persons with an immigration background" are all applied to assort and separate authentic citizenry. It is sneaky, deceptive and deliberately deceitful but at least its consistent. And despite the deception I do respect the principle of it, Europe is the homeland of whites, Europe is indigenous to whites, just as Asia is indigenous to the Asians and so too is Africa, indigenous to Blacks....and only Blacks....However where Africa is concern we have whites being placed on the same citizenry pedestal or even higher than the native Black population. Adding insult to injury whites do not even adhere to or follow native customs or language, they impose their foreign way of life onto the landscape. If a Black or an Asian is forevermore cast as a descendant of immigrants on Europe's land, no matter how many generations they've been there, then the same standard should be held for European colonists in Africa. And if that European colonist is to be considered African despite not adhering to any indigenous custom, practice or language then the African immigrant son should be afforded the same treatment. This is intellectual dishonesty and Cultural Piracy and quite frankly an Act of War. Mansu Musa (talk) 09:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Before you comment further, I suggest you read the article very carefully describing what Wikipedia is NOT to be used for. It can be found by clicking this link WP:FORUM and WP:SOAPBOX. Please do not use the talk page for your own personal opinions and beliefs. The talk page is to be used to improve the article. You might also want to read the article on verifiability WP:VERIFY, one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia. Information in the South African article is not based on personal opinion or as Helen says above, things you believe is TRUE. Information needs to be verifiable from a reliable source. The information about Black Africans in South Africa comes directly from the official South African Census, as is thus verifiable and therefore is the defacto standard to be used within South African culture and context. Mycelium101 (talk) 07:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering what took you so long. For your information I am well aware of Wikipedia's WELL-CRAFTED "Rules." You have a nice day now.Mansu Musa (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed new heading under European colonisation

Discussing the addition of a new heading under European colonisation... The children of the Dutch Settlers, now living in a British Colony and leaving the bBritish Colony borders to live independently, and the generations of their children after them, are not Colonialists. They have no country and do not represent the expansion of any Power or Country, in fact, they are exactly the same as the Nguni that did much the same thing a few centuries earlier. Any objections if I move the section that deals with that to a new heading European Ssettlers Zarpboer (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC) additionally would like to amend the heading "Bantu colonisation" To: "Bantu settlement" The Ngunis did not travel North to expand the Nguni empire (colonialise) the San nations, they moved South looking for better earth and more specifically, water. So they settled and did not colonise? Zarpboer (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit dispute: Subjugation

@Htonl - this section deals with the discovery of gold and diamonds. This intensified the subjugation of the indigenous people - these indigenous people - were the Boers. The way you are making this read is that it was a racial thing? European vs Black? - This is not the case at all - it was about MONEY, weirdly enough, when money is on the table, race walks out the door... It was not about the Zulus, Not the Xhosa etc. Please read the citations added. Then: Undo your non cited and incorrect edit. (The only other indigenous people who were already subjugated, were the Griquas (as it were their diamonds) - please discuss so the slanted POV can be correctedZarpboer (talk) 13:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was a racial thing. There was a need for cheap labour to work the mines. So in order to encourage/force black men to go work on the mines, white governments imposed such measures as hut taxes etc. You should note that this does not apply only to the Boer republics - the British colonial administrations were just as involved. Are you really trying to claim that ZAR did not subjugate its black population, the Cape Colony did not subjugate the Xhosa, and so on? And incidentally, one really can't describe the Transvaal Boers as "indigenous" in the 1880s when they had only lived in the Transvaal for at most 40 years. - htonl (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I have expanded on that sentence with an explanation detailing what I have said above, along with a reference. - htonl (talk) 14:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, you should read your sentence - It says the discovery increased subjugation. Then you should really read the cited resources, the one is quite a good read. The other, is not so relevant to what is being claimed here and should be moved/removed... Read them - and see what I am saying. You are jumping from 1869 and 1884 to 1899 hmm, better than me trying to explain all this to you just see WP:SYN - What you are saying is true but not where it is and how it is said. Hut taxes or kraal taxes is entirely a different subject? And the ZAR was 100% white and even belonged only to two churches, they were racists, who is talking about racism?, oh yes, you are. Regarding indigenous some of the boers have at that time already been in southern africa for a few hundred years and if you look at the definition of the word indigenous, they were in fact already unique enough to qualify as such, again, that is completely a different discussion to the dispute? Our edit difference lies herein: this section deals with the discovery of gold and diamonds did the discovery of gold and diamonds itself lead to an immediate increase in the level of subjugation to the indigenous population of a non existent town Johannesburg? - no, it did not even exist yet. what it did lead to is an increase in the level of conflict between British and Boer, the entire ZAR belonged to the Boers, not the British and certainly not the Zulus or Xhosas or Sothos - again - at that time (1869 and 1184) - So, can you please deal with that and try not to involve racism or racialism or other topics - you can add additional content or sections if you feel that something should be said about racism (look at South African Republic and racism section... - this, however has nothing to do with our current dispute... Zarpboer (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Please complete our discussion here... before editing / edit warring Zarpboer (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Changing the discovery of gold subjugation agenda to the mine taxes of 1903 under the Union of South Africa - as per your new sahistory citation, is not coolthis is an encyclopedia? We are now at 1869 not anywhere near 1903 and that is even after three major wars and in a different country? - I realise you want to push your POV, but stick to the topic? - add a new section - mines and how the mines served to further subjugate and oppress the black man, etc. i have no problem with that, but lets get there first so it makes sense... Zarpboer (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

If you want to enforce a discuss-before-editing rule, then revert the article to the state it was in before you started editing. Then we can discuss. But I'm not willing to accept a regime where you are allowed to edit while I am not. Accusations of edit warring are also not conducive to a good discussion. - htonl (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I have not undone your last edit? - I added citation required tags. go read it - it is your last edit currently - and I do not agree with it... Now you edited it again, this time jumping to 1903 mine taxes. and now you are claiming I am the only one editing? - Discuss the issue please. - your current edit? Zarpboer (talk) 14:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Fine, I will revert the paragraph to how it was before the dispute started. Your initial edit to the "The discovery of diamonds in 1867..." paragraph is part of the issue, just as my subsequent edit is. - htonl (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Now, to continue: my sahistory link has nothing to do with the 1903 mining taxes and I have no idea where you got that from. The paragraph in question talks about how the discovery of diamonds and gold led to the Mineral Revolution, and then goes on to talk about the effects that the Mineral Revolution had on South Africa. Let me quote which bit of the sahistory page I am referring to, just in case there is any confusion:

“ Gold was an extremely valuable metal. It was the basis of the world's monetary system and it was also prized for jewellery. The Rand mines were the largest ever discovered anywhere in the world and represented a much greater store of wealth than even the diamond fields. The mine owners exercised considerable political power, and subsidised the governments in various ways because they needed its co-operation to provide sympathetic policing and anti-worker laws.

In this context, it was important to create a regular labour supply and to channel it to the mining centres. To induce men to go to work on the mines, the government introduced various taxes which were payable in cash.

Migrant labourers helped to build the economy and prosperity of South Africa by their contribution to the gold-mining industry. Migrant labourers were neither here nor there. At work, where they spent most of their time, they were treated as sojourners whose only purpose was to market their labour to provide comfort for the townspeople. Compounds enabled mine owners to keep wages low. The capitalists were only too happy to have a workforce without the full cost of supporting workers and their families in town. The mine owners were not concerned about the domestic life of migrant labourers; neither were they interested in increasing the purchasing power of their workforce. At home, migrant workers were strangers to their families. Worse still, the household had the responsibility of shouldering the social costs of caring for the children and giving them what education they could.

Fathers were often regarded as strangers by their children. Sons were compelled by tax demands to join their fathers as soon as they became 18. They were appalled by the extramarital unions their fathers had entered. The mothers, too, complained that to their husbands they were just old-age providers or even hospitals. While these remarks are truthful, the reader must be aware that the situation was beyond the control of the migrants — it was the plan of their employers to use the strength of the workers' active years. From an employer’s point of view, labour was cheap when the least possible amount was contributed to the subsistence and upkeep of the labourer.

”

If we were to follow your argument that that paragraph is only about the immediate consequences of the discoveries and not those of the following mining boom, then we have to exclude the alleged "subjugation" of the Boers by the British as well. After all, the discovery of gold was in 1886 and the ZAR was only "subjugated" in 1899. - htonl (talk) 14:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

You are right. - never said you were not. BUT - You need to do it differently. We need to first deal with the discovery and what happened then? Who was affected? who had to be subjugated first? and then there came mines, then what happened? etc. encyclopedia - then there are acceptable citations for that, not sahistory Zarpboer (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I am right also - Who did the gold belong to? etc. etc. It all needs to be said the way it was. Zarpboer (talk) 15:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)