Talk:South Africa/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7


S&T Overstatement

The assertion that "Despite government efforts to encourage entrepreneurship in biotechnology, IT and other high technology fields, no other notable groundbreaking companies have been founded in South Africa" is a bit ridiculous. Broadly, CSIR-Meraka is quite competent ( and MXit ( is groundbreaking as an example of mobile-centric innovation that is highly accessible to the global poor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Colonial tone

This article could have been written 200 years ago by the colonialist. "tribes", "blacks", "black Africans" the entire language makes you wonder. How could a nation as large as the Zulu nation be a "tribe"? So the lead needs a reworing with a language of 2010 and not 1810. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I find "tribe" only two times in reference to historic events. What's wrong with "black"? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Because they are called African. There is a section which talks about the 1st African in space. I propose this be removed because it is a white man who was born in South Africa. I have been reverted for adding 1st South African, and adding 20th century and Apartheid. Now we know that White people are not African so why have black Africans, nobody talks about brown Indians or yellow chinese. So African means African. Whites cannot be called African because the 1st African in space is the African-American astoronout who died in space. The broad definition of African doesnt include White European settlers. Avoid confusion.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
That is racist, you can be african and white, just like you can be british and black. Tribe is also acceptable because some Zulus actually prefer to be called that, I guess it gives them a feeling of 'family' or relation. Bezuidenhout (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I think 'black' is actually better, since it only refers to ethnicity - thus, avoiding any confusion with nationality. I don't know what the Wikipedia convention is, but I have no problem with the notion of the a white person being African, if they are a citizen of an African country. I understand how there could be some difficulty with this, though, since it revolves around distinctions between ethnicity and nationality. ManicParroT (talk) 06:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Please understand that we do not write articles from a racist point of view. People from Africa are African, regardless of skin color. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Like ManicParroT I understand the difficulty around this issue, but I think we've progressed far enough to not make assumptions about race in regional descriptions . We no longer assume that Europeans are white, or insist that black people born in a European country are not European, so it makes little sense to continue insisting that only one race in Africa may be called African. In any case, the incredible diversity of ethnicities within Africa is making it increasingly clear that using African as an ethnic label is a somewhat arbitrary distinction. I don't think it will be all that long before the terms African and European refer exclusively to those born in the respective regions rather than to an ethnic group. Impi (talk) 08:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Why did someone remove my comment. It was just a fact, no opinion. Brainless people around? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it was removed because you signed it with the signature of a different user, which is strictly forbidden; see Wikipedia:Signature forgery. If you wish, you can post your comment signed with your own username (or IP address in your case); you can sign a comment by placing the text ~~~~ at the end. - htonl (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Gauteng Megalopolis Table

This table is very suspect. The ENTIRE Gauteng province has 10-12 million people. So there can't be a three-city conurbation of 20 million people! The reference offered to support that evidence is not a ference (so you can't verify or check what it actually said).--Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 10:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

" French is still widely spoken by French South Africans especially in places like Franschhoek, where many South Africans are of French origin."

French has been lost long ago, when the Dutch forced the French Hugenots freshly arrived to convert religiously and culturally to their traditions. I have never met any South African from French origins able to speak French. Although a lot of French surnames are still present, directly from the hugenots, or modified by the Dutch (Dupres became Du Preez for instance). Romain - French citizen leaving in SA —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, French also isn't a common foreign language taught in Schools, I would have thought German or Bantu Languages took that place. Remove the sentance. Bezuidenhout (talk) 10:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC).

BEE / GINI coefficient

Don't have space in the edit description, so I'll mention the rationale behind my reverts here: The BEE statement has a link to a self published advocacy website, essentially a single pdf which in no way meets WP:RS or WP:NPOV and violates WP:SPS and WP:ADVOCACY. The Gini coefficient numbers in the linked article don't tie up at all with the UN Gini ( numbers that have previously been used here. It appears to be one South African researcher's assertion that South Africa is now #1 on the list, not exactly a reliable source considering that we've also got the UN and CIA sources. All views and perspectives are welcomed on wikipedia, but if you're making an edit that warrants discussion, please use the talk page first. --HiltonLange (talk) 05:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The Gini figures source is reputable Jo'burg based Independent Newspapers' Business Report. A range of other financial news publications world-wide published the same stats and the same analysis on the same date.
As for BEE, and the "advocacy" site you've referred to, what exactly is it "advocating" in your view? Freedom of information, perhaps? If so, what's the problem? Don't you and/or wiki support freedom of information? Communicat (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
In the context of having Gini figures published by the UN, one Cape Town based study, particularly one which puts South Africa at #1 (despite only being #10) on the UN figures, cannot be considered NPOV. I'm sure a variety of media picked up on the study, that isn't a measure of it's truth, neutrality or verifiability.
Please read WP:ADVOCACY. The truth-hertz site is clearly an advocacy site, it presents a specific non-mainstream view and makes no effort to balance it with alternative views. It may be true, it may not, but wikipedia's guidelines are quite specific. Neutral, consensus views, no fringe theories. --HiltonLange (talk) 16:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I've taken another read at your Business Report link. It has a contradiction in it, it asserts that South Africa has moved ahead of Brazil, making it #1. Later it refers to some countries which are ahead of South Africa, but seems to discount them as having slightly stale data, but makes no justification to why we should expect that their Gini scores have declined past South Africa's. Regardless, I think the point of the article is valid - South Africa has a very very high Gini score. UN, CIA and this report all place it in the top 10. This belongs in the economics section of the article. I've moved it there and added the appropriate references. --HiltonLange (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Music of South Africa

I'm pretty sure Dave Matthews (sorry if I spelled it wrong) was born in South Africa. This really should be added, but I can't edit pages myself. (talk) 00:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ending of the Boer wars

The Wikipedia article on SOUTH AFRICA (History section) seems to be a little bit insulting. Let's see if someone can make this sound more historically accurate / less insulting to Afrikaans South Africans.

"The Boer Republics successfully resisted British encroachments during the First Boer War (1880–1881) using guerrilla warfare tactics, which were well suited to local conditions. However, the British returned with greater numbers, more experience, and more suitable tactics [citation needed] in the Second Boer War (1899–1902), which was won by the British."

Firstly - this needs a citation which probably can't be found because it's not true. Secondly - to say that the British had more suitable tactics is basically saying that their use of concentration camps was appropriate. Many would argue that this is why they won - the Boers (Afrikaners) surrendered in order to stop these from occurring. It is appalling to say that these tactics were suitable (implying superior) when they were one of the darker moments in South Africa’s history – and are hardly mentioned in the main article.

Can someone change this? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Largest cities, misleading.

The section on the largest cities in South Africa says that not only is Germiston the 4th biggest city in the country, but also has 2.7 million people?!! This figure was taken from the East Rand in total, which isn't the same as Germiston. I lived in Kempton Park, a city in the East Rand. I would never have classified myself as living in Germiston. The other cities are also very odd? Also, the Durban figure is from the eThekwini municipality. Which isn'tthe city of Durban!! Just like Tshwane is not the same as Pretoria, is Germiston not the same as the East Rand, and Durban is not the same as eThekwini. Please have the largest cities removed? Bezuidenhout (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this is an important part of the article. A basic fact about a country is what the largest cities are, removing it makes the article worse. The city/municipality issue in South Africa can be confusing. Germiston is part of the 4th largest municipality, Ekurhuleni. I'll try and restore the table with a little bit more context to prevent confusion. --HiltonLange (talk) 21:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but what I also said above is that it said that Durban has somewhat 3 million people. The stats weren't for Durban, but for eThekwini, which are not the same thing! I don't know about you, but I don't class Pinetown as Durban, and likewise Tshwane is definintley not the same as Pretoria. If you were to re-add this section, it would have to be "largest municipalities", because City information is more difficult to find these days. Bezuidenhout (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
A municipality does not necessarily differ from a city, in many cases it is a city. Example: Go to The web page title is "eThekwini Online". The banner says, "The official site for the City of Durban", and it also has the text "eThekwini Municipality". You and I might draw the distinction between eThekwini and the old apartheid era whites-only city of Durban, but that entity is not tracked or managed with any prominence any more. I've said it before and I'll say it again, South Africa's city articles should be aligned with the municipalities. That's how the cities are being managed from a practical standpoint nowadays, that's how the articles should be arranged. It's impossible to get populations, demographics or any updated information for the old apartheid era cities any more.--HiltonLange (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
South Africa's city articles should be aligned with the municipalities? You can't do that, cities/towns and municipalities are simply different entities. Some municipalities are as large as 20,000 km2 and comprise dozens towns that can be more than 100km away from each other. It's just not possible. Rather, we should expand the local municipalities articles to include a list of all populated places within its borders. The problem is that I didn't manage, so far, to find such a list from an official source.--LK 04:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
In the case of the metropolitan municipalities the difference between the city and the municipality is somewhat blurred. But I think most people would, for example, agree that Uitenhage and Port Elizabeth are two distinguishable places, notwithstanding that they are in the same municipality. In the case of the local municipalities, the difference is quite clear, given that most municipalities include multiple towns separated by farmland. - htonl (talk) 07:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Whoever did the new section, I just want to say a big thank you to them :) . Bezuidenhout (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
You mean the template? I'm glad you like it if that's the case ;) --LK 02:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

this article is a joke

what about the genocide of the white South African? no mention of it in the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a contraversial topic. You might ask how can there be genocide among white south africans when blacks have a higher death rate? But some argue that genocide can also mean a fall in population since whites are depleting in population. As long as you have a citation (and a neutral and good one) then you can add your contribution to the 'genocide'. Bezuidenhout (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
See South African farm attacks. Wizzy 14:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I suggest you familiarise yourself with the page Genocide definitions. Nothing that's happened in South Africa meets any of them. Robofish (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Robofish, I wen to the article you mentioned, and I found this as the first definition of genocide, and I could be wrong, but I think it sort of fits in many ways with what's happening to the Afrikaners in South Africa, and I've put in italics the points I find especially relevant;

"By 'genocide' we mean the destruction of an ethnic group . . . . Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups"

And I would venture to say that this goes for the danger posed to White South Africans in general, not just Afrikaners, and to a degree Coloured South Africans because they are also now not allowed to join the South African military. Invmog (talk) 19:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

No rebuttal? Can we add 'Afrikaner genocide' to the article now? Invmog (talk) 21:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
You want a rebuttal? OK.
  • There is no "coordinated plan". The events that are asserted to constitute genocide are an (admittedly large) collection of crimes, for which there is no evidence of coordination.
  • In what way is Afrikaans culture, language or religion being "disintegrated"? Certainly Afrikaans has lost importance post-1994, but that is perfectly natural once Afrikaners were no longer in political control of the country.
  • As to the question of crime: every serious study indicates that whites are not especially subject to crime compared to blacks, when it is taken into account that whites are, on average, richer, and therefore more likely to be targets for property crime.
I do not know where you get the idea that whites or coloureds are not allowed to join the military, and I'm not sure what the relevance would be even if it were true. - htonl (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
As long as a reliable source is given than no one really can go against your argument. Bezuidenhout (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Ja-nee. I mean, WP:NPOV suggests that we'd say something like "[So-and-so] claims [or alledges, etc. etc.]..." rather than stating it as blunt fact. But even so, merely having a reliable source doesn't mean that something automatically gets into the article; there are millions of facts about South Africa for which I can provide impeccable sources, but I can't put them all into the article. - htonl (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)



And what exactly is that mistake? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Broken link, formatting and caps - all have been fixed now. Greenman (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


"A series of wars, called the Cape Frontier Wars, ensued, caused by thei conflicting land and livestock interests."

Fixed. Invmog (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Boer republic flags

I don't want to enter into a revert war, but User:Invmog has addressed me personally in his edit description, so here's my motivation for removing the boer republic flag images from the article. It's simply a WP:UNDUE consideration. This is the article for the entire country, it's already too long. I did a quick check of the United States and United Kingdom articles, not a single historical or state/provincial flag. Considering that the history of Europeans in South Africa is already heavily overrepresented, I just didn't think it was a very efficient use of space or bytes to add those two flags to the article. Additionally, there's no secret that they are still a symbol of the extreme right-wing, it would be akin to adding a swastika to the Germany article, IMHO. They're not offensive, they're simply not relevant enough, given the broad scope of the article. Images should add to the reading experience, and if everyone was to add provincial flags, historical flags, or in this case historical provincial flags, the article would quite simply overflow. --HiltonLange (talk) 00:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Good call. The Transvaal and Free State were not provinces at the time of those flags, but the article is already image heavy and those two flags do not contribute in any significant way. In addition, if they are added we would also need to add the Union Jack for Natal and the Cape as well as the flags of Transkei and all the other other homelands that were formed at a later stage. --NJR_ZA (talk) 05:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Although I don't agree with everything y'all say I agree with enough of it to leave the flags out of the article at this time :^) Invmog (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


Why does this article name the "judicial capital"? That's not relevant imho. I understand the mentioning of the legislative and the executive capital, however, the legislative capital should not be mentioned. Else, Germany, for example, would have to have Karlsruhe as a "capital city", too. And obviously it doesn't have it. -- (talk) 09:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Growing unemployment, poverty, crime, corruption and decreased standards of living

These edits were reasonably sourced, so instead of just reverting, I'll give my full thoughts here.

Firstly, it's the lede, and all of these issues are adequately covered in more detail in their respective sections. Something has to be a good summary of the state of the country to warrant a spot in the lede. So I want to evaluate each of these references in detail:

  • Unemployment - The reference refers to a quarter-on-quarter increase in the unemployment in May 2009, during a global recession - the first time the economy had entered a recession in 17 years according to the source.
  • Standard of living - The references (one broken) shows the decrease in HDI. This is dealt with in detail in the 20th century history section, and almost entirely attributable to the AIDS epidemic. I think mention of the AIDS epidemic in the lede would be appropriate, it's a major defining issue of the country.
  • Crime - The (broken) reference is 10 years old and deals with the recorded crime increase from the mid 1980s until 2000. A more up to date reference shows that crime levels have been steadily decreasing this decade. [1].
  • Corruption - Unreferenced
  • Poverty - Unreferenced

--HiltonLange (talk) 05:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Important missing articles

Although I have indicated elsewhere Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Business_and_economics#Economics, the backlog for requested articles on other sections of Wikipedia is so astronomical that I think it would be better if I address this concern here. We are missing articles on important topics relating to finance and economics in South Africa. I cannot profess expertise in any of these fields and therefore appeal to other contributors to see if they can start the following articles:

Articles pertaining to regional economies:

Also, since employment and job creation is such a perennial topic of discussion in South African politics I thought creating an article Jobs creating during South Africa presidential terms would merit an article of its own. Please go to my talk page if there is anything you would like me to do. --User:DiscipleOfKnowledge (talk) 13:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Deane.roger, 14 April 2011

Under the Science and Technology section, please replace $20 billion with $1.5 billion. Perhaps the mistake came about as it was an estimate in Rands. [source:]

Deane.roger (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

DoneBility (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

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: [2] and the HTML version of the South African country page: [3] 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 (talkcontribs) 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 [4] is sourced to a Wiki [5] and thus not a reliable source. That Wiki claims to cite an actual news source, but that link is dead.[6] 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)

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)

"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:[7], repeated on 7/6.[8][9]
  • 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[10]
  • 7/1 edit by Communikat:[11] repeated with only changing "crippled" to "inadequate" on 7/14.[12]
  • 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[13]
  • 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[16]
  • 7/6 edits by Communikat:[17][18]
  • 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[19]

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

Edward321 is exhibiting WP:IDHT. So I repeat: as every experienced editor knows, it may sometimes be impossible to "reword" certain instances of hard fact without distorting the factual, intended meaning of the original words. Which is exactly what was done by Edward321 and/or his collaborators when they changed the words "comprehensive strategic partnership" to "trade agreement", as already explained. Never mind crying copyright and plagiarism, IMHO the overriding rule in wikipedia's best interest is WP:COMMONSENSE, without any "rewording" of text resulting in the introduction of false meaning, which is certainly not in wikipedia's best interest.
Edward321, it is my further humble opinion that you are not genuinely here to improve either this article or the History of South Africa article. You have not made a single contribution to the much-needed improvement of this article, other than to revert and disrupt my edits and introduce errors in their place. Moreover, if it was genuinely your interest and intention to improve this article, you would have made your appearance here and become active at this long-neglected article long before I showed up. I can guarantee you will lose abruptly any purported "interest" in this article immediately I leave, which I don't intend doing until it achieves GA status. I will not be responding to any further postings by you. Communikat (talk) 22:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
My understanding, based on a verbatim reading of WP:COPYPASTE is that WP:COPYPASTE is not a policy or guideline in itself, and besides, as with all wikipedia editing it is overriden by WP:COMMONSENSE. In any event, the matters you're referring to are done and dusted, my corrected version of China-SA issue was reinstated without objection, (unless someone else has fiddled with it in the meantime) and it is now WP:DEADHORSE. Let's move on. Communikat (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


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 [ 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, "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: 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:
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)
You are not familiar with the history of Edward321's conduct in his interactions with me, which include among other things: false and disruptive claims of copyright/photographic theft concerning a GDFL jpg uploaded by me last year at History of South Africa article; and also a tedious and time-consuming COI referral by him, which failed miserably. Communikat (talk) 00:14, 17 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.[20][21] Edward321 (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Comminunkat's claim that 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 [22] opens for me as a 4.9MB, 19-page PDF document entitled "BEE 
 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 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)
It actually doesn't require an "understanding of modern journalism", only the ability to notice that that very page has a logo " | The Observer". - htonl (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
My mistake. Nobody;s perfect. Communikat (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally, re your assertion: " is clear that the Observer article is reliable": The item in question was not a news report but an editorial opinion. Editorial opinion pieces are not recognised by wikipedia as reliable sources, which I have established recently during a reliable Sources noticeboard discussion initiated by me. Communikat (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't matter; as I've already agreed, the Observer article doesn't actually relate to the sentence to which it is attached as a reference. I have no objection to removing it. - htonl (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Black Economic Empowerment (BEE)

Ref 66 in the Economy text that Edward321 has reinstated (as purportedly "reliable'), attributes the words: "The affirmative action policies, called Black Economic Empowerment, have seen a rise in black economic wealth and an emerging black middle class" to this source: middle class boosts car sales in South Africa: Mail & Guardian Online. The source has a 404 error and should be deleted as such. The same text words are co-attributed at Ref 67 to Race against time. The Observer. 22 January 2006. This cited item contains no mention whatsoever of BEE. The source is therefor inappropriate and should be deleted as such. Viz., neither of the two sources substantiate the false POV assertion that "affirmative action policies", are "called Black Economic Empowerment". In fact, as anyone who's even vaguely familiar with the subject knows, affirmative action and BEE are not at all synonymous, as falsely implied in the text that Edward321 has reinstated. Edward321 may benefit from revisiting diligently the sources I provided, which he reverted without reading or understanding. In any event, if Edward321 does not like the allegedly "corrupted" academic university source I provided, there are many, very many, reliable alternative sources that I can supply to support the words: "... enrichment of a small, black, politically connected elite", which he also reverted blindly and without any knowledge of or insight into the topic. Communikat (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I have fixed the M&G link to point at where the article lives now. I do agree that the Observer article doesn't say anything about the emerging black middle class and I don't know why it's attached to that sentence. - htonl (talk) 22:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
You miss the point. The point being that the text states incorrectly "affirmative action policies (are) called Black Economic Empowerment" Which is not true, and was a reason why the six-years old source(s) was/were replaced with recent sources citing experts in the field, not crappy, opinionated journalistic sources. Besides, the "emergence" of any "black middle class" in the real sense of the term might benefit from some empirical evidence, of which there is none that I am aware of. Communikat (talk) 23:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I miss the point? You brought up the M&G article and the Observer article, and I was responding to that. As for BEE, I don't see why it shouldn't be described as affirmative action. Our article on AA defines it as 'policies that take factors including "race, color, religion, gender, or national origin" into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group, usually as a means to counter the effects of a history of discrimination.' I think BEE falls well within that description. - htonl (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, agreed, BEE may well fall within the description of AA, but they are separate semantic entities. AA is not "called" BEE, as wrongly stated in the text. AA is AA, BEE is BEE and it is essentially an economic policy; they are certainly not the same and identical thing, though they may have some common features and principles. If you want AA and BEE to mean the same, then so be it. Let's move on. What do you think of the over-long History section which replicates the History of South Africa article? Communikat (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, I see what you mean. I do agree that the "The affirmative action policies, called Black Economic Empowerment,..." is a rather misleading way to put things. How about "The Black Economic Empowerment policy, a form of affirmative action,..." or something like that? I'm not particularly attached to the reference to AA, but we should give the reader some idea of what BEE is about.
The History section is very long, but I don't know how much we can really cut out. I have some ideas:
  • the large paragraph about Dias could be trimmed down.
  • something is very wrong with the "Colonization" subsection - the order of events seems to be all screwed up.
But for the most part it only seems to deal with the important points. No doubt there can be some trimming here and there. - htonl (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Re your agreement "we should give the reader some idea of what BEE is about". I'll take that as concurrence the reverted text and refs should be reinstated. Communikat (talk) 00:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm sufficiently confused that I don't know which "reverted text" you're referring to now. But no, my comment should not be understood to imply concurrence with the insertion of any particular text. - htonl (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The source Communikat is objecting to is a news article published in a national newspaper. Based on his standard, Communikat's own sources could all be deleted as opinionated as well. The question is not whether a source has an opinion, the question is whether the source is reliable. Communikat has offered no evidence that the Observer article is not a reliable source. Edward321 (talk) 01:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I merely repeated what I have been told recently at an RS rfc relative to a similar question. Take it up with them if their view troubles you. In any event, I concur with administrator htonl's opinion above that "the Observer article doesn't say anything about the emerging black middle class and I don't know why it's attached to that sentence". So the matter appears now to be WP:DEADHORSE. I don't know why you continue to harp on it.
Edward321, are you ever going to contribute something useful to this article that is not exclusively an apparent bid to undermine and/or to drive me away, (seeing as your recent, separate endeavour at Arbcom failed to have me site-banned)? I'm really curious to know. Improvement of the article might benefit enormously from your superior knowledge and experience. Communikat (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Just a note: I'm not an administrator here, only at Wikisource. - htonl (talk) 13:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Noted. Communikat (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── And I'm not the one who proposed a site ban, that was Nick-D.[23] Those Arbiters who commented on Nick-D's proposal said:

  • With regard to Nick-D's proposal, this was almost the outcome of the case, and it still may wind up being the outcome; Communikat needs to improve his pattern of participation if he wishes to retain any role on Wikipedia. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I find Nick-D's proposal more compelling than any suggestion that Communi[ck]at's restrictions be lifted. Having said that, I'm not sure Nick-D's proposal is strictly necessary... yet. Jclemens (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Edward321 (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I see you've gone ahead and changed the BEE sentence to carry a completely different opinion, despite their being no consensus for this change here. If you're not happy with the reliability, accessibility or any other credential of the Mail and Guardian (and I really have no idea why you wouldn't), here are another slew of links which provide evidence of a growing black middle class as a result of BEE:
Additionally, you've replaced a reference which reports a simple fact (car sales increased) with an opinion piece containing no references or facts itself. I'm going to revert it unless you can find consensus with other editors here. --HiltonLange (talk) 04:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I've just reread the entire discussion above. Please assume good faith, as I am trying to do in you. Every second sentence is an allusion to other editors "vandalizing", "harping on", "hounding". That kind of text is quite inflammatory, especially when apparently unprovoked. --HiltonLange (talk) 04:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm wary of my edits being taken the wrong way. To prevent myself being accused of vandalism, I'd like to mention my rationale for reverting the De Klerk nuclear weapon information. The history of nuclear weapons in South Africa is given in much more detail at the linked South Africa and weapons of mass destruction page. I've already expressed my opinion that the main article is a summary. The summary? South Africa developed and then dismantled nuclear weapons. This history and detail, quotes from people and analysis? On the linked page. I apologize that I've now reverted you twice on 2 separate issues. Constructive changes are encouraged, but I simply disagree with both of your changes to this article. You're actively editing an article which is too long, and already has a great deal of consensus for the subject matter. Any substantive change aside from cleanup or general improvement is going to go through iterations. Adding sections of interest is going to meet with resistance. Changing POV is going to need discussion and consensus. --HiltonLange (talk) 05:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
HiltonLange, you are wrong on a number of points. I'm not going to say you don't know what you're talking about, or that you may be exhibiting a degree of WP:OWNERSHIP. That would simply be impolite, which is not my intention. But I will say I don't know what you are talking about; e.g. I've not reverted the M&G citation about black middle-class. Last time I looked, the text and ref are there (unless someone has fiddled with it in the meantime). I deleted the Guardian/Observer item as irrelevant with concurrence of one other editor. (Cf., ... I've already agreed, the Observer article doesn't actually relate to the sentence to which it is attached as a reference. I have no objection to removing it. - htonl (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't have time to go into all the other issues Hilton raises, except to deal with one or two of the more essential items. Firstly and perhaps most importantly: your oft-repeated assertion that this is an already bloated overview article, and as such it leaves no room for further information to be added. As already pointed out, the History section is very long, it occupies a lot of unwarranted article space in this overview article, it contains some garbled text, and it replicates in large part the History of South Africa article, which is the main history article. Given your concerns about bloat, why are we not addressing this, as already raised by me in as yet unresponded-to discussion?
The article contains many piped-links, which you also refer to in your rationale for reverting my atomic weapon edits, as though piped-links represent or are an acceptable substitute for references. They are not. The sourcing rules certainly do not allow piped-links to be used as "references". All of which needs to be attended to if this article is ever to reach GA status, which I presume is the intended objective of our participation here (with the notable exception of at least one other editor).
There is a lot else that requires diligent attention, including your pertinent points raised earlier, and for which I've already expressed support, though no-one else has. Apparently too busy with edit warring, disruptive point scoring, exagerated claims (e.g. "every second sentence about vandalism), importing external disputes, reviving WP:DEADHORSE, expressing WP:IDHT, painting rosy POV pictures, ignoring the warts; and all the rest. I'm done. Communikat (talk) 13:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
As regards the BEE text and ref that H.Lange has reverted: in his careful reading of the thread, he seems to have missed this concurrence by htonl above that: "... we should give the reader some idea of what BEE is about ..." - htonl (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC) (My emphasis). HiltonLange, if you don't mind, kindly reinstate accordingly the text and ref you have inappropriately reverted. Otherwise I'll do it myself, when I have time to spare. No problem.
Before I forget, this long-neglected article contains walls of text (not my doing) that are unsupported by any references whatsoever. Perhaps Edward321 may spare a moment to employ his vast reservoir of expertise and experience by helping here to find and upoad suitable refs? Communikat (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'll try to respond to each of the points here.

  • You found consensus about removing the Observer/Guardian link. I accidentally restored that link, apologies. Fixed and replaced with another one.
  • About article length, the guidelines state that long articles should be split. That means that instead of introducing even more detail about subtopic into the main article, it should go into a more specific article. If the entire history section were removed, this article would still be too long.
  • Piped links indicate that there is another page with more specific information available. Did I at any stage suggest that one could or should be used as a reference?
  • Your responses to another editor bordered on attacks. In my opinion your response to me (Apparently too busy with... etc) is pretty clearly an attack. Please stop.

--HiltonLange (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

My responses in order of your occurrence:
I found consensus not only re Observer/Guardian link but also re "something needs to be said about BEE". I've not yet checked, but hopefully you've reinistated that as well, failing which I'll do it myself.
Article split: since this is your well-founded suggestion in first instance, I suggest you proceed with article split, in order that we might proceed ultimately with polishing up the remainder to GA status. You misrepresent my comments on History section. I've not suggested removing the entire history section. I've suggested only it be reduced substantially, in line with your own overview-summary rationale. It's a straight-forward copy editing job. Yes, the article might still be too long, even if History is reduced, but a summary rework of History would reduce very substantially the current overall bloat, which was the intention of my valid suggestion.
Agreed, you did not suggest piped-links are acceptable substitute, nor did I infer that. What I'm implying is that there is a great deal of material in this article that merits attention, including drastic reduction of reliance on piped-links, no matter who put them there. That is not my concern.
I'm sorry if you perceive my remarks as personal attacks on you. IMO, those remarks hardly fall within the meaning of WP:NPA#WHATIS. I'm interested only in improvement of this article, with specific reference to content, not to person. Please assume good faith and accept my sincere apologies if my comments have been perceived as otherwise. I will in the meantime ignore the fact that several ill-disguised personal attacks have been launched against me by one other editor, yet those particular attacks have not drawn your criticism. But never mind, I'm not a cry-baby. Communikat (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Given the problem of miscommunication, I'm not at all sure if I understand HiltonLange's reasoning correctly, but at the moment it seems to go something like this:
  • The article is already too long, and so no more information should be added, no matter how relevant the text or reliable the sources.
  • The existing content has been arrived at by consensus, and so none of it should be reverted, amended or updated.
  • Viz., contrary to policy, the article is to remain static, not dynamic, even if it is too long.
  • None of this has anything to do with WP:OWNERSHIP.
Please correct me if my understanding, based on a reading of HiltonLange's comments etc, is incorrect. Communikat (talk) 12:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm baffled you could get that interpretation from HiltonLange's short and easy to understand bullet points. Your interpretation completely misrepresents his position. Edward321 (talk) 13:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
You've changed my statements that "discussion would be required" and caricatured them. Yes, I think that adding more detail per section is not required. I think that substantially changing the POV of something that has been arrived at by consensus should be discussed. Did I say the article should remain static? Absolutely not, just look at the number of constructive edits that there have been over the last year or two. WP:OWNERSHIP would apply if I'd written or contributed the sections being edited. That is not the case. On each edit I merely consider whether the article was better before or after the edit. That isn't ownership, I'm not attached to any one version of the article. --HiltonLange (talk) 16:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Tourism brochure

All the pretty pictures on the article page give it almost the appearance of a tourism brochure. This conveys a distorted / lopsided visual POV of the country. There are no visuals depicting poverty, squalid living conditions etc as experienced by the vast majority of people living in South Africa. The lower part of the Economy section, e.g. might benefit from an appropriate visual depicting the majority lifestyle. I suggest this be remedied by someone adept at uploading appropriate CC visuals, at which I myself am technically challenged. Communikat (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I took a quick inventory of the pictures in the article. There are quite a few of major towns and settlements, a number of historical ones, including Boer War and apartheid signage. There are at least 3 depicting typical rural life, several about industry and commerce. I'm not sure what you mean by "all the pretty pictures", but they seem absolutely in line with the distribution found on most other country pages. Are there specifically any of people living in poverty? No. Do the "vast majority" of South Africans live in poverty? Not at all. You raise an interesting point about image balance, but I checked about 10 other countries which are economically similar, and none of them have go out of their way to depict negative images. Worth thinking about... --HiltonLange (talk) 04:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I disagree entirely with your highly unrealistic "Are there specifically any of people living in poverty? No." and "Do the "vast majority" of South Africans live in poverty? Not at all." E.G. Have you ever visited the Cape Flats, situated not far from Observatory? Have you ever been to Crossroads or countless other squatter settlements around the country? Have you ever been to a black township? Are you familiar with farm-labour conditions? Are you familiar with some of the stats cited in the article itself, relative to poverty? Did you notice this stat (referred to in an earlier contribution that was then promptly reverted by Edward321): "The country ranks among the 10 countries with the lowest share of employed adults in the world, according to the International Labour Organisation". And so on. It is a well-documented fact that South Africa has the greatest level of socio-economic disparity in the world. The fact that articles about other "countries which are economically similar" do not have photos relating to poverty, does not automatically mean that the SA article must not have such images. Where did you get that idea? We are dealing here with the SA article, not articles about other countries with similar GDPs or whatever. Poverty and squalor are a huge problem in SA, and a cause of great political turmoil both past and present. Everybody knows that. Why convey a false POV that everything is rosy? I'm staggered. Communikat (talk) 12:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Try taking a look at Somalia, which is described as a failed state that does not control most of its own territory and is one of the poorest and most violent in the world. Care to guess how many picture show that or the "poverty, squalid living conditions etc as experienced by the vast majority of people"? Edward321 (talk) 13:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I did not edit the Somalia article. South Africa, fortunately, is not Somalia. I (and presumably you as well) am/are engaged (more or less) in editing the South Africa article. You are free to rectify the paucity of Somalia pictures, if avaliable, just as you are free to remedy same at this article, in the interests of visual NPOV. In short, two wrongs do not make a right. Or maybe they do. Nothing surprises me any more about editing at wikipedia. Communikat (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
We are either miscommunicating, or we are supplied with very different facts. "Vast majority" is a nebulous term, but in my interpretation it means significantly over 50%, I imagine 70%-80% to consitute vast. (Otherwise simple "majority" would suffice). No, the facts at my disposal don't suggest that the vast majority of South Africans live in poverty. Not even a majority of South Africans live in poverty. It is a well-documented fact that South Africa has the greatest level of socio-economic disparity in the world. Again, no. The facts at my disposal say that it is ranked somewhere between 10th and 20th in the world, depending on the source. Also, if you reread my reply to you, I actually agreed with you. I found it interesting that no country articles contained significantly negative images, and said it was "worth thinking about". I am having difficulty collaborating with you, even when we agree. --HiltonLange (talk) 16:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Kindly provide the empirical facts at your disposal re poverty, and I shall then endeavour to provide mine. In the meantime, I remain of the opinion that the visuals, such as in the Economy section, are POV-biased; they are reminiscent of a glossy tourism brochure. Yes, it certainly is worth thinking about, that visual POV is evident in Third World-country articles. This does not change the self-evident fact that we are dealing here with an article about SA, not about other countries, nor is this article meant to be a comparative study. And no, we are not talking about "negative images" per se; we are talking about visual POV balance, in keeping with the principles of encyclopeadic content, relative to pictures that depict reality. The reality of SA is not all pretty pictures of Table Mountain, colourful flora and fauna, and so on. If there happens to be a dearth of useable, poverty-related CC visuals, then I shall be happy to provide some of my own GDFLs, or alternatively, I'm confident the University of Cape Town Visual Archives will co-operate in making available any of their copious archival pics depicting the reality of social / living conditions experienced by a majority of people in this beautiful country. Communikat (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
List of countries by percentage of population living in poverty shows that South Africa has between 26.2% and 50% of the population living in poverty, depending on whose definition of poverty you use. List of countries by income equality shows South Africa between 10th and 20th ranked, depending which metric you use. --HiltonLange (talk) 16:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Interesting to note this (now italicised) data was reverted / removed by someone (I can't be bothered to check the diffs, there have been so many disruptive arguments, reversions and reinstatements that it's now an extremely time-consuming and an almost unmanageable task to establish who's doing what to whom or why): 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 Inequality on scale found in SA bites like acid, (Business Day, 31 March 2010) However, one thing seems clear to me: the issue of poverty / inequality is something that someone here seems determined to underplay at best or, at worst, avoid almost entirely. And no, this is not a personal attack; it's a matter of encyclopaedic content, not of person. I'm open to correction and/or reasoned debate. Bless you all. Communikat (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The apparent bias through omission, implied above, is wholly consistent with the fact that the History section of the article mentions the word "slaves" just once, merely in passing, and without any reference whatsoever; while the word "slavery" is similarly mentioned just once, also just in passing and without citation). Whereas, in historical fact, slavery played a very substantial part in the country's history. I need convincing this article is not biased, perhaps even racist, in its omissions. But that's just me. Communikat (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Re HiltonLange's valid comment that it's "worth thinking about", relative to visuals absent from SA article and some other country articles: a reading of article systemic bias / WP:WORLDVIEW may shed some light on this phenomenon. Communikat (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
For me, it's a question of the style of an encyclopedic article. Every country deals with a number of common issues. Traffic, pollution, poverty, corruption etc. Each article for every country does not need to do a deep dive into each issue. Articles about countries tend to show those things that are unique to the country, specific buildings, natural features, the culture of the country. To use a coarse example, there are no pictures of toilets in this article either, despite the fact that 100% of the population use toilets. It's simply something that from an encyclopedic standpoint doesn't need to be documented in articles about each country. That said, poverty is a specific and relevant issue for South Africa. It is covered extensively in the article. Would images be appropriate too? It is relevant enough that, ignoring the pattern set forth by other country articles, my gut feel is yes, but I'd like to understand the rationale of why country pages tend to follow the style that they do, including countries such as Somalia and Zimbabwe.
On the slavery issue, a simple text search shows that the term "slave" is mentioned 6 times in the article. It is referenced an additional 13 times at History of South Africa Also, while slavery played a role in South Africa's history but is not something unique to the country, I don't see why it should be given additional prominence, especially considering that South Africa abolished slavery 30 years before the US. --HiltonLange (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
"Slave" Mentioned six times. Okay, noted, I'd searched on "slaves" and "slavery". My small mistake. Meanwhile, I shall have no further interaction with you on this or on any other issue until the small matter of your request for Arbcom intervention is either concluded or withdrawn. Communikat (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

military section -- reinstating De Klerk admission

Hilton Lange above, citing in discussion a separate, related article, has reverted a sourced De Klerk disclosures about SA atomic weapons. HiltonLange's partial, unsatisfactory justification for the revert is that it is already dealt with elsewhere. The article he cites for his justification of the revert, does not mention at all the De Klerk disclosure. The article he cites in discussion is riddled with tags of "citation needed" etc; and the article is also something of a content fork from the Vela Incident. All things considered, I'm reinstating the De Klerk atomic weapons text and ref, not least because it gives needed body for satisfactory text wrap-around of visual in Military Affairs section of this SA article. Communikat (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


HiltonLange (talk) has requested abitration intervention at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Communicat. His request will be contested. Communikat (talk) 13:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a request for enforcement of your editing restrictions for continuing to make personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith, and not a request for arbitration relating to this article. Nick-D (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. Intervention by any other name. Communikat (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

BEE clarification

I have reinstated brief BEE text and RS, in line with earlier concurrence of nton1 that at least "something" needs be said about BEE. Rationale: AA is not BEE. They are separate entities with some features of commonality. AA does not apply exclusively to black people. It is for notionally disadvantaged people and hence applies also to disabled people etc and women of all ethnic groups, including white people. BEE by contrast is a cornerstone economic policy, meant exclusively for black people. The earlier text saying "the affirmative action policy called Black Economic Empowerment" is therefor incorrect. Affirmative action is not called BEE (except erroneously, as in the sentence now replaced again). Nton1 recognised the distinction between AA and BEE in earlier discussion and concurred. The newly re-reinstated text, while not perfect, may be open to improvement. If anyone is not entirely happy with it, please respect editorial policy WP:PRESERVE among others. Thank you. Communikat (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Re "Commonwealth realm"

Just to make it clear, the "Commonwealth realms" Portal link is inappropriate for this article because, while South Africa has been a member of the Commonwealth again since 1994, it is not a Commonwealth realm. Commonwealth realms are those countries where Queen Elizabeth is the head of state. - htonl (talk) 23:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, more specifically where she is both monarch and head of state, she is just Monarch is ZA--Something12356789101 (talk) 04:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Kat-7 aerial view.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Kat-7 aerial view.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Genocide Watch

Should we make mention of the upgrade of South Africa to Level 6 on the Genocide risk scale --Scottykira (talk) 05:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It should be mentioned. Hanxu9 (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

There's no such evidence of that. Now move along. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Give me a break 68.blabla there clearly is evidence of genocide and it's a reliable source, please add it [with the reference, and 2 or 3 if you can since it's controversial and some ANC freak may remove it [not a personal attack of anyone just saying].--Something12356789101 (talk) 04:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The site seems to be opinionated and contains slander of individuals within the South African political circle. Many of the sources on the sites are not direct citations of the origin of a particular site (they are all in PDF and Word). Secondly, many of the citations are not currently working. I've notice something else, the citation says the government has "planned" the genocides but 100% of the local murders have been done by citizens and common people. Another thing, genocide/hate crimes, or conviction of hate crimes to genocidal intentions were not mentioned. So it's safe to assume those "Farm killings" are general crimes and not hate crime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin^Bieberiod (talkcontribs) 02:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Science and Technology section - add Elon Musk

I propose to add Elon Musk a modern technology inventor, best known for co-founding PayPal, SpaceX and Tesla Motors who's origin is in South Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aasami (talkcontribs) 09:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Music:Lucky Dube(late reggae musician) was omitted in this section.

Luky Dube who died in 2007 was an internationally renowned Reggae musician and was omitted in the music section.This is a serious omission.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC) 

Quality of the langauges

I have removed this section as it is a violation of WP:NOTFORUM complete with a spam link (see comments at User talk:Ved036 and at ANI 2009). The removed section is visible in this permalink. Johnuniq (talk) 09:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Why has this effing article regressed?

I am annoyed - nay, INFURIATED - to see that constructive edits made to this article have been truncated or have worsened in their quality. I approve of the multi-media inclusions - that is a definite improvement to the article's layout and presentation and also see that the previously blank section, South Africa#Income_and_human_development, has been filled. Great. Now, not to sound like a bigoted a**hole (ok, I am one anyway) but some people (I shan't mention their names...) should not be editing here. Is it me or has the overall quality of this article worsened in terms of prose and the quantity of content? Why has the article regressed from B to C class, and what is to be done so that we can finally get this article to good article status? And a final remark, to those people who want to advance their incendiary political views: leave, you are not welcome here. Even "neutral" editors here seem to be bent on including as much negative content on here as possible instead of favouring a more balanced perspective. And please hate me. --User:DiscipleOfKnowledge (talk) 00:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Append: If you are looking for specific examples of what I am talking about they are available upon request although my aim is not to denigrate the cretins who wrote that stuff but to arrive at some consensus here about what this article needs to get better and how to keep it that way without it becoming worse. I could be wrong here: perhaps the criteria for B/C class articles has been raised but the general impression that I get here after my absence is that things are generally on the decline.
This page shows all the changes since your last contribution on November 20. I don't see the regressions you're talking about, so if you want anyone to act on them you'll need to provide examples and suggestions. Greenman (talk) 10:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Transcribed from refdesk

Factual inacuracy - South Africa

Dear WP I happened to be reading through the SA article for SA and discovered that the iformation provided for the Provinces is incorrect. In the Province of Gauteng - Johannesburg is listed as its Capital - this is incorrect the Capital of the Country is in fact PRETORIA in the Metropolitan of Tshwane. It is also the country's Administrative capital + the seat of the President. johannesburg has always been referred to as the economic centre of the country due to its Gold mines and other industrial enterprises.The resty of the article seems in order. Please make the necessary adjustments to save the article from being biased an untrustworthy Thank you lionel wedge (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

My reading of the articles is that Johannesburg is the capital of the province of Gauteng, whereas Pretoria is one of the three national capitals of South Africa. (Pretoria is indeed located in Gauteng, but it is a national capital, not a provincial one.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
For the record, that reading is correct. Pretoria is the (administrative) capital of South Africa; Johannesburg is the provincial capital of Gauteng. - htonl (talk) 11:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Wrong statement

I'm an IP, so it's impossible for me to change this: "Income inequality in South Africa is strongly influenced by the country's Apartheid legacy and large differences can be identified along racial lines, unlike other countries in the region." The last part of this statement is wrong. The inequality between people with European ancestors and other people in Namibia is also very high. Look here for example: And I would argue that the median income of European people remains a lot higher than the median income of black people in all countries of southern Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Questionable alarmist claims on rape in South Africa

I hate to see a Wikipedia article stereotype the men of a good, peaceful nation the way South Africans are in the paragraph on rape. That paragraph is based on polls, which are highly unreliable since you can make them say whatever you want simply by asking the right group of people, such as people who have been victims of violent crime, or violent criminals. This paragraph should be removed.

I would support some trimming of the sentences on rape, but I do feel that this is a significant and notable enough aspect of South African society that some mention - at least a sentence - should stay. There have actually been multiple surveys of this kind conducted in the country by highly reputable organisations which have had similar findings e.g. [24].Rangoon11 (talk) 00:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Some history in the introduction?

The eager presentism of the introduction is grating. Surely the introduction to an article about South Africa ought to briefly mention its history as a white settler state, a past which rather profoundly distinguishes South Africa from any of its neighbors (with the possible exception of Zimbabwe, whose history of European settlement was much lighter and briefer). Isn't this very basic fact of South African history more important for readers to be made immediately aware of than the number of official languages, or some vague boilerplate about contemporary problems that could more or less be applied to the introduction to any country article? I understand that the history is covered in more detail later in the article, but the complete absence of any history in the introduction is a glaring one. john k (talk) 06:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


I remember when i visited this page before the 2010 FIFA World Cup the most popular sports were rugby, cricket and surfing along with other sports (soccer wasn't included) but now after the FIFA 2010 world cup now Soccer is one of the most popular sports in South Africa just because they hosted the FIFA world cup? So ok, Soccer is popular in South africa but it's not one of the most popular sports, and somebody should put that soccer is a sport played by black south africans and rugby & cricket is usually a sport played by white south africans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

French in Franschoek.

There are no true French Huguenots left in Franschoek. And there are no South African French speaking people in Franschoek (far outlier excepted) apart from tourists and (possibly) expats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, in Franschhoek there are only 21 speakers of languages other than the official SA languages. I've removed that sentence, which was already marked as in need of citation. - htonl (talk) 02:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Non neutral, negative article.

Hi guys, Im new to Wikipedia editing and would therefore first like put forward a few thoughts to test the water so to speak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alf00 (talkcontribs) 20:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 May 2012

In the paragraph on Sports, please add Charl Schwartzel as the winner of a major golf tournament. He won the Masters in 2011.

Jusabr2011 (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done ok. Egg Centric 23:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Bushbuckridge bigger than Nelspruit?

Bushbuckridge is definitely a city according to this Wiki! Aliwal2012 (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Ja, but according to this wiki it only has a population of 1,726! If we go by the municipal populations, Mbombela (Nelspruit) has 527,198 where Bushbuckridge has 509,979 (2007 figures). But Bushbuckridge isn't really a city. It's a area that has a really high population density because it used to be a homeland, but it's not an urban centre, IMHO. - htonl (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 November 2012

Brazil is not currently in the UN Security Council, as is stated at the bottom of the foreign relations section. (talk) 10:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

DoneKuyaBriBriTalk 14:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedians in Residence wanted in Cameroon and South Africa

WikiAfrica is seeking Wikipedians in Residence! One to work in Cameroon and one in South Africa. Please visit their blog to learn more. SarahStierch (talk) 18:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

country report

i love Africa — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

"Other" as an ethnic group

We seem to have a disagreement about the presence of "Other" as an item under "Ethnic groups" in the Infobox. To my mind, "Other" is not an ethnic group but a catchall category that includes everyone who does not identify as black, white, coloured or Asian. Different people who fall under "Other" are not all members of a single ethnic group. In re-inserting "Other", User:Beloki even stated in his edit summary "they could be native americans/pacific islanders or mixed race people who don't identify with coloureds". As far as I can see, that supports my argument: "Native American" or "Pacific Islander" or "mixed-race" would qualify as ethnic groups. "Other" does not. - htonl (talk) 14:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest that the categories used are exactly as per the 2011 census ie :
  • 79.2% Black African
  • 8.9% Coloured
  • 8.9% White
  • 2.5% Indian / Asian
  • 0.5% Other
There are also other countries that have a category of Other within the Ethnic Group category in the Infobox as a precendence eg. Russia, China or United Kingdom - Mycelium101 (talk) 06:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I am OK leaving it in but in my opinion it is not a quotation and should therefore not be in quotation marks (or italics, emphasis is not required). HelenOnline (talk) 06:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Htonl, what you say is always true for "other" in all statistics; and people know it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

National Flower.

I have put a note on the edit page but did not make any myself but the National flower is the Strelitzia and not the Protea. A lot of people are under the impression that it is the Protea but it is wrong. I remember as a kid (the 60's) how surprise I was to find this out but the Strelitzia made sense to me then as the colours of the Strelitzia are the same as the old SA flag.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I have to say, the government disagrees with you. - htonl (talk) 05:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Original Claiming of SA for England

Is it not true that SouthCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). Africa was originally claimed for King James in 1620 by Captain Shillinge of the British Royal Navy ?

Julian Stockwith book , "Conquest" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinotone (talkcontribs) 16:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 April 2013

Siyabulela Xuza

Young South African scientist Siyabulela Xuza has had a planet named after him, in honour of his work in developing a record-breaking rocket and creating safer, more energy-efficient rocket fuel.

[1] (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

In the Boer republics...

There is a hanging sentence in the article which in edit mode reads:

In the Boer republics,<ref>{{cite journal|last=Great Britain Colonial Office; Transvaal (Colony). Governor (1901–1905: Milner)|date=January 1902|title=Papers relating to legislation affecting natives in the Transvaal|publisher=His Majesty's Stationery Office|url=}}</ref> from as early as the [[Pretoria Convention]] (chapter XXVI).<ref>{{cite book|last=De Villiers|first=John Abraham Jacob|title=The Transvaal|publisher=Chatto & Windus|location=London|year=1896|pages=30 (n46)|url=|accessdate=30 July 2009}}</ref>

In text mode it is:

In the Boer republics,[2] from as early as the Pretoria Convention (chapter XXVI).[3]
  1. ^
  2. ^ Great Britain Colonial Office; Transvaal (Colony). Governor (1901–1905: Milner) (January 1902). "Papers relating to legislation affecting natives in the Transvaal". His Majesty's Stationery Office. 
  3. ^ De Villiers, John Abraham Jacob (1896). The Transvaal. London: Chatto & Windus. pp. 30 (n46). Retrieved 30 July 2009. 

Could someone who knows what is is supposed to mean please expand the sentence to include that meaning. -- PBS (talk) 07:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

"South Africa is a parliamentary republic, although unlike most such republics the President is both head of state and head of government ..."

I'm new here, but that phrase does seem to suggest there is something wrong with the head of state and the head of government being the same person ... ? In most parliamentary democracies with a separate head of state and head of government, the head of state is often not democratically elected, and often a monarch. The fact that the head of state and head of government is the same person is a positive, a sign of democracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Why is the Constitution not cited for the fact of the South African president's limit of two terms in office?

Under South Africa > Politics: No President may serve more than two terms in office.[citation needed]

South Africa's Constitution is the very first reference in this article. It's freely available online. Why the [citation needed] ?

Chapter 5, Section 88 of South Africa's Constitution states: No person may hold office as President for more than two terms ...

Those with editing rights, please insert the citation:

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Chrono fix in Prehistoric finds section

In Prehistoric finds after the sentence These were succeeded by various species, including Australopithecus sediba, Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo rhodesiensis, Homo helmei and modern humans, Homo sapiens. we should move the one Modern humans have inhabited Southern Africa for at least 170,000 years. that is instead between Iron-Age and European contact.--Adriano Esposito (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for the suggestion. I have made the correction here. Helen (talk) 08:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Entry marred by old data, many errors and omissions

This entry is in need of a complete overhaul. It is by and large unreliable, due to the use of old data, the omission of key information and selective inclusions. Not to be recommended as a reference to researchers or scholars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit notice request

I have asked for administrators to add {{South African English}} as a editnotice for this article, to hopefully stave off some of the Americanizers. See Template talk:Editnotices/Page/South Africa for the request. - htonl (talk) 07:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

City Populations

The City populations listed in this Wiki page do not reflect the official results of the 2011 Census or position of StatsSA. They are also not broken down correctly into what is officially identified as a city. For instance, Soweto is not a separate city, but forms part of the city of Johannesburg and falls within its municipal boundaries. The government has deemed this area a municipal district and is treated as one city, not two separate cities. The population statistics support this [1]Sandelk (talk) 11:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Are the stats provided here and in other South Africa wiki-pages then not misleading?Sandelk (talk) 11:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The connection between municipalities and places is not one-to-one, in that many municipalities do include multiple towns or cities. Stats SA does actually issue stats at a higher level of detail than the municipalities, for so-called "main places" and "subplaces". That being said, I do share some of your concern around the "Largest cities or towns of South Africa" box (assuming that's what you're referring to) since that uses the census "main places" which are pretty arbitrary and underinclusive of what one would usually consider to be "Cape Town" or "Johannesburg" etc. - htonl (talk) 13:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2013 - Official languages

English in official languages list doesn't have wikilink (talk) 11:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done HelenOnline 13:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Minor edit may be needed under the Health->HIV section

It says "Most deaths are experienced by economically active individuals," Shouldn't this say "Most deaths are experienced by sexually active individuals," — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logdrum (talkcontribs) 20:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done No, it relates to them being working family providers hence leaving their children as orphans when they die. HelenOnline 08:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

POV on Buthelezi

To refer to Buthelezi in 1974 as an "acknowledged black leader" is to give the opinion of a small minority. Also, the paragraph as it stands suggests a continuity between Buthelezi's and Mandela's roles, which is completely false. (talk) 07:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I removed the unsourced word "acknowledged". HelenOnline 08:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Revision of "Geography" section

I have rewritten the Geography section of the article as some of the statements and concepts in the previous version were, to my mind, confusing or inaccurate. It is much longer than what was there before, but I hope that it is easier to understand, and puts concepts like "Karoo", "Highveld", "Lowveld", "Bushveld", "Drakensberg", "Great Escarpment", "Cape Fold Mountains" (etc.) in proper perspective. Please supply feedback as how well this new version achieves these objectives.Jkoeslag (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

POV by asserting Afrikaners and Boers as European

Why are Boers and Afrikaners under European colonisation? From when are they European irrespective of their ancestry? This is hogwash and a blatant lie ushered and protected by a few editors over a course of time. It should stop now.

Why has it become fashionable on this Wikipedia community to openly assert Boers and Afrikaners as European? Is this not violating the norms of Wikipedia? I don't care what your political philosophy or your own assertion of history that the Boers are either European or foreign to the African continent.

Helen, all you lot, which always vindictively and innocently assert that you are adhering to the Wikipedia norms and rules. Which I found hard to apprehend. This fashion of denying a historical fact is acutely irksome, by continuously propagating that they are European.

Henceforth, it is clear, that they are not perceived as an authentic African nation, however, it cannot be acceptable to propagate this ideology that they are some European nation. It is beyond apprehension to me. Despite an ample of data dictating contrary to this anti - Boer ideology.

Now, what will the respond this time around be? That there is not enough information to separately distinguish Afrikaners and Boers own history section away from (predominantly English) European colonialist? Or that Afrikaans is really not a distinct language, yes, we only changed our Dutch accent and also called our self Boers and Afrikaners.

Who ever responds better have substance and a credible citation or two. Your POV is irrelevant and do not even consider resorting to the genetics skewed argument. It is pathetic, irrelevant, myopic and ill conceived. Your nitpicking preferable tiny, mere facts to assert a narrow point of view while purposely omitting other more prominent, significant, substance orientated factual data dictating otherwise. Hendrik Biebouw (talk) 05:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

From which indigenous African people are Afrikaaners and Boers descended? Are you saying they are not descended from European settlers? (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
African is not synonym with indigenous silly. And nor is Black synonym with African.
En Afrikaners ethnical admixture is 7.2% Khoi (which are the aborigines of Southern African). See Bantu expansionism (a synonym with colonialism). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hendrik Biebouw (talkcontribs) 03:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

And 91.8% not Khoi. Afrikaaners and Boers are of European descent. Get over this fact of life. You are not an indigenous African group. Whites didn't spontaneously exist in South Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

South African food

Hi, food plays an important role to every nation, and as diverse as we are (I'm South African) we have different dishes that can't be found anywhere in the world, that we pride ourselves with , Can someone add something about South African food , even if it's biltong then a picture , thanx - Bobbyshabangu(talk), 9:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbyshabangu (talkcontribs)

Sorry, but braais and biltong are just our versions of barbeques and jerky and it wont be possible to find sufficient information to start their own articles.

Nathan121212 (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

There is already an article about biltong. - htonl (talk) 07:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
(ec)The topic is already covered in the South Africa#Cuisine section and the South African cuisine main article linked there. HelenOnline 07:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Largest City

In the infobox, it says the largest city is Johannesburg. However, lower in the page, in the geonames largest cities box, it has Soweto as the largest city at 1.2 million, and Johannesburg at 0.9 million. The misconception arises from the fact that the Johannesburg "metropolitan municipality", which includes Soweto is the largest "municipality." However, it is not the largest "city." Should the infobox be changed to Soweto, or at least to indicate that Johannesburg is the largest "municipality" without using the word city? Jacob102699 (talk) 22:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, the "largest cities" box lower down is what should be changed. It's not a list of "largest cities" at all; rather it's a list of "largest main places from the 2011 census". The "main place" boundaries are quite arbitrary; for example the main place called "Johannesburg" excludes most of the northern suburbs. - htonl (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
It might be better to remove the template altogether, given that we don't have reliable figures for city populations.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Yet excluding the suburbs is kind of the point. We have mostly reliable figures for city proper populations, and for urban agglomeration populations. The thing is, do we define largest city as the largest city proper, or the largest agglomeration? If we choose the latter, I feel the infobox should be changed from largest "city" to "urban area" or "urban agglomeration." "City" is a legal term that technically refers to only whatever is inside the legal city boundaries. Jacob102699 (talk) 03:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
If I understand htonl correctly we don't have reliable figures for the city proper, as there are other suburbs (southern, western, eastern, some northern) included in the Johannesburg main place census figures. HelenOnline 06:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and removed the largest cities template as it is incorrect. HelenOnline 06:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Helen is right. The only legal, official city boundaries in South Africa are those of the municipalities, which can include whole urban agglomerations. The census main place boundaries that were used in the removed template are not official, merely created by Stats SA. - htonl (talk) 11:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, it appears the South African government really wants all of the suburbs of Johannesburg to be considered included in the "city proper." I think a lot of this stems from Apartheid, and the fact that Soweto - larger than central Johannesburg - was basically used as a ghetto for poor blacks not allowed to live or not able to afford living in central Johannesburg or the northern suburbs. The government wants to remove this history of Apartheid here and consider all of the area in the metropolitan municipality "Johannesburg proper," so we probably should too.

On the subject of the largest cities template - the templates are provided by and are frequent all over Wikipedia. I think this is a bad thing, as they frequently have wrong numbers, wrong places, and/or outdated information. One good example is Senegal, in how it shows the population of Dakar. It has Dakar, Grand Dakar, and another suburb that are really all the same municipality, the first two even being in the same exact location: yet it has different populations. To get to the point, I don't think these templates should be anywhere on Wikipedia. Jacob102699 (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

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. (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: Other Source: "He did, as expected, appoint African National Congress (ANC) deputy president Cyril Ramaphosa as the country’s deputy president." ( Waddie96 (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg 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


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




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

Yes check.svg 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 (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)

I would be inclined to use "Bantu expansion", because that is the name used by historians to describe those events - see the article Bantu expansion. As to the second section I would go with "European settlement" rather than "European settlers". - htonl (talk) 12:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)