Jump to content

Talk:South Africa/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 9

THIS IS AN ARCHIVE. PLEASE DO NOT EDIT IT -- SEE Talk:South Africa TO MAKE ANY CHANGES.

Post-Apartheid South Africa

I added some discussion to History about life after Apartheid and offered another popular theory about improving living conditions.

Animal Life

I think that perhaps we should include a section discussing the animal life. We have plant life, but there are animals living there too.

I Agree - I am going to gather information now and include a new section titled "Animal Life"

Agricultural Employment

The % of people working in agriculture was anonymously changed from 9% to 30%. Anyone have sources for this? Greenman 08:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Janitorial changes

I have updated the archives, this time with links to the headings. I have also changed all the links to main articles to use the main article template (e.g. {{main|Blah in South Africa}} ). This means that if Wikipedia ever changes its style of link to the main article, we will follow automatically. --Slashme 17:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I see that the footnote style is all wrong here, but I'm at work, and shouldn't even be editing this at all. When I get time I'll fix it according to the Wikipedia:Template_messages/Sources_of_articles/Generic_citations citation style and Wikipedia:Footnotes. --Slashme 05:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


Drugs

"Since South Africa relaxed its border controls after the demise of apartheid, international crime syndicates have entered the country and a large proportion of the world's drug trade flows through the country. ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed] South Africa is also the fourth-largest producer of marijuana in the world, partly due to the fact that it grows wild in certain areas of the country. ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed]"

I removed this until it has sources. I just read similar for Afghanistan and Pakistan. - preceeding comment unsigned by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ).

Good call, I was thinking of doing the same... Mikkerpikker ... 14:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Category System needs cleanup

The Category:South Africa needs major cleanup work. Besides the fact that many South African articles are miscategorized, at the moment the subcats are all over the place. There is e.g. a subcat "South African people" (btw shouldn't it be "People of South Africa"?) which contains - of all things - "South African golfers" as a subcat when there isn't even "South African sportspeople"! Also in certain sectors I feel the level of subcats is too shallow, and in others too deep. Also the subcats aren't consistent e.g. "South African people" contains "Natives of Cape Town", but also "Natives of Eastern Cape Province". Subcat "levels" should be similar i.e. province by province or city by city but not mixed. Also, please check out "Regions of SA" which leads to "regions of Joburg" which leads to a complete mess. I'm not sure how to sort this out, any suggestions would be welcome. Zunaid 14:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's my initial stab at a category system:

SA

  • SA architecture (DELETE - only contains "architects" which can go under "People")
  • Buildings and structures in SA
    • Buildings and structures in Johannesburg (DELETE - subcats already better categorised under "airports", "shopping centres" etc. under the main "Buildings and structures in SA" cat)
  • Communications in SA
    • Media of SA (MOVE from main cat to here)
      • SA radio (CREATE)
  • Subdivisions of SA
    • Cities in SA (RENAME to Cities and Towns of SA and combine with below)
    • Towns in SA (combine with above and rename)
      • Cities and towns of (PROVINCE NAME) (CREATE for each province, cross-categorize with below)
    • Provinces of SA
      • Cities and towns of (PROVINCE NAME) (CREATE for each province, cross-categorize with above)
    • Municipalities of SA
  • SA culture
    • Joburg culture (DELETE - contains only 1 cat, "museums", which can go under "buildings ...")
  • Economy of SA
  • Education in SA
  • SA environment (not sure of the Wiki naming convention on this one, but subcats are fine)

These I still have to look at:

  • Geography of SA (contains overlap with "Subdivisions of SA")
  • Government of SA
  • Health in SA (rename to Healthcare in SA)
  • History of SA
  • SA law
  • Military of SA
  • SA organisations
  • SA people
  • Politics of SA
  • Religion in SA
  • Science and technology in SA
  • SA society
  • Sport in SA
  • Tourism in SA
  • Transport in SA

These two should probably not be touched, they serve a useful editorial purpose:

  • SA-related lists
  • SA stubs

Final comment. Joburg seems to be overly represented within the cat system, with some cats empty or containing just one or two articles. This could be better presented by leaving those cats/articles in the main SA cat. While it is commendable to create subcats as the main cat expands beyond reason, I don't think it is justified in this case. Zunaid 14:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Languages

Would anyone mind if I put up Republic of South Africa in maybe Zulu and Afrikaans along with the English in the title? Most other countries seem to have local names as well as the English Joziboy 24 Feb 2006, 13:07 UTC

We've already covered this in earlyer discussions. Yes, other countries have languages other than English because that is their official version of the name. It is not fair in South Africa to hold Xhosa and Zulu over say, Tswana, so we decided to keep only English if we were not prepared to put all 11 languages there. It has to be all or nothing. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 17:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Judicial capital

Is it still true that Bloemfontein is the judicial capital? The highest court in South Africa is the Constitutional Court, and that's in Johannesburg. Joziboy 1 March 2006, 00:54 UTC

TfD nomination of Template:South Africa infobox

Template:South Africa infobox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.

Apartheid death squads

Why is there no mention of the notorious death squads in this country's History? 80.224.63.140 10:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, there is nothing stopping you from adding something you know.. Gregorydavid 10:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

We like WP:V - verifiability - usually as a web reference we can check and believe. A book reference is second best, but usable. Wizzy…☎ 10:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Headings in history section

I think this breaks up the huge block of text and makes it more readable. I also think that apartheid was so special it deserves a more prominent flag under the history section, which is why I've gone back to that, stripping out the text that was buried in a paragraph. This looks way more encyclopedic to me. Any thoughts? Guinnog 21:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I see they've been removed without discussion. Anybody mind if I put them back? Guinnog 13:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Done. Please discuss here if you want to change it again, thanks. Guinnog 10:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I am trying not to get annoyed here, as I see you have done it again, again without discussion. If you think they are 'unnecessary headers', please discuss here first, as previously requested. Thanks. Guinnog 06:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Proper capitalisation of racist terms in apartheid era

I started doing a proper copyedit on this article but found it hard. For example, is there on a consensus on the use of 'black' v 'Black', 'white' v 'White'. I started because 'indian' looked silly; but surely they should all be capitalised then? --Guinnog 21:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Demographics

Anybody else notice that the total percentage for the demographics equals 101%. Is there any way we can verify these figures?

South African Corruption Levels

Páll (Die pienk olifant), Please tell me why you removed the political corruption levels from the South African main page. There is nothing incorrect in those values and they come from a credible source. If you moved those facts to a more appropriate location you would find me in agreement.

However, I get the impression that you have removed them simply because you don't like the hard truth they reveal. I was about to correct many things on that South African page (with known and provable facts) but if unsubstantiated political bias is allowed to overpower researched facts then what's the point? - Eltharian Talk 23 April 2006

Páll (Die pienk olifant), Thank you for answering me at my Eltharian Talk. Okay, I understand what you are saying that it belongs on a political page, but I don't agree. Corruption levels speak of how well the country is run as a matter of fact. It does not delve into the differences of opinion between parties (which I think is indeed appropriate for a political page).

Of course, corruption levels imply things about certain ruling parties which I imagine is why you want to remove it. BUT this is only an implication - readers should be able to judge for themselves what those figures mean.

If one uses such arguments (i.e. that anything slightly or vaguely reflective of a political party should be removed to a seperate political page) then much of the entire South Africa page needs to be removed or re-written. Crime is a typical example - I can't see how you can see to keep the crime paragraphs (which vaguely implies a mismanagement of the police and/or judicial system) but not see to keep corruption. After all, it is political corruption that may well give rise to the mismanagements of those departments and high crime. Of course, political corruption also gives tacit validation to much crime in the country - one only needs to watch TV reality shows which interview gangs or criminals to understand the excuses they use to convince themselves of their behaviour. Corruption and crime are the same disease! Social circumstances can not be divorced from political ones.

If you will allow me I would like to quote from Junius' first public letter to the people of Britain, in 21 Jan 1769, who were going through their own socio-political upheaval at the time.

    The ruin or prosperity of a state depends so much upon the administration of its government, that, to be acquainted with the merit of a ministry, we need only observe the condition of the people. If we see them obedient to the laws, prosperous in their industry, united at home, and respected abroad, we may reasonably presume that their affairs are conducted by men of experience, abilities and virtue. If, on the contrary, we see a universal spirit of distrust and dissatisfaction, a rapid decay of trade, dissensions in all parts of the empire, and a total loss of respect in the eyes of foreign powers, we may pronounce, without hesitation, that the government of that country is weak, distracted, and corrupt.

I hope I am beginning to convince you. After all, looking at your profile, you should easily be able to testify to the low crime in Hong Kong and draw the same correlation with its clean corruption levels - 8.3.

(BTW, I am copying this discussion to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:South_Africa to invite others' views.)

Eltharian Talk 23 April 2006

Páll (Die pienk olifant)

You say that corruption levels should be excluded because it does not contribute to the general overview of the South African main page. On the contrary, corruption permeates through every aspect of society and is of course highly relevant for that page. If Junius' quote did not convince you, and if you can't see how corruption correlates to crime (which certainly affects the entire population) then consider the following. A few years ago it was estimated that corruption in Uganda added 9% to the cost of doing business! Yes, almost 1/10 of all transactions are wasted away to undeserving political or adminstrative figures. At these levels corruption severely impedes economic growth and keeps countries in 3rd world states. Corruption affects everything from crime to economics. How can you possibly think it is NOT part of the general overview of conditions in South Africa?

Eltharian Talk 23 April 2006

I'm going to try to do a better job of presenting my argument. The main page of any large topic, such as a country, has the main purpose of outlining the subject and giving a broad overview. That is why this article has subject headers ike History and Government: They give the broadest overview of important subjects to the article. I disagree with one aspect of any one category being given its own header. In other words, we don't have a "Wine in South Africa" section, or "Gold mining in South Africa" section, because they are to be mentioned in summary in the highest category. Wine is mentioned in "Agriculture," and mining in the history and ecnomy sections. I would not object if the corruption rate were mentioned in the Politics or Crime section, and then expanded upon in a new article or sub article in the Politics section. However, as it stands, that section does not belong in the broadest overview. Perhaps we could add "South Africa has a [[Corruption in South Africa|relatively high level of corruption]] which has increased from xxx in 1995 to xxx in 2005" in the crime section or politics. Also, the paragraph had a blatantly POV-statement, that Mbeki has surrounded himself with "yes-men." Who knows, maybe he has, maybe he hasn't, but it's not for us to speculate. No matter what the place, that statement does not fit in with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Thank you! Páll (Die pienk olifant) 09:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Corruption is a subject worth mentioning on the first page of South Africa only in brief, as you say. That was what I originally meant by appropriate location.
And yes, the last statement about Mbeki's yes-men, without any kind of substantiation, certainly did reek of having no NPOV. I admit it could have been omitted - I added it simply as a concluding statement to the 'new chapter' on corruption as a typical example.
(However, please note that it was Archbishop Desmond Tutu who made this accusation against Mbeki in 2004 - see the latest wikipedia piece on Thabo Mbeki. Numerous other sources also substantiate this view of Mbeki. I quote from the The Sunday Times newspaper, 11 June 2000, where reporter Mondli Makhanya wrote the following on president Thabo Mbeki's first year in office; "policy co-ordination and implementation are now tightly controlled from his office, and all directors-general report to Frank Chikane, the director-general of the presidency, … New 'super-directors-general' are to be appointed to run projects which span different departments. … All ANC premiers were selected directly by Mbeki as ANC president, and the composition of their [the premier's] cabinets had to meet the approval of the party's national leadership. … The past year has seen an accelerated effort to get people whom Mbeki regards as the ANC's better minds into strategic government positions. The original pack from the first five years of ANC rule [under Mandela] are now closely monitored by head office to ensure that they carry out the party's mandate and are getting the necessary support from its union allies. … This strategy is to become even more apparent in coming months as party-mentored managers are appointed to run the main cities."
Eltharian Talk 16:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
It seems like you might be a new user here to Wikipedia, so let me explain in brief the NPOV (No Point of View) policy on Wikipedia. As this is an encyclopaedia, we are here to just report the facts (ma'am, or otherwise). Hence, statements that have an impolicit point of view or value judgement are unacceptable. Thus, it goes against NPOV policy to say things like "Many think that ..." or "is considered better/worse/larger/smaller/etc than". Those are value judgements. Who is this many? Who is doing the considering? If the statement were instead rephrased to "Scientists think that ..." and then give a source. Or "Sciencists consider..." and again, with a source. This is not a point of view because we are including the source of that line of thought and a way to check it. However, this is not free reign to go off quoting willy-nilly. Quotes should be balanced and present both sides of an issue, in otherwords, just because they are quotes doesn't mean they don't present a biased view. The main word for this is a weasel word, in otherwords, you're weaseling a point of view in by default. Also, you must remember that the job of overview articles is to summarise. Is the fact that some people dislike Mbeki — and there is never a group of people who do not dislike an elected official — worthy of space on the main article? I doubt it, especially since it would take a quote to make the statement valid. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 16:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Image choice

Farm workers...
...and trout farm

No offence to User:PZFUN, but I don't find this image very typical or illustrative. I won't revert my own photo which was there in previous versions, but I did wonder if anyone else has an opinion. Guinnog 13:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Guinnog here; I think the farm workers are much more colourful and illustrative compared to the landscape photo. dewet|✉ 14:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
While its' not my image, and I'm not a fan of that image that I have particularly much, I think the age of the other image to be problematic. Those people were not even South African when that photo was taken! I would love to find a more contemporary image of similar subjects, I have one of people selling fruit on the roadside in Mpumalanga, perhaps that would serve? Páll (Die pienk olifant) 06:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I like the farm workers picture. Wizzy…☎ 09:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Either way, it appears as if there is more support for the workers than the trout farm. I shall revert to the old image temporarily, until PZFUN can upload his image. Chris Lester talk 11:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Up the workers! Thanks, Chris, I was determined not to revert it myself. Guinnog 12:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Proper use of this talk page

I've tried repeatedly to engage User:PZFUN without reply about the pictures issue above, and the headings in the History section, also above. I also notice this user has repeatedly removed the concentration camp image from this page on (spurious?) grounds of space. Can I request again that significant changes to the page be discussed here? This will make the page better and avoid needless reversions. Thank you. Guinnog 07:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, I don't particulalry enjoy being accused of things. I have been incredibly busy writing my finals recently. I replied to your message about the farmworkers. As for the concentration camp image, yes, I agree that it is important, but with the current size of the history section, it does not fit. In otherwords, it pushes all of the following images down to make space for it, so that images do not align with their section. It does not look right. As for the headers, those headers are used to break up larger sections of text, per WP:MoS. They are not used in such as small a section as the history section on this page. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 15:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I'll see if I can make all the pictures fit in by making them slightly smaller. As to the headings in the History section, I can only assume you mean "Avoid overuse of subheadings.". I can't see any mention in WP:MoS of a size limit, and certainly I have seen many pages with much shorter subsections. It may be that you disagree with me about the need for these; I am fine with that. But, as it had been discussed in the article's talk page, it would have been better to have added to that discussion than just to revert them, especially with a needlessly rude edit summary. Please remember that we are all in this together, and that if differences of style like this are used properly, they can actually help us to make better articles. Rudeness of the sort you have exhibited here only leads to edit-warring and bad feeling generally. Good luck with your finals. Guinnog 15:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The history section without headings is not excessively long. I draw your attention to United States, Australia, United Kingdom and New Zealand which all have solid history sections. If you feel the section is too long, then it should probably be pruned down, not subdivided. It's meant to be a summary only, considering it has a link to the main history article. - Mark 15:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. No, I didn't think that it was too long, in fact the content is excellent and should not IMO be pruned. I did think that it was a bit long to stand in one block. Hence the subheadings. I also think that the present version does not give enough prominence to the link to the main apartheid article; I think that apartheid and its aftermath are still the most important things for most people who will be reading the article. Dividing the article with subheadings allows readers to skip easily through to the bit they are interested in. Guinnog 15:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The headers don't make the text easier to read, if anything, they make it harder by making the section too long. Also, there is no need to make the pictures smaller, the standard size is 250px. I certainly do not like the idea of cramming the page with tons of tiny pictures. Besides, why does the Boer image need to be included at all? Páll (Die pienk olifant) 21:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for stating your opinion on these matters. As a matter of interest, what screen res are you using? I have quite abig monitor but even at approx 1024 it doesn't look cramped to me. The Boer image is, I think, notewoerthy, illustrative and encyclopedic. Guinnog 11:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Parliamentary democracy

After having followed the link to parliamentary democracy from the SA infobox and reading that article, i'm not convinced South Africa is a parliamentary democracy. First of all, we don't have a head of state who is separate from our head of government. We're not highlighted on the map on that page (Parliamentary democracy) and I've never heard of the system of a vote of no confidence. So I'm pretty sure that makes us a Presidential Democracy, no? Joziboy 5 May 2006, 19:43 (UTC)

Well, if you look at presidential democracy, we definitely don't fit that description - the defining characteristic of that system is that the executive branch is elected separately from the legislative, whereas in SA, of course, the executive branch is formed by the party with a majority in the legislature. We also don't fit the semi-presidential system, which also has a popularly elected president. You'll note that parliamentary democracy states "Parliamentary systems usually have a clear differentiation between the head of government and the head of state" (my emphasis). Evidently SA is an exception to this rule. There's a discussion of this at Image talk:Form of government.png; as one editor there says, the President of SA functions as a parliamentary head of government with the head of state roles "tacked on."
As to the vote of no confidence, the Constitution, Ch. 4 Sec. 102 Subsec. 2, states: "If the National Assembly, by a vote supported by a majority of its members, passes a motion of no confidence in the President, the President and the other members of the Cabinet and any Deputy Ministers must resign." This possibility is, according to the article on parliamentary democracy, the defining characteristic thereof. - htonl 21:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh okay, my bad :) Joziboy 6 May 2006, 10:27 (UTC)

Official Name

Someone changed the name at the vey top of the article from "The Republic of South Africa" to simply "South Africa". I feel that it is very important that the full, official name be provided at the top of the article. If you look at other countries (such as "The United States of America" or "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" appears in their respective articles), it is obvious that this is the convention. If there are no objections, I shall consider changing it. -- Chris Lester talk 19:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

This is somewhat of a gray area. Is South Africa actually a republic these days? As far as I know, it is. If that is the official name (ie., contained in legislation, etc), then I'd say put it back. dewet|✉ 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, even casual research suggests that it is still true:
The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, was approved by the Constitutional Court (CC) on 4 December 1996 and took effect on 4 February 1997.
That was from the South African Constitution, so my vote is for replacing it. dewet|✉ 20:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention Chapter 1, Section 1 of the Constitution, which states: "The Republic of South Africa is one, sovereign, democratic state..." I see no reason to doubt it. I, too, say put it back. - htonl 21:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Well to change to "The Republic of South Africa" has my vote. --Jcw69 15:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

And mine. The official name is most certainly "The Republic of South Africa", and of course SA is still a republic. I'm not sure why the original change was made. — Impi 16:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Reverted -- Chris Lester talk 19:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

And now another question of status. Does anyone know if we're a federation? I've been working on the National Council of Provinces page and after having researched it, it sounds as if we are. But I've never heard the label "federation" applied to us... so I'm hesitant to include it in that page (NCOP). Any ideas? Joziboy 17 May 2006, 12:44 (UTC)

As far as I know, it is better to rather leave federation out for the moment; it is not the official name. If you look at the United States (which has a federal system), there are many rights afforded to states, including penal codes (such as the death penalty), elections, etc. However, in SA, provinicial governments have far less control. It may be a bit of a push to call it a federation. I also did some research on th NCOP. It appears that it functions like the US senate, with members from each province. But more info is needed... -- Chris Lester talk 16:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah no I know it's not the official name. I just meant I'm even weary of using it as an adjective (Ie, the Republic is also a federation) in the article on the NCOP because I've never heard people use that term. You're right, the provincial legislatures have less extensive powers than they do in the USA, but not necessarily less than they do in Germany, which is a federation. Joziboy 18 May 2006, 07:46 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from: but remember that all governments have there respective layers (e.g. national, provincial and local). As with all these terms, there is a bit of a blur-zone. Hopefully someone can spend some time researching it (I have exams....). -- Chris Lester talk 11:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
No, SA is definitely not a federation. That is why its forerunner, the Union of South Africa, was termed a "union" and not a "federation". Although I believe that the federation option was considered, it was rejected in favour of the much closer union. Regards, Elf-friend 14:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Also see Unitary state. Elf-friend 14:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
There are elements of Federalism contained in the South African provincial system. For example there is National legistation regulating the Liquor Industry and each Province has its own legislation that is compatable with that legislation. Gauteng was however one of the first provinces to ammend its Liqour legislation while the essence of the old Act was still applied in the other provinces. Kwazulu-Natal was one of the main proponents of the Federal System at the time of going to the elections in 1994. In fact the Inkhata Freedom Party were withholding their participation from that election process virtually untill the last minute for reasons that included the Federal Issue.

Gregorydavid 15:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It all depends on whether or not the central government can overrule regional legislation whenever it sees fit. If the regional bodies (provincial legislatures) have a constitutionally guaranteed right to rule on certain issues without central interference, then the state is federal. I can't seem to find anything on the provincial legislatures of South Africa which indicates whether or not that's the case. I see on the German-wikipedia article on South Africa though that it describes us as a parliamentary democracy with federal elements. Joziboy 19 May 2006, 19:19 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:South_Africa/Archive_3&oldid=1137195120"