Jump to content

Talk:South Africa/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Edit dispute: Subjugation

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

Yes, it was a racial thing. There was a need for cheap labour to work the mines. So in order to encourage/force black men to go work on the mines, white governments imposed such measures as hut taxes etc. You should note that this does not apply only to the Boer republics - the British colonial administrations were just as involved. Are you really trying to claim that ZAR did not subjugate its black population, the Cape Colony did not subjugate the Xhosa, and so on? And incidentally, one really can't describe the Transvaal Boers as "indigenous" in the 1880s when they had only lived in the Transvaal for at most 40 years. - htonl (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I have expanded on that sentence with an explanation detailing what I have said above, along with a reference. - htonl (talk) 14:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay, you should read your sentence - It says the discovery increased subjugation. Then you should really read the cited resources, the one is quite a good read. The other, is not so relevant to what is being claimed here and should be moved/removed... Read them - and see what I am saying. You are jumping from 1869 and 1884 to 1899 hmm, better than me trying to explain all this to you just see WP:SYN - What you are saying is true but not where it is and how it is said. Hut taxes or kraal taxes is entirely a different subject? And the ZAR was 100% white and even belonged only to two churches, they were racists, who is talking about racism?, oh yes, you are. Regarding indigenous some of the boers have at that time already been in southern africa for a few hundred years and if you look at the definition of the word indigenous, they were in fact already unique enough to qualify as such, again, that is completely a different discussion to the dispute? Our edit difference lies herein: this section deals with the discovery of gold and diamonds did the discovery of gold and diamonds itself lead to an immediate increase in the level of subjugation to the indigenous population of a non existent town Johannesburg? - no, it did not even exist yet. what it did lead to is an increase in the level of conflict between British and Boer, the entire ZAR belonged to the Boers, not the British and certainly not the Zulus or Xhosas or Sothos - again - at that time (1869 and 1184) - So, can you please deal with that and try not to involve racism or racialism or other topics - you can add additional content or sections if you feel that something should be said about racism (look at South African Republic and racism section... - this, however has nothing to do with our current dispute... Zarpboer (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Please complete our discussion here... before editing / edit warring Zarpboer (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Changing the discovery of gold subjugation agenda to the mine taxes of 1903 under the Union of South Africa - as per your new sahistory citation, is not coolthis is an encyclopedia? We are now at 1869 not anywhere near 1903 and that is even after three major wars and in a different country? - I realise you want to push your POV, but stick to the topic? - add a new section - mines and how the mines served to further subjugate and oppress the black man, etc. i have no problem with that, but lets get there first so it makes sense... Zarpboer (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
If you want to enforce a discuss-before-editing rule, then revert the article to the state it was in before you started editing. Then we can discuss. But I'm not willing to accept a regime where you are allowed to edit while I am not. Accusations of edit warring are also not conducive to a good discussion. - htonl (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I have not undone your last edit? - I added citation required tags. go read it - it is your last edit currently - and I do not agree with it... Now you edited it again, this time jumping to 1903 mine taxes. and now you are claiming I am the only one editing? - Discuss the issue please. - your current edit? Zarpboer (talk) 14:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Fine, I will revert the paragraph to how it was before the dispute started. Your initial edit to the "The discovery of diamonds in 1867..." paragraph is part of the issue, just as my subsequent edit is. - htonl (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

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


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

You are right. - never said you were not. BUT - You need to do it differently. We need to first deal with the discovery and what happened then? Who was affected? who had to be subjugated first? and then there came mines, then what happened? etc. encyclopedia - then there are acceptable citations for that, not sahistory Zarpboer (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I am right also - Who did the gold belong to? etc. etc. It all needs to be said the way it was. Zarpboer (talk) 15:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

OK. Then how about we drop the "subjugation" sentence for now, and let the paragraph be:


? - htonl (talk) 15:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I think subjugation is cool? It is also the word used in the citation. How about rather adding both items? I like your idea of adding the concept seperately, both should be communicated, we need to just figure out how to do it concisely and non confrontation-ally, so that it will represent an average accepted view? So, lets add both? I have a good citation for the effects of mining and the subjugation of the bantu nations, you are right, the socio impact of this is still so relevant today and it deserves to stand by itself? - what do you think? or should we really try getting it all into one or two sentences? Zarpboer (talk) 15:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Dude, the Griquas (San) were the owners of the diamonds, the Boers and the British tried to claim it, the San nation seriously deserves at least one sentence here also? So, dealing with the discovery of gold and diamonds in max three sentences and then dealing with the impact of the mining and further subjugation of the bantu speaking nations in another two or so sentences? If you agree I can do some additional research and we can try to get it all as concise as possible? Zarpboer (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
If you do not agree, then I would still want to deal with the direct impact of the discovery first. Then I suggest:

- which is not at all encyclopedic and this needs to be dealt with - one thing at a time. It is simply confusing to make this a white vs black thing in 1869, it was first a Boer vs Brit thing and then a white vs black thing? Zarpboer (talk) 15:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't have time right now but I will come back later today or tomorrow to respond to your posts. - htonl (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I think I see where some of our disagreement lies: "Later after a lot of additional immigration, three wars, and in a different country, it would also affect the relations between white and black people." Are you suggesting black people were only affected by the mineral revolution after 1901 (or after 1910)? As soon as mining moved beyond the stage of individual prospectors, there was a need for labour. And since black people were seen as the source for labour, the relations were affected - especially the
I think it makes more sense to deal with the effects of the Mineral Revolution together in one place. I mean, the only direct effects of the discoveries were the subsequent diamond rush and gold rushes. Everything else comes later as result of the development of the mines as a big economic asset. - htonl (talk) 12:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay - now we are moving forward. YES. htonl - when gold was discovered - black people were not directly affected. - Read the cited resources. They lived in kraals, etc. Who was affected first? - Who was first displaced? - Let me help you here and in more racial terms: farmers (with white skins). Then, after those people were disowned, displaced and had their homes destroyed, broken down and their lives disrupted check Paul Kruger and disowning of rights of bywoners (white squatters) etc. etc. etc. - then, later, mining started. Again, you should read the cited resources - the citations that are on the page right now - (not new citations) - Then, black people moved in, they were all after the money, jobs, work, better life, etc. Later Indian slaves (together with free Indians) were imported, and tens of thousands of Chinese slaves (indentured workers), so, simply to add the sentence the way you want to do it - it seems that the black people were the only people poorly affected? That is your POV, but, with respect, it is not neutral. Many people were affected, of all races. Then, moving it right along to the early 20th century, yes, then black people wwere the worst affected! - but, this needs to be dealt with, evenly and neutrally, so that the suffering of all peoples are mentioned and stated, fairly and equitably. Many of our rainbow nation suffered because of greed, imperialism and the unequal exploitation of the resources. - If we cannot agree - Then, maybe I need to add my sentence - and you can add yours? Mine is:

- Now that is factual and fair. Then, I still do want to add the Indian slaves as well. The Indian people truly suffered in this country, so did the Chinese and yes, of course, it is common cause that the black people suffered the worst. But it should all be said and reflected? Zarpboer (talk) 10:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in South Africa

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of South Africa's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "imf":

  • From Bolivia: "Report for Selected Countries and Subjects". International Monetary Fund. Retrieved 28 January 2014.
  • From Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development: Zsófia Árvai (November 2005). "Capital Account Liberalization, Capital Flow Patterns, and Policy Responses in the EU's New Member States" (PDF). IMF Working Paper. International Monetary Fund.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit dispute: Subjugation

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

Yes, it was a racial thing. There was a need for cheap labour to work the mines. So in order to encourage/force black men to go work on the mines, white governments imposed such measures as hut taxes etc. You should note that this does not apply only to the Boer republics - the British colonial administrations were just as involved. Are you really trying to claim that ZAR did not subjugate its black population, the Cape Colony did not subjugate the Xhosa, and so on? And incidentally, one really can't describe the Transvaal Boers as "indigenous" in the 1880s when they had only lived in the Transvaal for at most 40 years. - htonl (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I have expanded on that sentence with an explanation detailing what I have said above, along with a reference. - htonl (talk) 14:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay, you should read your sentence - It says the discovery increased subjugation. Then you should really read the cited resources, the one is quite a good read. The other, is not so relevant to what is being claimed here and should be moved/removed... Read them - and see what I am saying. You are jumping from 1869 and 1884 to 1899 hmm, better than me trying to explain all this to you just see WP:SYN - What you are saying is true but not where it is and how it is said. Hut taxes or kraal taxes is entirely a different subject? And the ZAR was 100% white and even belonged only to two churches, they were racists, who is talking about racism?, oh yes, you are. Regarding indigenous some of the boers have at that time already been in southern africa for a few hundred years and if you look at the definition of the word indigenous, they were in fact already unique enough to qualify as such, again, that is completely a different discussion to the dispute? Our edit difference lies herein: this section deals with the discovery of gold and diamonds did the discovery of gold and diamonds itself lead to an immediate increase in the level of subjugation to the indigenous population of a non existent town Johannesburg? - no, it did not even exist yet. what it did lead to is an increase in the level of conflict between British and Boer, the entire ZAR belonged to the Boers, not the British and certainly not the Zulus or Xhosas or Sothos - again - at that time (1869 and 1184) - So, can you please deal with that and try not to involve racism or racialism or other topics - you can add additional content or sections if you feel that something should be said about racism (look at South African Republic and racism section... - this, however has nothing to do with our current dispute... Zarpboer (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Please complete our discussion here... before editing / edit warring Zarpboer (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Changing the discovery of gold subjugation agenda to the mine taxes of 1903 under the Union of South Africa - as per your new sahistory citation, is not coolthis is an encyclopedia? We are now at 1869 not anywhere near 1903 and that is even after three major wars and in a different country? - I realise you want to push your POV, but stick to the topic? - add a new section - mines and how the mines served to further subjugate and oppress the black man, etc. i have no problem with that, but lets get there first so it makes sense... Zarpboer (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
If you want to enforce a discuss-before-editing rule, then revert the article to the state it was in before you started editing. Then we can discuss. But I'm not willing to accept a regime where you are allowed to edit while I am not. Accusations of edit warring are also not conducive to a good discussion. - htonl (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I have not undone your last edit? - I added citation required tags. go read it - it is your last edit currently - and I do not agree with it... Now you edited it again, this time jumping to 1903 mine taxes. and now you are claiming I am the only one editing? - Discuss the issue please. - your current edit? Zarpboer (talk) 14:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Fine, I will revert the paragraph to how it was before the dispute started. Your initial edit to the "The discovery of diamonds in 1867..." paragraph is part of the issue, just as my subsequent edit is. - htonl (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

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


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

You are right. - never said you were not. BUT - You need to do it differently. We need to first deal with the discovery and what happened then? Who was affected? who had to be subjugated first? and then there came mines, then what happened? etc. encyclopedia - then there are acceptable citations for that, not sahistory Zarpboer (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I am right also - Who did the gold belong to? etc. etc. It all needs to be said the way it was. Zarpboer (talk) 15:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

OK. Then how about we drop the "subjugation" sentence for now, and let the paragraph be:


? - htonl (talk) 15:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I think subjugation is cool? It is also the word used in the citation. How about rather adding both items? I like your idea of adding the concept seperately, both should be communicated, we need to just figure out how to do it concisely and non confrontation-ally, so that it will represent an average accepted view? So, lets add both? I have a good citation for the effects of mining and the subjugation of the bantu nations, you are right, the socio impact of this is still so relevant today and it deserves to stand by itself? - what do you think? or should we really try getting it all into one or two sentences? Zarpboer (talk) 15:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Dude, the Griquas (San) were the owners of the diamonds, the Boers and the British tried to claim it, the San nation seriously deserves at least one sentence here also? So, dealing with the discovery of gold and diamonds in max three sentences and then dealing with the impact of the mining and further subjugation of the bantu speaking nations in another two or so sentences? If you agree I can do some additional research and we can try to get it all as concise as possible? Zarpboer (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
If you do not agree, then I would still want to deal with the direct impact of the discovery first. Then I suggest:

- which is not at all encyclopedic and this needs to be dealt with - one thing at a time. It is simply confusing to make this a white vs black thing in 1869, it was first a Boer vs Brit thing and then a white vs black thing? Zarpboer (talk) 15:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't have time right now but I will come back later today or tomorrow to respond to your posts. - htonl (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I think I see where some of our disagreement lies: "Later after a lot of additional immigration, three wars, and in a different country, it would also affect the relations between white and black people." Are you suggesting black people were only affected by the mineral revolution after 1901 (or after 1910)? As soon as mining moved beyond the stage of individual prospectors, there was a need for labour. And since black people were seen as the source for labour, the relations were affected - especially the
I think it makes more sense to deal with the effects of the Mineral Revolution together in one place. I mean, the only direct effects of the discoveries were the subsequent diamond rush and gold rushes. Everything else comes later as result of the development of the mines as a big economic asset. - htonl (talk) 12:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay - now we are moving forward. YES. htonl - when gold was discovered - black people were not directly affected. - Read the cited resources. They lived in kraals, etc. Who was affected first? - Who was first displaced? - Let me help you here and in more racial terms: farmers (with white skins). Then, after those people were disowned, displaced and had their homes destroyed, broken down and their lives disrupted check Paul Kruger and disowning of rights of bywoners (white squatters) etc. etc. etc. - then, later, mining started. Again, you should read the cited resources - the citations that are on the page right now - (not new citations) - Then, black people moved in, they were all after the money, jobs, work, better life, etc. Later Indian slaves (together with free Indians) were imported, and tens of thousands of Chinese slaves (indentured workers), so, simply to add the sentence the way you want to do it - it seems that the black people were the only people poorly affected? That is your POV, but, with respect, it is not neutral. Many people were affected, of all races. Then, moving it right along to the early 20th century, yes, then black people wwere the worst affected! - but, this needs to be dealt with, evenly and neutrally, so that the suffering of all peoples are mentioned and stated, fairly and equitably. Many of our rainbow nation suffered because of greed, imperialism and the unequal exploitation of the resources. - If we cannot agree - Then, maybe I need to add my sentence - and you can add yours? Mine is:

- Now that is factual and fair. Then, I still do want to add the Indian slaves as well. The Indian people truly suffered in this country, so did the Chinese and yes, of course, it is common cause that the black people suffered the worst. But it should all be said and reflected? Zarpboer (talk) 10:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in South Africa

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of South Africa's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "imf":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Primary School announcement

Hi everybody. On behalf of the teams behind the Wikipedia Primary School research project, I would like to announce that this article was selected a while ago to be reviewed by an external expert. We'd now like to ask interested editors to join our efforts and improve the article before March 15, 2015 (any timezone) as they see fit; a revision will be then sent to the designated expert for review. Any notes and remarks written by the external expert will be made available on this page under a CC-BY-SA license as soon as possible, so that you can read them, discuss them and then decide if and how to use them. Please sign up here to let us know you're collaborating. Thanks a lot for your support! Elitre (WPS) (talk) 15:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The map pointing out South-Africa's geographical location

What exactly is the point of having the map point out that 1 African country (Morrocco) isn't part of the African Union? It doesn't seem particularly relevant to this article. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:C421:D27F:537:E61E (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Religion

why for some countries 'religion' is an entire section and for others such as this one it does not even exist? seriously, why the editors of Wikipedia are not a bit more professional and much less biased???

You are criticising yourself because you too are an editor. BoonDock (talk) 01:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Who cares about religion? ♆ CUSH ♆ 11:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Rudeness is not required. Religion is not neglected by Wikipedia editors. There is a section on religion. There are also several independent pages on religion.
* Religion_in_South_Africa. This is the main Wiki page and it is referenced in this article.
* Irreligion_in_South_Africa
* Protestantism_in_South_Africa.
* Freedom_of_religion_in_South_Africa
Craigallan.za (talk) 08:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Faultlines

Article has some major faults, a few of which are identified as follows:

  • Lead too long. WP:LEADLENGTH
  • Bantu colonisation section title is incorrect. A colony is a body of settlers living in a new territory but subject to control by a foreign, parent state, which was certainly not the case with Bantu migrations to SA.
I find myself being unconvinced by this assertion. Please expand. I would also recommend that you create a username. It greatly increases the credibility of your edits.--Discott (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
No need for me (or anyone else) to expand on something that's so obviously self-evident. If your're not entirely familiar with the English language, then I suggest you refer to Oxford English Dictionary or any other reputable dictionary for a generally accepted definition of the words "colony" or "colonisation". 41.162.131.130 (talk) 11:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
PS: Proposal was made (not by me) and rationale provided for the "Bantu colonisation" section title to be change, at this archived thread a year ago. I concur with that proposal, which signifies consensus. 41.162.131.130 (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I support dropping 'colonisation'. There was a slow Bantu migration from the Cameroon area eastwards towards Kenya and then southwards, reaching the Kei river by the time of European colonisation. The migration displaced previous inhabitants across central, eastern and southern Africa, but I know of no evidence that it was centrally organised by any external power, or used to benefit another country, so calling it colonisation is not accurate. In the same way, the Voortrekkers heading in the opposite direction were not colonists, but migrants. The ZAR was not a colony. I suggest the title should be Bantu Migration. Craigallan.za (talk) 08:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I concur. 41.162.131.130 (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
As I suggested in the previous discussion (in the diff that IP41.162.131.130 linked above), it should be "Bantu expansion" since that's the name we use for the article that describes it. - htonl (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. We should use the most common/academic form of description, which is Bantu Expansion. Mycelium101 (talk) 21:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Notes on "Republic" section

Having just read Mandela's autobiography, Long Walk to Freedom, I believe the ANC's role in establishing democracy is underrepresented in the "Republic" section of this article. I point this out only because this underrepresentation appears to be misleading, though presumably unintentional. Were it not for the efforts of Mandela and many other ANC members, the National Party would not have agreed to negotiate for democracy. Indeed, it was in response to the ANC's demonstrations and declarations that Mr. de Klerk began negotiations with Mr. Mandela. This may seem a small detail, but in representing it correctly, a more accurate history of the development of South Africa is painted. It was the ANC who spent decades directly and indirectly informing the National Party that negotiations were needed. I believe Mandela's brilliant vision and lifelong efforts (and those of many other ANC leaders) should be recognized more accurately in this section. '

In speaking of his fellow "freedom-fighters," Mandela wrote:

[T]he decades of oppression and brutality had another, unintended effect, and that was that it produced the Oliver Tambos, the Walter Sisulus, the Chief Luthulis, the Yusuf Dadoos, the Bram Fischers, the Robert Sobukwes of our time -- men of such extraordinary courage, wisdom, and generosity that their like may never be known again. Perhaps it requires such depth of oppression to create such heights of character. My country is rich in the minerals and gems that lie beneath its soil, but I have always known that its greatest wealth is its people, finer and truer than the purest diamonds (Long Walk to Freedom," p. 622).

In homage to the lives these men truly lived, I believe it is necessary to convey the understanding that the ANC led the South African people to establish democracy in the Republic of South Africa. According to Mandela's record, the ANC was the instigator of talks with the government, not the other way around.

This article reads, "Ultimately, F. W. de Klerk opened bilateral discussions with Nelson Mandela in 1993 for a transition of policies and government." While true, I believe it would be helpful to mention that it was after Mandela's request for these types of actions for many years that de Klerk did this.

The "Republic" section continues, "In 1990 the National Party government took the first step towards dismantling discrimination when it lifted the ban on the African National Congress and other political organisations. It released Nelson Mandela from prison after twenty-seven years' serving a sentence for sabotage. A negotiation process followed." Perhaps the term "took the first step" is misleading here, considering that it had been decades since the ANC had begun its first steps on the road to dismantling discrimination. It might also be useful to include here that, in 1993, Mandela, along with de Klerk, was a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, signifying their steps together toward peace.

Thank you. 67.2.90.233 (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)11/27/15 Kaite Williams

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on South Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2016

I just wanted to notify the editors of this page that the line: "The sailors were able to survive by obtaining fresh water and meat from the natives." found under: European colonisation.. cannot be found in the source. Nor can it be found anywhere else online at least. I'm not sure if the editor has perhaps found this somewhere else, but I'd like to see a source for this claim.

Best regards, J. Bergkamp Jasonbergkamp (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Done Slapped a cn tag on for good measure, will let someone else look at it. Thank you! --allthefoxes (Talk) 15:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on South Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Racism on the map ?

Hi, we can read all kind of racial groups in this map except "whites" group... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:South_Africa_-_population_migrations.svg whites are only mentionned in the legend which is not the case of other groups... Is this fair ? Is this not denigrating ? Like erasing the white presence for centuries in this country ? It hurst me a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.64.198.180 (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The map is talking about the migrations of racial groups, as far as I know the whites didnt really migrate anywhere of any significance they tended to stay in the original colonies. MilborneOne (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Wrong data according to Statistics South Africa

According to the link to Statistics South Africa, in 2004 80% of the population in South Africa was black, 8% white, 8% colored and over 2% Indian.--83.165.178.34 (talk) 21:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

South Africa never had coup d'etat?

What about Lucas Mangope? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.44.14 (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia Primary School invitation

Hi everybody. On behalf of the teams behind the Wikipedia Primary School research project, I would like to announce that this article was selected a while ago to be reviewed by an external expert. Notes and remarks written by the external expert are available on this page under a CC-BY-SA license, so that you can read them, discuss them and then decide if and how to use them. We'd like to thank Ineke Van Kessel for her work and for her helpful notes. Please sign up here to let us know you're collaborating. Thanks a lot for your support! -- Anthere (talk) 12:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

To facilitate the editing process, I copied Ineke notes below.

Quality of the Summary

Is the summary of the article a complete, thorough, and concise introduction to the topic? How do you think the summary could be improved? Which meaningful data are missing? Is there something that you find too much detailed for a general overview of the topic?

The summary is rather bland, and misses the point that apartheid South Africa was for decades isolated and almost universally criticized for its racial policies. It should include a mention of Nelson Mandela, who is without doubt the most famous (South) African. After a long and sometimes violent struggle, the transition from apartheid to an inclusive democracy was largely peaceful, against long-held expectations of a bloody racial war. This transition became known as the South African miracle, in which Mandela played a key role.

Delete: “It is the most southernmost….”at the end of the first paragraph. This is superfluous. The sentence: “since 1994, all ethnic and linguistic groups….” is somewhat misleading, as representation in parliament is not based on ethnicity or language, but on citizenship.

End note 17 should be updated, as these are figures from 2009.

Structure and style of the article

Is the article properly presenting the topic for a general public? Does the article provide a complete and easy-to-navigate structure? Which paragraph would you add, unify or split into different parts? Please provide a list of suggestions. Is the article well written and understandable at a high school level?

The article is well written and clear.
Overall it is easy to navigate, but some sections belong under a different heading:

  • Climate change ( now on p. 13 under conservation) should go to section on climate on p. 11
  • killing of rhinos on p. 13 belongs under ‘animals’ on p. 12.

Content

Is the article comprehensive of major facts related to the topic? Is the article adequately placing the subject in context? What does it miss? Please provide a list of topics you think should be included in the article (suggestions must be related to bibliography). Do you find that some arguments are not meaningful or representative of the topic for a general public. What should be deleted? Please explain why.

Overall, the article is fairly comprehensive and adequately contextualized. Crucial patterns in the history of South Africa would become more visible and better understandable if better use is made of some of the standard works. The author makes an excessive use of a large number of sometimes obscure sources, rather than citing authoritative standard works. This results in a sometimes haphazard sequence of important and not-so-important facts, rather than in a coherent narrative.

One could question the balance between different sections, e.g. quite a lot of detail on geography, but nothing on:

  • The rise of Afrikaner nationalism and the crucial importance of the Afrikaans language in this process of ethnic mobilization
  • The launch of the ANC, in relation to the 1913 Native Land Act
  • The trade union movement and its crucial role in black politics.
  • The Bantustans and their reintegration in the Republic in 1994
  • the current state of race relations
  • gender issues
  • human rights and civil liberties, (also in relation to customary law)
  • civil society, including socio-political engagement by numerous churches
  • Section on literature is meager and should include black authors such as Zakes Mda as well as post-apartheid developments

Delete:

  • the Mahlabatini Declaration of Faith ( had no impact); rather add some info on CODESA: Convention for a Democratic South Africa which led to majority rule
  • p. 23 delete section on scouts as quite a few church-based organizations were also multi-racial (Young Christian Workers; Young Christian Students)) Comments in more detail
  • p. 3 under Name: the unification of four formerly separate British colonies: is technically correct, but for clarity’s sake: “the unification of two former British colonies and the two former Boer republics”.
  • p.5 Indonesia did not yet exist: Netherlands East Indies
  • p 6 control these important economic resources: add here that control over black labour was a crucial element. Boer War = Anglo-Boer War Nationalist Government classified people into four races (not three): white; coloured; Indian; African (or Bantu).
  • P 7 predominantly white referendum = exclusively white referendum
  • P 15 note 94: Georgia was not a major destination for emigrants from SA
  • P 15. Note 95: Adriana Stuijt is a dubious source. She is a former Dutch beauty queen who became an activist on the extreme right wing of Afrikaner nationalism. Farm murders is however a serious issue. More reliable sources would be the trade union Solidarity and the Transvaal Agricultural Union.
  • Virgin cleansing myth needs explanation
  • Rapes are not perpetrated by children but on (!) children.
  • p. 16 EU is the largest trading bloc for SA, not BRIC
  • p 17 Bhisho = Bisho; Mahikeng = Mafikeng
  • informal sector: African entrepreneurship was suppressed during apartheid
  • p. 18 what is FDi and FSI
  • p. 19 note 49 gives 2004 figures, needs update confidence level of 84% -- of what?
  • P 23. Sol Plaatje’s novel Mhudi was published in 1913, not 1930. However, Plaatje’s book Native Life in South Africa (1914) is much more famous. July’s People is definitely not Gordimer’s most famous book.
  • p. 24 I am not sure that District 9 was the most high-profile film. What about Invictus? Bantu education was initially designed to train blacks for manual labour only, but from the 1970s (high schools) and the 1980s (black universities) education for blacks expanded rapidly while remaining inferior to education for whites.
  • P 26 HIV/Aids: government made only serious efforts to fight AIDS after the Treatment Action Campaign (see note on civil society) won a court case, forcing the government to roll out provision of anti-retrovirals. This section needs an update.

International and local dimension

Is the article neutral (it presents general and acknowledged views fairly and without bias)? Is the article representative of the international dimension and consolidated research about the topic? If applicable, does the article feature examples from all over the world (no localisms)? Please draft a list of what is missing with related references.

No problems with neutrality. In terms of international dimension, there is no discussion of South African exceptionalism. Racial segregation was not exceptional in the world until the aftermath of WW II. In the age of decolonization, from the 1960s, racial segregration was out of tune with developments in the rest of Africa and the world. The international solidarity campaigns against apartheid should be mentioned, as well as sanctions and boycotts.

References (essential to allow the articles to be improved)

Is the list of publications comprehensive and updated? Does it list the fundamental monographs and papers? Please provide primary/generic and secondary/original resources which need to be included and suggest the list of publications which should be removed.

Some important standard works are missing, while many references need an update. Some sources are dubious or at least not authoritative. In a number of notes, no source is given.

Missing:

  • Johnson, Krista & Sean Jacobs, eds. Encyclopedia of South Africa. ISBN: 978-1-58826-749-8
  • Ross, Robert (1999) A Concise History of South Africa. Cambridge University Press
  • The Cambridge History of South Africa, vol. I & vol. II, 1999- State of the Nation, Human Sciences Research Council ( for different years)
  • SA Yearbook
  • Survey of Race Relations, Johannesburg: SAIRR
  • Sampson, Anthony, Mandela: the authorized biography
  • Gasa, Nombonisa (2007), Women in South African history, Human Sciences Research Council
  • Lodge, Tom (1983), Black Politics in South Africa since 1945. Johannesburg: Ravan Press.

Errors:

  • note 21: Mbembé = Mbembe
  • note 44 South African Institute of Race Relations 19 June 1913 = the SAIRR was only established in 1929.
  • In a number of notes, the source is missing: 25, 53, 54, 71, 81, 143, 164, 169, 171, 179.
  • Unreliable sources: note 95; note 100 (this Medscape article is full of nonsense about SA)
  • Many of the obscure sources could be replaced by more reputable sources, such as Stats SA; SA Yearbook; the Survey of Race Relations; State of the Nation. Utilizing more authoritative sources which use data in a standardized format (as Stats SA and the SA Yearbook) would make data in the article more consistent. It would also make it a lot easier to update outdated information and figures.

Portrayal of the Dutch vs the British in pushing inland from the cape

The description of Dutch settlers seems to have much more passive phrasing than the description of the British incursions.

Here's the section I'm looking at: "As they expanded east, the Dutch settlers met the southwesterly migrating Xhosa people in the region of the Fish River. A series of wars, called the Cape Frontier Wars, were fought over conflicting land and livestock interests. ... The British annexed the Cape Colony in 1806, and continued the frontier wars against the Xhosa; the British pushed the eastern frontier through a line of forts established along the Fish River and they consolidated the territory by encouraging British settlement. During the 1820s both the Boers (original Dutch, Flemish, German, and French settlers) and the British 1820 Settlers claimed land in the north and east of the country. Conflicts arose among the Xhosa, Zulu, Sotho and Boer groups who competed to expand their territories."

The Dutch "met" the Xhosa, wars "were fought", and "conflicts arose". And the Xhosa and the Dutch fought because they both had (apparently equally valid) "interests" in land and livestock. Whereas the British (actively) "continued the frontier wars", "annexed", "pushed", and "consolidated".

Were the British colonial incursions much more deliberate or militant than the Dutch colonists who worked their way inland? I am curious if the historical reality justifies this difference of phrasing. The tone of these sentences seem to avoid placing blame on the Dutch for causing the conflicts they were involved in, while the British are clearly portrayed as colonial aggressors.

--Marticato (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2016

Someone has changed the flag of South Africa to the old flag which was in place during apartheid. I believe this is an act of vandalism. Biggins1995 (talk) 22:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Already done with this edit Cannolis (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2016

DeathlyKeanan (talk) 08:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)In the history of South Africa part I suggest that the 2016 election results are entered as they showed a fundamental shift in the politics of the country.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. VarunFEB2003 I am Offline 11:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

South Africa

South Africa, officially the Republic of South Africa (RSA), is the southernmost country in Africa. It is bounded on the south by 2,798 kilometres of coastline of Southern Africa stretching along the South Atlantic and Indian Oceans,[9][10][11] on the north by the neighbouring countries of Namibia, Botswana and Zimbabwe, and on the east and northeast by Mozambique and Swaziland, and surrounding the kingdom of Lesotho.[12] South Africa is the 25th-largest country in the world by land area, and with close to 53 million people, is the world's 24th-most populous nation. It is the southernmost country on the mainland of the Old World or the Eastern Hemisphere. It is the only country that borders both the Atlantic Ocean and the Indian Ocean.[13] About 80 percent of South Africans are of Sub-Saharan African ancestry,[5] divided among a variety of ethnic groups speaking different Bantu languages, nine of which have official status.[11] The remaining population consists of Africa's largest communities of European (white), Asian (Indian), and multiracial (coloured) ancestry.

South Africa is a multiethnic society encompassing a wide variety of cultures, languages, and religions. Its pluralistic makeup is reflected in the constitution's recognition of 11 official languages, which is among the highest number of any country in the world.[11] Two of these languages are of European origin: Afrikaans developed from Dutch and serves as the first language of most white and coloured South Africans; English reflects the legacy of British colonialism, and is commonly used in public and commercial life, though it is fourth-ranked as a spoken first language.[11] The country is one of the few in Africa never to have had a coup d'état, and regular elections have been held for almost a century. However, the vast majority of black South Africans were not enfranchised until 1994. During the 20th century, the black majority sought to recover its rights from the dominant white minority, with this struggle playing a large role in the country's recent history and politics. The National Party imposed apartheid in 1948, institutionalizing previous racial segregation. After a long and sometimes violent struggle by the African National Congress and other anti-apartheid activists both inside and outside the country, discriminatory laws began to be repealed or abolished from 1990 onwards.

Since 1994, all ethnic and linguistic groups have had political representation in the country's democracy, which comprises a parliamentary republic and nine provinces. South Africa is often referred to as the "Rainbow Nation" to describe the country's newly developing multicultural diversity in the wake of segregationist apartheid ideology.[14] The World Bank classifies South Africa as an upper-middle-income economy, and a newly industrialized country.[15][16] Its economy is the second-largest in Africa, and the 34th-largest in the world.[6] In terms of purchasing power parity, South Africa has the seventh-highest per capita income in Africa. However, poverty and inequality remain widespread, with about a quarter of the population unemployed and living on less than US$1.25 a day.[17][18] Nevertheless, South Africa has been identified as a middle power in international affairs, and maintains significant regional influence.[19][20]

South Africa is also a member of BRICS and the G20.[1][2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wandaboy (talk • contribs) 14:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.b20coalition.org/about-g20.php
  2. ^ http://www.gov.za/about-government/brics-brazil-russia-india-china-south-africa

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2016

South Africa has Africa's most developed economy and is a member of BRICS and the G20.

165.255.163.175 (talk) 15:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done as the article already mentions BRICS and G20 - and you have not provided a reliable source for "most developed economy" - according to the List of African countries by GDP (nominal) it is behind Nigeria and Egypt in GDP - Arjayay (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Coat of arms

should we add the coat of arms in infobox, like other African countries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.40.137.202 (talk) 11:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The "rights" the indigenous population had "recovered"

In the second paragraph, there is the following sentence, "During the 20th century, the black majority sought to recover its rights from the dominant white minority...". Is recover its rights the right word choice? First, the indigenous population had had no rights before the very concept was formed by the European thinkers of the Enlightenment in the XVII-XVIII centuries. Second, they had no civilized country to exercise them even if they'd possessed them (certainly not in the British/Dutch colonies, and before that they lived in tribes). So what justifies this word choice?--Adûnâi (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Media upload of historical photographs of South Africa

Dear editors,

I would like to draw your attention to a media upload that may be of relevance to this page:

The Temminck Groll Collection consists of 2,641 historical photographs taken by the Dutch architect and architectural historian Coen Temminck Groll (1925-2015). The photos were taken in regions with which the Dutch have had historical relations, including countries in Africa, South America and Southeast Asia (see the category description for a full listing). The photos were taken during Temminck Groll's travels and study of 'shared cultural heritage' (heritage of the Netherlands located outside the country’s borders) and mainly date to the 1960s and 1970s. The photographs were digitised by the Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands and made available to Wikimedia Commons in the context of the project The Netherlands and the world. If you have any questions about this upload, or have other media requests regarding Dutch shared cultural heritage, don't hesitate to leave a message at the project page!

Kind regards, --AWossink (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Map in the infobox

In the first map in the infobox, it says that the African Union is light blue and that Africa is "light blue & dark grey". Well, I can only see one shade of grey, which includes Spain and all of the Middle East. Am I missing something, or is this caption wrong? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 08:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The map caption reflected a previous situation where Morocco was not in the AU. Updated. CMD (talk) 08:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Chipmunkdavis. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 10:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 24 external links on South Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on South Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Sport in South Africa

Is there nobody that is working on the football pages in South Africa? The PSL page seems to be about two weeks behind, while the other leagues pages are even further behind, if they even exist! Please help? Freddie2016 (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Zuma Must Fall

These protests having going for quite a while now and should really have an article about them. Currently, we only have a redirect. Charles Essie (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on South Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

all references to www.southafrica.info should change to www.brandsouthafrica.com

Please note for references: The website www.southafrica.info no longer exists. It has been amalgamated into a new site: BrandSouthAfrica.com. Redirects are in place, but some of the links don't seem to work. BrandSouthAfrica.com is a project of Brand South Africa, the South African Department of Communication's official marketing agency. Thanks! MarthaNg (talk) 20:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Pointless redundancy?

"discriminatory laws began to be repealed or abolished from 1990" - Is there some distinction? Won't one verb do? Also, given "began to be", the appropriate preposition would seem to be "in", not "from" 1990. Is this some example of regional usage or just poor English?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.210.230 (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

How would "the repeal and abolition of discriminatory laws began in 1990." (instead of "discriminatory laws began to be repealed or abolished from 1990 onwards")? Batternut (talk) 21:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2017

I strongly suggest that all reference links to www.southafrica.info pages be replaced with links to Internet Archive/Wayback Machine pages.

The site www.southafrica.info ceased to exist at the end of 2016. Its URLS now redirect to www.brandsouthafrica.com, which is constantly updated with new images,information, etc. Any links to www.southafrica.info from 2017 onwards would be misleading and historically inaccurate.

For this article, I suggest the following replacements, to two links in the references:

[119] New era as South Africa joins BRICS https://web.archive.org/web/20110418004139/http://www.southafrica.info:80/global/brics/brics-080411.htm

[120] SA brings 'unique attributes' to BRICS https://web.archive.org/web/20110709031314/http://www.southafrica.info:80/global/brics/brics-140411.htm

[166] The languages of South Africa https://web.archive.org/web/20110304001836/http://www.southafrica.info/about/people/language.htm

Hope this makes sense. 41.193.217.7 (talk) 00:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Reference to African Union in the infopanel map?

Why is South Africa's geographic location referenced in terms of African Union instead of Africa in the infopanel map? It would make sense if South Africa was a non-independent state or region in the country African Union (like one of the states in USA, or an administrative or other kind of region in some other country), but since that is not the case, I fail to see the significance of referring to African Union here. It would be equally ridiculous to show a country's location in the UN. The location within the continent of Africa (or in the world as opposed to within th UN), however, would make sense. 84.248.218.89 (talk) 19:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on South Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

This post eradicate Khoisan history, archeology and descendants

This protected post flies against the face of reason and HISTORY and must be removed. The Khoisan are the indigenous people in southern Africa, and are dissimilar to Bantu races literally through DNA. Khoisan haplogroup LO has been tested and proven to be over 250 000 years old, with archeology placing our people firmly in Southern Africa. The Bantu are late settlers. As our inherent human rights continued to be oppressed, our history is now also being skewed... disgusting Khoisanrevival (talk) 06:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

There's no "must be removed". If you think the article is inaccurate or biased, and you have information to support that contentio which is backed up by citations from [[WP:|RS|reliable sources]], then the article can be udated with that information. No blog posts or chat groups, though, just reporting of scientific research by respected news outlets or journals. Anything else is bound to be rejected. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Should South Africa articles use "continental system" numbers?

A discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Africa#Should South Africa articles use "continental system" numbers? will impact this article.

A simple example would be "Table Mountain is at an elevation of 1084,6 metres" (instead of 1,084.6 metres). Batternut (talk) 10:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The use of gaps for grouping thousands is popular, though using comma as the decimal mark is not. Batternut (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


To impose or not to impose gap-separation (1234567.8 in place of 1,234,567.8) upon existing articles is now the question, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Africa#Should existing South Africa articles be changed to use gaps as thousands separators?. Batternut (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on South Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2018

96.19.139.172 (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The smidgeon of info on the Black Empowerment Laws in your protected, uneditable article do not mention the labor implications of unemployment for people classified by the ANC government as White. It is very difficult and in some situations, such as government work, almost impossible for a Boer to find work.

http://www.bowmanslaw.com/insights/summary-of-black-economic-empowerment-in-south-africa/

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

A whole new Wiki-page about Apartheid South Africa?

I've seen articles about German periods, and there is separate articles for the different periods of Germany like Nazi Germany, West Germany, East Germany, Weimar Republic etc. I think Wiki needs a whole new article about Apartheid South Africa. Would've been useful for historians, those who are interested in that sort of politics and so on.

And lo it already exists: apartheid Arnoutf (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Is it possible to make a country box to that article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.174.153.74 (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

No apartheid is not a country. And in any case that should be discussed there. Arnoutf (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I suggest you make a draft article in your sandbox and see if you have enough content and references to support an article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2018

Add the line next to "Nevertheless, South Africa has been identified as a middle power in international affairs, and maintains significant regional influence.": South Africa is a founding member of the United Nations, the African Union, the Non-Aligned Movement, the Southern African Development Community, BRICS and the G20. 135.23.145.14 (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The RSA is most certainly all of those things. They are a founding member of the UN, along with 45 other states. However, the African Union is a recent development, being successor organization to the OAU, which the RSA was not a part of. Their activities with the NAM are likewise recent developments in view of RSA's long history, being restricted to post-1994. This is where determinations like WP:NUMBER1 can be problematic, and a view of it depends mostly on where and when the viewer is standing. Spintendo      21:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The killing of white farmers

Should there not be a section on the ongoing killing of 10,000s of white farmers and the rising anti-white racism in the country, not to mention stealing their farmland without compensation?

http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/world-economy/the-time-for-reconciliation-is-over-south-africa-votes-to-confiscate-whiteowned-without-compensation/news-story/a8a81155995b1adc1c399d3576c4c0bc

I know there is a page for "racism in South Africa", but this phenomenon should be considered a major part of the country's history. The prejudice and bigotry against whites right now is arguably worse than against blacks during apartheid, which has its own section in history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jez9999 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes there should be, support my changes below this thread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin.j.fox (talk • contribs) 02:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2018

I would like to add this to the title summary:

Since early 2013, the left wing political party the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) has been rising in popularity with a policy of racially based land expropriation of the Afrikaner population.[25] The EFF states that the policy of land expropriation along racially discriminatory grounds is not about revenge but about dignity, the party believes that South African land belongs to the countries indigenous population and that a campaign of land redistribution will rectify a historical injustice.[26] In early 2018 the ruling African National Congress (ANC) joined the EFF in passing legislation designed to commit to an official policy of land redistribution.[27] The racial hatred being generated by the political rhetoric of the land redistribution issue has created a humanitarian crisis in the country as largely impoverished indigenous African gangs have committed increasingly terrifying attacks on white owned farms. The brutality of the attacks which have included torture, rape and murder have led to calls from other "civilized countries" to open special humanitarian streams to deal with the crisis.[28] Martin.j.fox (talk) 02:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Bloemfontein as judicial capital

The idea that Bloemfontein is the judicial capital doesn't seem to be valid post-2012, since the Supreme Court of Appeal is no longer the apex court for any matters. With Johannesburg being the seat of the Constitutional Court, which now has general appeal jurisdiction, Johannesburg could be seen as the "Judicial capital". In fact, the concept of a "judicial capital" seems flimsy, post-1994. Reliable sources are requested to support the contention that Bloemfontein is the "judicial capital", as of 2018, otherwise consideration should be given to removing it from the article. Park3r (talk) 03:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

HIV/Aids – simplification?

"Most deaths are experienced by economically active individuals" could probably be simplified. What exactly does it mean here? /Julle (talk) 19:46, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

eemergent thematic concerns in South Africa

Need help in that question Damaris Gesare (talk) 08:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2018

41.114.71.149 (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2019

Klerksdorp is the largest City in the North West Province, not Rustenburg Jannie King (talk) 08:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I reverted that, according to the articles, Rustenburg's population is ~500000, while Klerksdorp's is around 100000 MoHaG (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Correction, at the municipal level, Klerksdorp's City of Matlosana municipality has a population of around 400k, while the Rustenburg Municipality has a population of around 500k. (The City of Matlosana article list's Klerksdorp population as 60k, while the Klerksdorp article lists it as 180k (possibly including some adjacent places, like Stilfontein and Jouberton)) MoHaG (talk) 18:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Editing "Human Trafficking in South Africa"

Hello! I have taken on said article and plan to revise it over the course of the semester. Feel free to check it out and offer any suggestions you deem fit. Natsz72 (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

History The San people were the first settlers; the Khoikhoi and Bantu-speaking tribes followed. The Dutch East India Company landed the first European settlers on the Cape of Good Hope in 1652, launching a colony that by the end of the 18th century numbered only about 15,000. Known as Boers or Afrikaners, and speaking a Dutch dialect known as Afrikaans, the settlers as early as 1795 tried to establish an independent republic.

After occupying the Cape Colony in that year, Britain took permanent possession in 1815 at the end of the Napoleonic Wars, bringing in 5,000 settlers. Anglicization of government and the freeing of slaves in 1833 drove about 12,000 Afrikaners to make the “great trek” north and east into African tribal territory, where they established the republics of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State.

The discovery of diamonds in 1867 and gold nine years later brought an influx of “outlanders” into the republics and spurred Cape Colony prime minister Cecil Rhodes to plot annexation. Rhodes's scheme of sparking an “outlander” rebellion, to which an armed party under Leander Starr Jameson would ride to the rescue, misfired in 1895, forcing Rhodes to resign. What British expansionists called the “inevitable” war with the Boers broke out on Oct. 11, 1899. The defeat of the Boers in 1902 led in 1910 to the Union of South Africa, composed of four provinces, the two former republics, and the old Cape and Natal colonies. Louis Botha, a Boer, became the first prime minister. Organized political activity among Africans started with the establishment of the African National Congress in 1912. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.200.66 (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:South_Africa/Archive_7&oldid=1073801079"