Talk:South Africa/Archive 3

message: 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)
thread_title: Agricultural Employment

message: 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.  ).  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)
thread_title: Janitorial changes

message: "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.  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. "
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)
thread_title: Drugs

message: 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)
thread_title:  Category System needs cleanup 

message: 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)
thread_title: Languages

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Apartheid death squads 

message: 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)
replies: text: I see they've been removed without discussion. Anybody mind if I put them back? Guinnog 13:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Please discuss here if you want to change it again, thanks. Guinnog 10:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Headings in history section

message: 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)
thread_title: Proper capitalisation of racist terms in apartheid era

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: I like the farm workers picture. Wizzy…☎ 09:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Up the workers! Thanks, Chris, I was determined not to revert it myself. Guinnog 12:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image choice

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Proper use of this talk page

message: 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 ; 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)
thread_title:  Parliamentary democracy