Talk:South Africa/Archive 4

message: I have to take issue with the following statement: "The right-wing National Party sympathised with Nazi Germany during the war, and sought greater racial segregation, or apartheid, after it."
This sentence is utterly misleading and possibly false.  
South Africa formed part of the Allied Forces during WWI and WWII.  They fought against Germany.  The statement should be edited out or otherwise explained in more detail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.54.202.82 (talk • contribs) 
:Yes, but the National Party was not in government during the war - it only came into power in 1948. At the outbreak of war there was a split in the United Party; Barry Hertzog left the UP to join the NP, and was replaced by Jan Smuts as prime minister. During the war many of the people who were later to be senior members of government in the early NP years - John Vorster, for example - were actually interned because of their Nazi sympathies. My reference for this is the Reader's Digest Illustrated History of South Africa. - htonl 14:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed, many members of the Broederbond went to jail because of their anti-British and pro-Nazi sympathies. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 17:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds a lot like a recent debate in the Cape Times, over letters published by Nazi sympathisers in the Nat party. Apparently some key figures openly expressed their support of the Nazis. I'll look for the exact reference.Ethnopunk 14:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NP sympathy for NAZI Germany debate 

message: This doesn't make sense: "It has the largest population of people of Coloured (i.e., mixed racial background), European, and Indian communities in Africa." I looked up "Coloured" and it is a term used in Apartheid South Africa, according to wikipedia, so it doesn't make any sense to use it in a trans-African context. Surely that sentence should say "the largest mixed racial population" ?
:No, Coloured is still used in South Africa and it does not have the negative connotations that it has in other English-speaking countries (most coloured people refer to themselves as that and find "mixed-race" to be an offensive term since it implies they have no specific ethnicity of their own). Although I'm not sure by the "European". That is maybe early Apartheid terminology. South Africa's whites are White Africans, not Europeans. Joziboy 08:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What nonsense you have emptied your mouth of there. I am white. I live in South Africa. I consider myself to be European. I don't like the idea of being tagged by some dude over Wikipedia like I'm a MP3 on the internet. Don't create a conflict where people refer to themselves otherwise as you would have wished they did. Scotteh 15:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go Joziboy, go! .... don't feel the trolls :) Páll (Die pienk olifant) 17:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coloured 

message: Viewing SA from the outside from a safe distance I am disturbed to see a major philosophical comparativeness with the old Nazi regime in Germany
“”Nazism was the ideology held by the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, commonly called the NSDAP or Nazi Party). The word Nazism is most often used in connection with the government of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945, also known as the "Third Reich". In terms of ideology, Nazism combines racialism, nationalism, anti-Semitism and anti-communism, and draws from a variety of other sources. Currently, Nazism is outlawed as a political ideology in modern Germany, as are forms of iconography and propaganda from the Nazi era. Still, remnants and revivalists, known as "Neo-Nazis", continue to operate in Germany and abroad.””
From the description  provided in Wikipedia it’s easy to see the similarities , The ANC government in SA has started with racial policies similar to the Nazi party in the early years , fostering a new black nationalism ( instead of German nationalism) , and being anti European/people of European decent /”settlers” ( instead of anti-Semitism) , with  an anti-western ( instead of anti-communism)
I suppose the  “African Renaissance” is their version of the  “ third Reich “ 
Similar to the old Nazi’s the South African government is telling business/sports organizations/  who they should employ ,how many of each group based on racial quotas.
I wonder if this is going to go the same road ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.128.35.243 (talk • contribs) 
:I hereby invoke Godwin's Law: this discussion is therefore closed. YHL. HAND. - htonl 02:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I love afrikaans, in afrikaans calling someone a "doos" is a rather bad insult, but if you directly translate "doos" into english it becomes "box". So "Moenie met die doos praat nie, asb!" means in english "Please don't speak to the box" (Directly translated of course). In terms of actual meaning it really means "Please don't speak to the idiot". Just a small language lesson Jediwannabe 14:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similarities between the Nazi regime compared to the ANC government in SA 

message: The URL (http://www.crimexposouthafrica.org/) was added and 2 minutes later it was deleted. Why do you want to withhold information from tourists? Tourists must note that there is people that delete any information that may provide negative information about South Africa, but that tells the truth (or that provide personal opinion). 
:or that provide personal opinion - we stay strictly away from personal opinion on wikipedia. Wizzy…☎ 12:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personal opinions have no place here. Wizzy…☎ 12:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I deleted it again, for the same reason as Shrensh. Please seek consensus here before adding it again. Thanks. --Guinnog 12:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I've just deleted it again. I agree, while crime in South Africa is a serious issue, that website is just using scare tactics and is irrelevant to the article.Shrensh 07:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone have some real stats about crime in SA: maybe they should be added instead? -- Chris Lester talk 15:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  URL DELETED 

message: The government is criticised for doing too little to stop crime. Some question the effectiveness of the South African Police Service, which is known to make use of private security firms to protect its police stations[citation needed]. Due to the high crime rate in South Africa, many private individuals also make use of these systems[citation needed].
The Government was criticized when the Minister of Safety and Security was in Burundi promoting peace and democracy while there was a spate of crime in Gauteng. This spate included the killings of an alarming number of people, including members of the South African Police Service killed while performing their duties[citation needed].
Lack of citations make bunny cry, especially in a story where everything else is cited.
ManicParroT 19:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: oh why? because the whole world follows after america.America's changing the wage system wouldn't make anyone else change theirs the whole world does not copy america Charlieh7337 (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Crime citations please

message: Please remove this message with first post. The rest of the content has been archived -- Chris Lester talk 18:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived

message: Can we add a section on the South African Scout Association to the article (Titled something like Scouting in South Africa). Scouting in general owes many of it's traditions (and in fact it's very extensise) to South Africa. Scouting has also been around in South African since 1908 and was one of the first truely multi-racial organisations (With multi-racial meetings taking place since the 1970s). There are rougly 300 000 scouts in South Africa (with approximatly 70% of them in rural areas)
I think that adding a section on the SASA will really help this article Jediwannabe 08:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that scouting is important enough to have a whole section in this article. If you look at the section topics, they are all pretty general topics - "Geography", "Culture", "Economy" etc. Maybe scouting deserves a mention in the "Culture" section. - htonl 12:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point. I'll for one or two extra comments, then I'll add it in the the Culture section (If there are no objections) Jediwannabe 15:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm assuming that everybody is cool with me adding a bit about scouting in sa under "culture" then? Jediwannabe 05:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scouting in South Africa 

message: There should really be a section on religion--either as its own section or as a subsection of demographics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.168.41 (talk • contribs) 
:I agree. I don't know if a seperate section is necessary, but there should be some mention of it somewhere on one of the South Africa pages. An article about a country just doesn't seem complete without the very word "religion" being mentioned in it...  ¬¬¬¬
::True. One place to start looking for info might be . - htonl 19:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you've just put your stats in again.  Until you can justify why 2001 official census data from Stats SA is inferior to a book which makes a rough reference to "2-3%", I don't believe we need a special note about the Islamic population.  If you can provide a verifiable reason why you believe that your source carries at least equal weight to a national census, I'm all ears.  Please discuss on the talk page, and don't just edit again. --HiltonLange (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: I don't know about anyone else, but the paragraph dedicated to the Crime Expo website under Crime seems to me to be a blatant plug for the site.
I think a link like this can be in the 'External links' section, but doesn't warrant being written about directly, since it doesn't add much to the content of the site ... I'd go so far as to hazard that this may be simply here to draw traffic.
May I suggest some discussion regarding this?  If no-one is forthcoming, I will remove the offending paragraph.
Stuart Steedman 07:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the link shouldn't be on the main SA article. Incidentally, someone (presumably the same individual you refer to) keep adding the same link at the Wikitravel site (http://wikitravel.org/en/South_Africa). I've been removing it there too (as an ip). Mikker (...) 17:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crime Expo - a plug? 

message: I'm a little concerned that the section detailing South African music - specifically the Afrikaans music part - has turned into a linkfest of sorts (sans the links, but there's a lot of band-names listed.)
I have only heard of one of the listed bands there; are all these band names important enough to be listed on the article, or should they not rather be put into another, seperate article?
Your input on this appreciated.  If no further discourse is met on the matter, then I am going to trim back these band names.
Stuart Steedman 06:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culture: Afrikaans Music 

message: There is no mention of sporting activities in this article at all. Wouldn't it be prudent to include something under the Culture section in this regard? I suppose cricket, rubgy and soccer at least should get a mention. Parodygm 15:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culture: Sports 

message: Can we remove the evolutionary content in the history section?  As a studied scientist I cannot let the people who read this think that those theories are plausible.  Evolution is merely a hypothesis, and is NOT a science, nor does it have sientific backing in any way!
Thank you71.230.10.96Jinny
I wonder which Science you have studied. "No Scientific backing in any way"? :-/ And what does this have to do with Afrikaans bands? Punk rock is a very evolved music genre... Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 23:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, evolution is a theory, however there are still lots of grey areas which are not completely backed by scientific facts, such as carbon dating and the thermodynamics of space. However, a big chunk of evolution can be considered as factual. There are lots of theories that have successfully proven evolution wrong, however they do not have the popularity to influence it. Evolution theory is accepted by most people - even though this does not prove its factuality or authority. For while being, we should accept most of evolution. Someday the grey areas might be clarified. However, evolution theory shall always be a theory. --Adriaan90 15:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a Wikipedia, not a Bible. Bennelliott • Talk • Contributions 09:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, like the "theory" of gravity.  Why do we even have an article about cosmology when it rests on such shaky ground? Go and check out "evolution as theory and fact" before trolling here again. --Slashme 07:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, this is the last place to have a debate about evolution vs. creation. Let the article cite what scientists HAVE found here (whether they be right or wrong) and not about what you believe Jinny. Wynand.singels 13:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Evolution

message: The article History of the Jews in South Africa is not linked in any way from this article, neither is Afrikaner-Jews, which I really think should be included somehow. I'm not sure where though, since I didn't even read this whole article but only searched the page, so I'll leave it to someone more involved to add the links. Thanks. --Jacob no. 9 13:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you think should it be added?  We can't add all articles that have something to do with South Africa or with history.  That is what the Wikipedia search function is for. Just my2c. -- leuce 18:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jews

message: There need to be some information about Mahatma Gandhi and his contribution to the freedom movement in South Africa. Also information on the incident that made Gandhi the Mahatma.
Chanakyathegreat 07:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a slightly debatable issue. I have seen several articles claim that Ghandi only fought for the liberation of the Indian people. Specifically by saying that they are not k****s like the Blacks. So he was not really part of the freedom movement as a whole. I am not discrediting Ghandhi in anyway, nor any of the great things he did, I just wonder if it's applicable here. Wynand.singels 13:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mahatma Gandhi 

message: Lgh, I've reverted your edit because the Boer war concentration camps can't be called a British invention. The term first came to be applied around then (see Concentration camp for more info) but the idea of rounding up and confining your enemies was hardly new (although the level of mistreatment of course differed from case to case). Greenman 12:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Concentration camps

message: The article now has two AIDS sections.  This is not good.  Fix this. --Xyzzyplugh 00:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article now has two AIDS sections

message: I have put a link to the news website that I edit: South Africa The Good News under External Links>News on Wikipedia's South Africa page. It was removed and I received a message from an administrator saying that the link had been removed and that I was not to re-insert it. Why is the link to http://www.sagoodnews.co.za not relevant to the page on South Africa? Is it too biased? Fellla1 13:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't se any messages left on your talk page, but I would guess that the link was removed for any one of three reasons:
# It is not considered a reliable source. As you said, it is a website that YOU edit. Does it for example have any sort of fact-checking or peer-review process to determine the accuracy of the info it contains? Does it provide a collection of stories that appear in other publications, with  citations and references to all the info on it, or is it a primary source of information (i.e. is the information self-written)?
# Just judging by the name of the site, I was guess that the news presented therein is not neutral in the Wikipedia sense.
# "Utility" (a wishy-washy term but hey...). How useful (to the average Wikipedian reader, who would NOT be South African and would NOT be interested in reading news with any type of biased slant) is the addition of your site to the already extensive list of sites provided under the See also and External links sections?
I've left you a welcome message. feel free to message me if you have any further questions. Zunaid 15:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "it is a website that YOU edit" Is a source unreliable when someone edits it? That's absurd. Someone has to edit it, of course... Help me if I misunderstand. --Adriaan90 17:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are (well-intentioned) links added to South African (and other) pages all the time. We try to keep the links encyclopedic. One persons writing is non-encyclopedic, unless they are themselves encyclopedic (my opinion). Cape Town would be awash with accommodation links without regular pruning. People might be looking for accommodation, but we just point to official tourism websites. I am sure your site is great, but it has to be really good to survive as an external link on the (important) South Africa article. Check What Wikipedia is not. Wizzy…☎ 17:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well in that case your website does not have to verify the stories it posts, so long as they are, in turn, obtained from reliable sources (in general press releases and newspapers would be considered reliable). However in this case you run into #2 and #3. If I were, say, an American reader, I'd be MUCH more confident being directed to a bona fide impartial news site such as IOL or News24 (which are backed by large media corporations), than being directed to an overly-partisan or overly-critical (did someone say Crime Expo?) website run by a small group or an individual. Zunaid 14:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to my news site 

message: I dispute that the south African media is free .
It’s largely controlled by government/ANC cronies in their fat cat AA positions 
Just look at the following : http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=287413&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__national/
http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=287091&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__national/
The RSA seems to becoming just another banana republic controlled by a corrupt ruling elite supported by   poor ignorant masses
:And as evidence that ZA media are not free, you cite reports in the ZA media.  OK. --Slashme 18:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zyxoas, have you read On Liberty by John Stuart Mill? Mikker (...) 20:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media in RSA 

message: The Capital city is no longer Pretoria, it is Tshwane. Regardless of the politics behind it (pro./anti apartheid) the Republic of South Africa has changed the name of its capital from Pretoria to Tshwane, Wikipedia should respect that.
:I was under the impression that it was just the municipal area that was changed to Tshwane - not the actual city name i.e. if you were under the Pretoria municipal area you now fall under Tshwane?SparrowsWing 23:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Tshwane is only the municipality's name. The city is still Pretoria. Tshwane includes Pretoria, and loads of other little towns near it. --Adriaan90 04:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretoria is the capital. Tshwane, as above, is only the name of the municipality. Wikipedia is not in the wrong here, at this point in time. Look at OR Tambo International Airport - it has changed. Hopefully this makes sense. -- Chris Lester talk 06:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If you are going to make accusations, please research your facts and provide references.  Find out what the legal requirements for a name change is, and find out whether they have been followed through.  Just because some politicians (and policically motivated persons) incorrectly use a proposed new name, does not make it official.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.65.7 (talk) 15:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TSHWANE is the Capital 

message: Great page, but i just feel that there is not there enough to really capture the "essance" of South Africa. There is no mention of the 76 uprising, or much of the struggle at all. 
And what about the fact that there is no mention of the World Heritage Sites.
Inequality is still a big part of South African life. This has to get in there somewhere. A small mention under Economy is not sufficiant for a country like SA.
Also a mention of BEE policies to address the past should be mentioned. And please, a non biased acount.
Tourism is a big earner for the South African economy. Its what non South Africans would look for on a page like this. Someone's got to put it in there.
I would suggest a section on corruption in South Africa. It seems to be the corruption capital of the world ! That would give you the essence of the country 
Fire_
:Corruption is everywhere and i don't believe a whole section would be needed. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 18:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whats missing? 

message: why aint there nothing about this —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:76.214.80.184 (talk • contribs) 
:→ Gay rights in South Africa. -- Szvest  Wiki me up ® 10:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  gay marriage 

message: That was not "vandalism", that was me (unsigned at the time). Geez, lighten up over a South African flag on a South African portal sign, that's all I'm asking. --Toussaint 23:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The anon-IP who made an edit with summary "rv" after you added the flag seems to have been a vandal. They replaced the article with a much older version (I have returned it to the version of your edit) and it was their only edit ever. So, essentially, it was a vandal accusing you of vandalising. - htonl 12:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag on portal sign 

message: South Africa has ten official second languages..
I cut this map from the article because it is garbage:
Gregorydavid 09:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm. They're not ranked. We have eleven official languages - no one is primary and the others secondary. Also, regarding the name - I agree it should just be in English for the table, I was just re-ordering it because people inevitably add the other language names for SA and if there are going to be the others then Afrikaans shouldn't come first. It's third Joziboy 10:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I was someone interested in reading up about South Africa I'd be interested in the map. I'm going to put the map back in. If somebody can give a good reason why it shouldn't be there then we can take it out, but lets first get a consensus here. The map doesn't try to rank one language over another, all it does is show the distribution of languages according to who speaks it as there first language. As far as I know all eleven official languages are primary languages. Jediwannabe 12:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, map looks good to me Joziboy 14:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there is no official first language either, if yours happens to be Italian, then that is OK too. I see English is left out of the map, which I also happen to think looks cool, although it is treated as the universal language in South Africa. It reminds me of what the South Africa we may have landed up with if it were not for the 1994 elections. The caption of the map seems to create the impression that the local municipalities had something to do with its creation?Gregorydavid 14:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, I get the impression you don't quite realise what the map is. It's not about "official" languages. It's just a depiction of the census information on language distribution, showing the language with the most speakers for each municipality. (The reason that English is left off is because there is no municipality with an English majority. Ndebele is left off for the same reason.) It's "by municipality" merely because Stats SA breaks down its data by municipality. - htonl 18:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I am quite surprised to hear that the map is apparently based on Stats SA or Census information. I would like to see the raw data. The end result is a map that gives the wrong impression. Maybe we can get some information on the design of the survey questionaire. Our electoral system is based on proportional representation but the language map depicts a type of constituency orientation. I suspect that English is a language that the majority of South Africans are able to use to a greater extent than they are able to use any other language..Gregorydavid 19:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for this discussion.. Just like the map shows about 50% of South Africa is populated by Afrikaans speaking people, it shows that nobody speaks English as a home language. I do not expect any one Wikipedian to take responsibility for the Map. The discussion started off a bit tongue in cheek..Gregorydavid 06:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't show that 50% of South Africans speak Afrikaans - maybe 50% of the territory though. It's not weighted for population density (there are many more speakers of Zulu in KZN and Xhosa in the EC than there are of Afrikaans in the Western and Northern Cape.. but there's no way of showing that) Joziboy 07:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I think it would be a good idea to have some form of graph showing how many people speak each language as their home language and as a second language. Unfortunately the Census doesn't seem to collect second language data, so I don't know quite how we'd do it. - htonl 08:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official second languages 

message: Here I mark the removal of the following domains "www.samusic.co.za", "www.traveldex.co.za", "www.bizniz.co.za" sited as "spam" adding no value to wikipedia. To the owners of these domains, please do not use wikipedia as an advertising platform. thank you.
Removed 29 December 2006.
Repeat link spam offence by "www.samusic.co.za" using "www.getitat.co.za" as a redirect to their portal. (same reason as above) 
Removed 29 December 2006.
"Sorry Joziboy, Im an anonymous editor your name / account link was simply a copy and paste error in my date formatting".
LSD! When did you get to Johannesburg!?! What's up? Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 09:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Link Spam

message: Substituted at 22:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment