Talk:Supreme Court of Appeal (South Africa)

message: An anonymous editor  203.25.230.27 made many constructive contributions to this and related articles, but in all cases included an Afrikaans translation of the name in the opening paragraph. Since South Africa has 11 official languages, Afrikaans should not be singled out in this way. I would welcome discussion on this, but each time I attempted to contact the anonymous editor, these attempts were ignored, and each time I removed the Afrikaans translation, it was reinstated. See my talk page for more details. Zaian 07:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Afrikaans translation

message: The factoid (literally "an item of unreliable information that is reported and repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact") that Bloemfontein is the "judicial capital of South Africa" has been added to the lede. The source, despite being an "official" South African government website, could well be using a circular reference from Wikipedia itself (WP:CIRCULAR). A number of experienced editors have weighed in on the issue at Talk:South Africa, with the consensus view tending to be that Bloemfontein lost its (unofficial) status as "judicial capital", either in 1994, when the Constitutional Court was established, or in 2013, when the Seventeenth Amendment was passed, that stripped the SCA of some appellate jurisdiction, and gave the Constitutional Court general jurisdiction. A WP:RS that discusses this can be found at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341218411_Bloemfontein_the_rise_and_fall_of_South_Africa's_judicial_capital. The dubious tag, should not, for now, be removed. I suspect that more clarity will arise in the coming months and years.Park3r (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot take this anymore. How can the government source be circular? Also, you are disputing something is written into national education curriculum. I doubt very strongly that they are teaching a factoid to children. The consensus at Talk:South Africa is stale. The discussion is going nowhere. Usually, in situations, like these, if I encounter an article with information that looks a bit off, I try to look at three sources that verify the info. Here are my three:
#
#
#
Now, where are your three? I got one literally from the University of the Free State and another one from Encyclopedia Britannia. (Note, I will be copying to Talk:South Africa). Thanks, LefcentrerightDiscuss  01:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:Bludgeon seems to be an important thing to keep in mind at this point. You may want to step back from this issue.Park3r (talk) 01:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

text: You may do as you wish, however, I don't think it's exceptionally important, and the dubious tag alerts readers that a fact, although cited, remains in dispute (it should probably be added to the claim in the other articles as well). It's unlikely that it will be resolved in a period of days, or weeks. Wikipedia:List of citogenesis incidents shows that these things can sometimes take years to resolve.Park3r (talk) 01:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have added on Talk:South Africa, I am finished with this conversation. I have made my case. Now it is just up to the other editors to discuss the matter and come to a conclusion. LefcentrerightDiscuss  02:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Judicial capital of South Africa