Talk:South Africa/Archive 2

message: DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between 6 April 2005 and 4 Jan 2006.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are
replying to if necessary.
Please add new archivals to Talk:South Africa/Archive_3. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. --Slashme 17:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

message: Can this "... When apartheid ended, the number of channels available in South Africa expanded greatly as American television programmes were allowed to broadcast..." be substantiated? As far as I know American television programmes was always shown here. It was the British Actors Guild who had a problem with programmes with them in it shown on SABC. Also the new channels have to show a very high percentage of locally made programmes which does not make sense to me in light of this statement.--Jcw69 11:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: At the risk of revealing my age, I have to agree.  Growing up with "classic" American sitcoms like The A-Team, MacGyver, etc. in the 1980s, and taking into account that TV was only established here as late as 1979 (according to this source, at least, although the SABC and Television in South Africa articles puts the start of nationwide broadcasts at 1976), I doubt that they were under such heavy sanctions as the sentence suggests.  The TV in SA article also goes into more depth, so maybe it should simply be changed to a link there?  Dewet 13:47, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media 

message: 'The Republic of South Africa is a republic in southern Africa' ... is that stating the obvious? Great article though. Proto 14:21, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Line 

message: What is the "Whistling Tongue" mentioned in the languages section?  I've never heard of that, I don't remember seeing it on the Canary Islands article and this section in this article gives no explanation of what it is or why it is remarkable.  Rhesusman 14:39, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't recall seeing it earlier, it must have been added fairly recently. Looks like vandalism to me, and I've removed it, along with a puerile "Ian and MAtt were here" comment that was added to the intro. I thought the page was meant to be protected? Impi 20:29, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like they were deliberately trying to sneak in some nonsense. The whistling tongue does exist in the Canary Islands but it has nothing to do with SA. Unless they are thinking of street gangs who signal to each other with whistles when they are up to no good, that certainly exists in Cape Town but its definitely not a common thing. Kuratowski's Ghost 21:50, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whistling Tongue 

message: The article claims South Africa has the highest Indian population outside of Asia, but in the demographics section it has "Indian/Asian" at 2.5% which is (if my calculations aren't hideously incorrect) 1.1 million people, which is less than the United States which claims 3.6% (see Demographics of the United States) and also less than the figure claimed in Indian American. -- Joolz 20:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Highest Indian population outside of Asia?

message: Although I see regular free and fair elections as a definite trend in this country, it has only had three. Is that enough to be called regular? --Taejo 21:19, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering that all three elections have occurred at the scheduled time with no delays being required, and an equal number of years between each election, I would say that it does qualify for the term regular. Impi 05:51, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regular elections 

message: 1m+ arrested, while total total population 44m.
 Nearly 20 000 South Africans were murdered between April 2003 and March 2004 ... compared ... Britain, where about 850 murders take place a year.
However reading article one may think that South Africa is 'safe heaven'.
South Africa have 2nd biggest homicide ratio and not a single word in entire article. It must be known to potential visitors of this country.
Data from BBC is relatively old, any newer ?
: Oh no, not the nationmaster stats again.  They are quite outdated, and this discussion has been had before; see /Archive 1. Dewet 20:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crime 

message: The page formerly said that the NA is elected through single-member constituencies.  This seems so out of left field that even though I changed it, I'm curious as to who wrote it in the first place and why.
Kelvinc 03:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Assembly Electoral System 

message: The amount of external links are becoming unwieldy, IMO.  Wikipedia isn't a linkdump, so I think we should come up with a way to vet entries here.  Dewet 10:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved a few of the links into subarticles.  Newspapers into Media in South Africa, sport sites into Culture of South Africa, for instance. Dewet 10:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: For those not already involved in it, the reverting of the anon editor's additions of "Diaspora Jews" twice so far is explained in Talk:Apartheid and its archives.  This user has been fighting a war of attrition there for over two months now, trying to add in the same text with it clearly not being the concensus of the other editors of the article. Dewet 06:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anon editor reverts 

message: Diaspora Jewish and German settlers are trivial, therefore not to included in this article.69.217.123.174 17:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. — mark ✎ 18:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivialities? 

message: The article mentions the UK ended slavery in 1834, in her empire, which implies it ended also in South Africa on the same year.  But, I thought the British didn't take over the rest of South Africa (beyond the coast), until the late 1800s (with the Boer Wars).  Were there areas of Boer rule that kept slaves, or was all slavery in South Africa entirely abolished in 1834.  The article mentions only imported slaves.  Does that mean none of the indigenous blacks were ever taken slaves (even during Dutch times)?  Perhaps somebody in the know, could clarify this in the article.  Thanks.  --rob 20:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Great Trek occurred only in 1836, two years after the abolition of slavery in the Cape. Therefore at the time the entire White population of South Africa was located in the Cape and fell under British authority. When the Trekboers did move inland and establish independent republics, their founding constitutions also banned slavery. As for the other point, it's true that none of the indigenous blacks were enslaved in South Africa. During Dutch times, the VOC forbid it and instead imported slaves mostly from the Dutch East Indies. Impi 18:30, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section:  Slavery end date 

message: The military section for the Republic of South Africa concludes with "Current reports suggest that it has become wholly ineffective and corrupt in the last ten years."
The South African Defence Forces are without exception the best equipped military in sub-saharan Africa, calling them "wholly ineffective" and "corrupt" without giving any evidence as to why or how the author came to that conclusion.  Referencing obscure "reports" by no means gives sufficient evidence for this statement.  I am by no means an expert on defence issues in South Africa but it seems excessive calling the entire SADF wholly innefective and corrupt.  An expansion of the article including examples and expanded analysis of the current programs designed to reform the military is needed by someone with real knowledge of the current state of the SADF.
:It was an addition from a blatant POV-pusher that we had somehow missed. I've now removed it, because it's quite clearly untrue. That the SANDF has significant operational capability problems is no secret, but it's hardly "wholly ineffective and corrupt". Thanks for spotting it. Impi 00:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  South African Military 

message: also will someone review the edit by User:Chrisaa90?
:The Cape Argus is not a mainstream paper. While the edit is a little dismissive, I am inclined to keep it. Wizzy…☎ 06:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cape Argus 

message: I was thinking that perhaps, it may be a good idea to place all the information about farming in SA into a separate section on its own in the article, and perhaps somebody who knows a lot more about the situation than I do could make another article about it? It seems to me that that way we could avoid a lot of the arguments we've been having. XYaAsehShalomX 21:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agriculture in South Africa 

message: Isn't Pretoria, which is listed as a capital city, now called Tshwane? Rednaxela 15:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pretoria 

message: Someone made this up am I correct? Coon Carnival 67.101.123.16 09:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is for real. And the Coon bit - it is only political correctness that is changing the name. Wizzy…☎ 11:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is a fake Carnival right? 

message: I'm no historian, but I added some copy about the end of apartheid, and subdivided the history section.  I notice (much to my glee as a former South African schoolboy) that there is no section about the Groot Trek, Bloedrivier, Die Gelofte and all that stuff.  Maybe someone should spoil my fun and add it? --Slashme 08:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: The article writes:
:The country is one of the few in Africa never to have had a coup d'état, and regular free and fair elections have been held for almost a century, although blacks were only enfranchised in 1994.
My ass...
Free and fair elections where only whites can vote? That is like saying "soviet type socialism was the most perfect form of society although food shortages were the norm until the late 1980's".
Otherwise what need was there for a coup in SA when the country's policies have always been militaristic, teaming up with the zionists to make advanced weapons, nukes and invade countries like Namibia and Angola. Nothing makes generals more happy than new weapons and new wars. The entire country served their bloody aims.
All this biased junk should be erased from the article! 195.70.32.136 13:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about the way it looks now? Remember, you are free to edit the article.  If you think the article is biased, edit it, and if you think some other editors may not agree, explain why you say so over here. If they revert your edits, discuss and try to find common ground. --Slashme 07:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big pro-racist bias 

message: A slightly less controversial topic than the bias tightrope mentioned above is the excessive use of the word 'many'. According to the article, there are many official names for the country (actually 11), there are many languages with dialects extending out the country, many languages on the verge of extinction, many whites speaking European languages, many Asians speaking Tamil etc, many white minorities feeling sidelined, many white people feeling betrayed, many seeing the failure of the current government, improvements in many areas, many blacks not identifying with the ANC, many shipwrecks, many calling for exchange rate intervention, many dismissals, many immigrants etc etc. Some perspective is needed here! Where possible, I suggest replacing the 'many' with some sort of accurate figure, or at least giving an idea of what sort of percentage this applies to (which will probably be a controversial exercise, as everyone will think/hope their views are in the majority). Greenman 20:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the word 'many'