Talk:Johannesburg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Johannesburg article.
Article policies
Former featured article Johannesburg is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 25, 2005.
It is requested that an image of Johannesburg Coat of Arms be included in this article to improve its quality, if possible.
Johannesburg is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.
Peer review This Geography article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia There is a request, submitted by Chameleon, for an audio version of this article to be created.

See WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia for further information.

The rationale behind the request is: " Previously requested".

See also: Category:Spoken Wikipedia requests and Wikipedia:Spoken articles.

Contents

[edit] Pronounciation

Is Johannesburg pronounced "Joe" hannesburg or "Yo" hannesburg? I've heared both.

Both are accepted; "Joe"- is the English pronunciation, while "Yo"- (or more accurately, something which resembles "Yuh"-) is Afrikaans. dewet|✉ 07:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Early talk

was Alexandra a "satellite town," or was it previously part of the Johannesburg municipality?

Alexandra was in fact a satellite town, with its own municipal boundaries, on the old border between Johannesburg and Sandton. In the previous government's Apartheid sysrtem, black townships were given some form of self-autonomy, with their own municipal governing bodies and buildings. It was a contrived, artificial way of enforcing the Group Areas Act, which kept racial groups apart in separate suburbs.

Alex, for short, is as much a part of Johannesburg as Soweto. The stark contrast between the area and the nearby upmarket area of Sandton, however, is absolutely marked, and is typical of South African cities: the best of the First World mixed with the worst of the Third World.

[edit] Crime

The article claims "The latest police statistics show that crime levels in Johannesburg have dropped as the economy has stabilised and begun to grow". What is the reference for this? Since the government has banned the releasing of police statistics (and seems to only publish propaganda relating to crime), and since all other 'evidence' appears to point to a continuing increase in both the decay of central Johanesburg and an increase in crime, I find it highly unlikely that crime levels in Johannesburg have really dropped. This definitely needs a reliable citation, and I feel the sentence should be dropped from the article or modified until it can be verified. Moreover the crime levels in Johannesburg are still extremely disturbingly high, so the tone of the sentence is misleading. - David 5 Aug 2006

"Extremely disturbingly high" is not exactly any more accurate. It can be construed as being just as misleading. Don't know if you live in Jozi, but what urban decay in the downtown area? Yes, some areas are gross, but others are being redeveloped: go take a drive through the city and buy yourself an apartment for R1 million. Urban decay? The truth is, nobody really knows how bad (or good) the crime is. Welcome to the world...
If you don't think that a per-capita murder rate of around 1 in 1300 per year is "extremely disturbingly high" then you have INCREDIBLY low standards. It's highly disingenuous of you to say "nobody really knows" when such statistics are available. As for urban decay, google for the "death of johannesburg" photo blog, you have to be in serious denial to think there isn't a major problem. I live relatively close to JHB, and have driven through some highly rotten parts of the city. David Nov 2006.
Once again, you cannot contradict yourself and use the crime stats in one breath to prove a point and then slate them in the next. The glass is just always half empty for you, hey? Clearly, by your pointing out that the stats are all fake, nobody really knows, now do they? Nobody is denying that Johannesburg has a crime problem. Again, what are you doing about it except whining like a spoiled brat?
First of all, the government has not banned the releasing of police statistice. In fact about 2-3 months ago the crime stats of all the police stations in Johannesburg were released on the front cover of The Star newspaper. What used to be true was that there was a moratorium of crime statistics. It was officially removed after about 1 year's implimentation, but that was circa 2003-2004. There is no longer a moratorium as far as I know, but crime statistics are released only annually. Finally, with regard to whether or not crime has improved, statistics show that murders were down from last year, while attempted murders were up, and cash-in-transit robberies were extremely up. Overall though they say crime is much better than it was in 1994 where it was at its highest. Finally, what does seem to be clear is that crime has 'stabilised' -- once again I think we do need to find some references for this -- crime has 'stabilised' and seems to slowly improve each year, and is the lowest since 1994 (apparently), but now it is a matter of bringing it all down. Rfwoolf 15:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Update: A few moments ago I read an article online where it is implied that the government has a non-official moratorium on crime stats, probably referring to the fact that, while there is no longer a moratorium per say (the statistics are always released), the stats are only released anually, instead of more often. Rfwoolf 05:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Im definately no expert, but from what i gather, crimes such as theft and burglary are not abnormally high by international standards. However violent crime i believe is regarded as alarmingly high. The number of armed robberies, hijackings and rape which take place in and around the city is scary. Though i dont live in the city centre myself, i often visit a mate who does, and often hear stories of crime which would truly horrify those living in a civilised society. Point is, whilst compared to the UK your chances of being mugged probably arent much higher in johannesburg, statistically you are more likely to be murdered or seriously injured or maimed in the process. As a final point, the sentiment I get is that there is a lot of hate crime taking place which targets those in wealthier areas (not to be racist, but these tend to be young black people attacking white people). In other words, incidents of persons being violently assulted in their homes, for which the primary motive is not theft but rather physical abuse. the fact that these criminals (I think of terms like savages, among others) have been known not to run, but walk away from the crime scene, head held high, shows an arrogance, and a belief that they will not be caught and punished for their crimes. This above all is highly disturbing.

[edit] New York Reference

In response to the reference made to crime in New York, I find the two cities incompatable for comparison. Johannesburg has a crime problem because many poor people moved into areas that they were not allowed to live in before, where as in New York the crime problem of the 1980's mostly sprung up because the city government was completely bankrupt and unable to to provide any services or adequate police protection. I am deleting the reference. PZFUN 08:08, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The reference to crime in New York would not have been made if the reference to crime in Johannesburg had not been made. Crime is a problem in most major cities, and is not endemic to Johannesburg. All cities of the world have crime. A sweeping statement like "Johannesburg is notorious for its crime" is totally POV - especially when it comes from someone who does not live in the city. Rob Thomas 12:12, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I believe that it is only the people who do not live in a city that can really know what it is notorious for. New York is not notorious for its crime now. It is the safest large city in the United States. Johannesburg does have a crime epidemic. There are few cities in the world where one out of four people are involved in a crime every year, and where carjacking is such a problem. If crime were not such a problem, why would so many people be moving out of the city into gated compounds? PZFUN 13:21, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're right. New York is not known for its crime. It's known for the tragedy of planes being flown into buildings and those buildings falling down and 3,000 people being killed in 2 hours. I'd say that's a lot more dangerous than Jo'burg. I did not say Johannesburg doesn't have a crime problem. Of course it does. But then so does every major city in the world - including New York (bury your head in the sand as much as you like, dear). "I believe that it is only the people who do not live in a city that can really know what it is notorious for. New York is not notorious for its crime now." Um, since you live in New York, aren't you contradicting yourself just a tad?

Using the world trade centre as an example is like saying your're more likely to die from a meteorite hitting the earth than from a plane crash. The basis there being that a metoerite will kill billions from a single event, where as the plane crash only affects hundreds. Further more at least those killed in 9\11 can claim a forein attack as opposed to being needlessly and selfishly murdered by their own countrymen.

According to this: http://www.csvr.org.za/papers/papstats.htm the annual murder rate in Johannesburg is 1 in every 1332 people. According to this: http://newyork.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm the annual murder rate in New York is 1 in 14285 people. This is a difference of more than tenfold, they're not even in the same league. Even historically (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nycrime.htm), New York never got anywhere near that dangerous even at its absolute worst. So just saying that "all cities have crime" is highly disingenuous when the difference is so huge. Yes, technically all cities "have crime", but we don't measure crime in a binary "yes/no" value, and when you're over ten times more likely to be murdered in one city than another then you're comparing apples and oranges. When one in 1332 people are murdered every year, there is a HUGE crime PROBLEM. Is any other city (not in a country at war) that dangerous? - David

David - Medellin's murder rate in 1992 was 1 in 330.

Also, white South Africans sometimes tend to react hysterically to their nations' crime problem I've noticed - much more so than other crime-ravaged nations. This is possibly down to the racial problems of the country and distrust or open dislike of the black ANC government. Things such as accusing the ANC of covering up statistics because they release them once every year...which seems an unremarkable and even commendable practice. Serbitar 19:20, 10 Oct 2006 (UTC)

A further comment on New York Vs Johannesburg for murders. I have it at 1 in 3261 for New York (1990), and 'about' 1 in 916 for Greater Johannesburg (1994) - their worst years. Serbitar 20:00, 10 Oct 2006 (UTC)

David, you cannot contradict yourself by saying that the government is withholding crime stats and then in the next breath quote them to show how bad crime in Jo'burg is compared with New York. Make up your mind. If you don't like Jo'burg, then emigrate. Simple. Whining about it is not going to make it any better. Get up off your duff and start making a difference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.106.240.139 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like people COMPLAINING about crime, then YOU emigrate. I'm staying AND I'm complaining and I am making a difference, so bugger you. And there's nothing wrong with using our government's own crime stats to point out how bad it is, because it's reasonable to assume that if they are faking the stats, they will NOT be faking them to make things look worse than they really are - so the published stats are in fact a best-case scenario, and that best-case scenario is horrific.

This whole crime section is extremely problematic and if I hav etime I will gladly edit it in the future. The entire section is framed in a discourse of poverty/blackness = crime. It is removed from political context (the reference to group areas act is simple) and motivated by conscious or unconscious prejudice and/or racism. It is uncritical and needs serious attention. This debate about crime stats also appears extremely out dated.

How is whingeing like a little girl making a difference? As Serbitar pointed out, mass white hysteria. Of course there's a crime problem. Duh! What are you doing about it other than moaning? Moaning some more. Find reliable stats and then make your comparisons, otherwise shut up and buy that one-way ticket, dude... SA can do without negative people like you.

"mass white hysteria" ? stats show the majority of the crime is blacks commiting hate crimes against whites. apartide ended more then 10 years ago, it's time to get over it. as far as wealth goes, the ANC government has destroyed SA economic outlook through racist policys and chasing away all skilled labour and investment.

What are YOU doing about it, other than lying and trying to downplay the problem?

mr teflon man, stop deflecting... how is whining on wikipedia gonna change it? are you on drugs? where are the stats? are we just supposed to take your word for it that the majority of crime is black-on-white? get out poepol... your negative energy is attracting more crime - go read the secret, get an attitude change, or take your crime-ridden self to Australia - they can mug you there (or tell me where you live - i'll come do it) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.207.33.197 (talk) 16:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Khoi

"until the Khoikhoi and other Bantu-speaking people migrated into the area"? Someone please correct this! Khoikhoi are not Bantu-speaking, nor did they arrive in the country at the same time.

Fixed, removed the Khoikhoi section as they were a breakaway section of the San who moved south, into the Cape. However, I'm still not 100% sure of the dates placed there. I replaced the Bantu arrival date with one I found on the official Johannesburg site, but I am unsure of the "100 000BC" quoted for the San. Impi 21:43, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Is the Monash University in Johannesburg a campus of the Australian one, or an entirely seperate entity?--ZayZayEM 12:53, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I just phoned Monash SA and the receptionist said they they are owned by Monash University Australia and it is run as a campus. --Jcw69 13:02, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Water contradiction

Article: It is the only major city in the world that was not founded on a coast or that does not have a river running through it. Elsewhere in the article Mexico City and Phoenix are each identified as being such cities. Paul Beardsell 11:27, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Apartheid Johannesburg

Article: During the Apartheid era, Johannesburg was divided into 11 local authorities: seven white and four black. Well, no. The area which is now called Johannesburg is different from what Jhb was then. What happened is that the area adminstratively Johannesburg has changed. Randburg, Sandton, Soweto, Alexandria etc etc were never part of Johannesburg and this was not only a race issue, Randburg and Sandton were "white" areas: There is a new greater Johannesburg which never existed before. A more accurate but awkward sentence would be: What is the now expanded Johannesburg was formed out of 11 apartheid-era local authorities, including what was formerly Johannesburg. Paul Beardsell 11:37, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Climate

Article: In the winter, the average maximum daytime temperature is around 20°C, while the average summer daytime temperature is around 25°C. Inconsistent. We are comparing a winter maximum with a summer average. Or so it reads. Paul Beardsell 11:59, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics - inaccurate stats

According to Statistics South Africa census 2001 approx 62% of Jhb households have a fridge. The article says different. Where are the article's statistics from? Paul Beardsell 10:22, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My use of the Stats SA web site can be checked HERE:

 City of Johannesburg Metro           Total households (all population groups)
     Radio yes                           786826
     Radio no                            220105
     Television yes                      680103
     Television no                       326830
     Computer yes                        163702
     Computer no                         843228
     Refrigerator yes                    629801
     Refrigerator no                     377130
     Telephone in dwelling yes           340911
     Telephone in dwelling no            666021
     Cell-Phone yes                      466418
     Cell-Phone no                       540513

So: Radio 79%, TV 68%, PC 16%, Fridge 63%, Landline phone 34%, Cellphone 47%. Paul Beardsell 10:38, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The article is accurate for: Flushing or chemical toilets 86%. Cellphone or landline or both in dwelling, according to another part of Stats SA: 56% approx, article correct. Article correct for water access. Paul Beardsell 10:52, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Many appear to have come from the City of Johannesburg's Demographics page. Impi 14:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And so you (plural?) are happy with them as they stand? Paul Beardsell 18:02, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This stats in this sentence I am still looking for the source of: "64% of Johannesburg residents own their own home. 57% own, or have use of a motorcar. 21% have at least one domestic worker. 11% moved houses in the last year. 2% flew overseas last year. 10% flew within South Africa last year." Much of that seems unlikely to me. Paul Beardsell 18:24, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Saying nothing about their accuracy - the figures come from http://www.joburg.org.za/business/stats.stm . Congrats on getting this to FA status - lets get that Disputed tag off the front page. 64% and 57% sound highly unlikely to me, if we include the townships ? Maybe everyone in Soweto owns their own house ? I spent a weekend there once - Naledi - and they certainly appeared to own their own house. Wizzy 08:29, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

That same source claims that 44% of Johannesburg residents have eaten in a restaurant in the last month. That such a high proportion have done so is unlikely even in a city such as Manchester, nevermind Johannesburg. 44%? In the wealthy middle class suburbs maybe, but those areas are not representative of the Greater Johannesburg described in this article. Perhaps the best way to get rid of the disputed tag is to delete all statistics which are only from the same source. Paul Beardsell 12:45, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've worked it out! People are forced to eat at restaurants because only 63% have a fridge! Paul Beardsell

"29% of adults have graduated from high school. 14% have higher education (University or Technical school). 7% of residents are completely illiterate. 15% have primary education" That adds up to 55% - what about the other 45% of the population? Sonelle 14:21, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have never heard the expression "people of colour" used in realtion to South Africa and am in fact not too sure what it means in a South African context (Google definition people of color - a race with skin pigmentation different from the white race). To me this sounds like an Americanism used outside of its home country.


"People of colour" is a phrase used by the apartheid government of SA to mean anyone who wasn't white. The phrase is still in use, without having any sinister overtones anymore. It is often used in the media when reporting the number of jobs that were previously white-only now held by non-white people, as an example.

A large group of people in South Africa are also referred to as being Coloured - these are descendants of Malay people brought to SA in the 1800's as labourers, and the result of interbreeding between themselves and other race groups in SA. Coloured is the term still used to describe these people, and is not generally considered to be offensive, as far as I know.

The government now uses the term "Black" to encompass anyone not white (including Indians, Coloureds etc), and uses the term "African" to describe a black person. I personally (as a white South African) find this quite offensive, as I am as much an African as anyone else, but that's a different matter :-). --Rooijan

[edit] PZFUN

PZFUN: Your bizarre reversion of several editors is a problem (see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles). If you object to certain parts of edits, feel free to change the, —but don't revert other (uncontested) edits that others make. Neutralitytalk 06:18, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to restore British spellings, just don't blanket-revert articles. Neutralitytalk 06:25, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to restore the previous British spelligns before you changed them. I'm still curious as to why you are right-justifying all of the images. it has made the page lopsided and ugly. I do not have an ownership problem, but I am curious as to why you are changing the entire layout of a page that you have had ny previous involvement with and did not discuss before you made the changes on the talk page. Páll 06:27, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Johannesburg in Kern county

I am kind of surprised that there seems to be a Johannesburg in USA. See the paragraph below from included link. If this is true, how about attaching a small note on the top of this article? "California law bans livestock from highways, but not domestic animals.

Linc and Helena Moore had been fined on 26 March after their chicken wandered onto a road in the small rural mining town of Johannesburg in Kern county. " [1]

[edit] Repeating

Parts of the article keep on repeating themseleves over and over again (like the trees thing.) Could we please get rid of some of this?--199.212.250.96 15:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jewhannesburg?!

I must say, this is the first time I've heard that one. I'm not too keen to have it in the article, but I'd like to hear others' opinions... Dewet 05:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Three distinct hits on Google.[2] Susvolans (pigs can fly) 08:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I live in Johannesburg, and I am sorry, I have never heard of Johannesburg being called Jewhannesburg. It is the first time I've ever heard of this word. I've asked some Muslims who work in my building and they too have never heard of this word. --Jcw69 13:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It looks like the word was used in the early 1900s as an anti-Semitic slur and a play on the name Johannesburg. Referances are only found by Google on 2 sites dating from this period. --Jcw69 13:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is one reference to the city as "Jewburg" in a collection of short stories called "From Jo'burg to Jozi" http://www.joburg.org.za/aug_2002/book.stm. The name is not meant to be derogatory but instead refers to the large Jewish population that used to live in the city. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 41.244.228.244 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry. Bigots can blow anything out of proportion and will seize on anything to push their nonsense. Hu 10:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whitespace on Johannesburg page

I don't know if it's just the browser I'm using (IE6 on WinXP_SP2) but there is a large block of whitespace between the History section header and the start of the History text. A simple fix I've found is to move {{Johannesburg infobox}} to the top of the page. Is anyone else also seeing this whitespace and what do you feel about the fix? --Bruce1ee (Talk) 08:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Defaced for several minutes during Feature

I happened to check out today's featured article -- this one -- only to find it defaced (06:40, 25 July 2005 by 203.144.19.176). It sat that way for 7 straight minutes before I showed up at random and reverted it. What's the record time for that? --Atario 08:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Highveld Strikers Cricket Team

The claim in the article that the Highveld Strikers are one of the world's best cricket teams is somewhat unsubstantiated. In the first place, the team no longer even exists, having merged with the North-West cricket team (from another SA province) to form the Highveld Lions at the start of the 2004/2005 season. This merge was part of the SA cricket authorities' changes to the domestic cricket scene, going from 11 teams to 6. The new team did not win any of the three major domestic titles in SA in 2005 - this can be confirmed from the 2004-05 Domestic Cricket Details. The Strikers were not even the strongest team in SA when they did exist under the previous cricketing system - the Northern's Titans and Western Province were probably the strongest teams in the country. How they can be said to be one of the strongest in the world is a little odd. --Rooijan 09:20, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

A lot of the copy seems to have been based (that's being kind) on [3], and is quite dated. I've just changed the old references to the MTN League, as well as removing all the 'best' POV, will also change the Highveld Strikers reference you mention. Greenman 16:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] population density

is it a little less than 2 people per sq km, or over 1 000? If if is over 1 000, the . shouldn't be used as the thousands separater, as it's nonstandard in English.--Fantrl 22:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cradle of Humankind

The paragraph on the Sterkfontein caves is incorrect in almost every respect. I've made changes based on this site:

http://www.cradleofhumankind.co.za/content/content.asp?menu=34&group_id=12&group_menu_id=3

[edit] Infobox

There seems to be a problem with the infobox. When infobox in, it puts the whole article into the box. I can't seems to find the problem. I must be missing something. It might be in the infobox itself? I have commented it out for now. --Jcw69 10:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The infobox is a single use box. I have put the box back in and listed the template for deletion. --Bob 23:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] population rank

I can't find the rank of 96th in reference to j berg anywhere. In terms of metropolitan area population it would be 40th. M i c 07:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beyers Naudé

The street pictured is, I think, Judges Avenue. This is just after the intersection with Beyers with Hyundai garage, Tiger Wheel and Tyre and Mickey Dee's on the corners. The turn off to the Gym and Cresta is on the Right (not seen).

I agree, it is not Beyers Naude. Nor is it in Fourways -- it is in Cresta. -- leuce 16:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where?

I think an image of South Africa with the location of Johannesburg would be useful here. Viralmonkey 18:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. although perhaps the standard is just to show the surrounding provinces?Rfwoolf 18:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Affectionately known as ... JHB" - er, not commonly nor affectionately as JHB

So Johannesburg is affectionately known as eGoli, Jozi, Jo'burg and JHB. I agree except for the last part - JHB. While it's true South Africans and others may refer to Johannesburg as 'JHB' this is not typically in an 'affectionate' sense. In fact I don't think I've ever heard someone say JHB when referring to Johannesburg. When I was in Johannesburg and I used to send letters, I would put "JHB" as part of the address - but that was technically incorrect. So in otherwords, I say we take it out..?

I'm giving this a couple of days, and then if I remember I'm gonna take out 'JHB'. Johannesburg is not commonly or affectionately known as 'JHB'. Anybody disagree?

Rfwoolf 10:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a common abbreviation in print though, so I'm rather loathe to get rid of it altogether. It's as much an identifier of Johannesburg as NYC is of New York City. But I do agree that it's a bit clumsy in the intro (in fact, I think that section could do with some rewording), so is there perhaps somewhere else in the article it can be moved to? — Impi 11:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ..affectionately known as J'burg ?

Someone added J'burg as an affectionate name for Johannesburg. I have since taken this out.
First of all I've never heard someone pronounce that, e.g. "Juh-bürg", nor have I ever read that in print.
Of all the apparent affectionate names to include, I'm inclined to leave this one out.
If anyone can add credence as to why it should be left in, please explain. Thanks. Rfwoolf 10:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Early residents of area

"The region surrounding Johannesburg was inhabited by small numbers of people and the Bantu people." This implies that Bantu aren't people...should it just be "small numbers of Bantu people," or were small numbers of some other group present in the area, in addition to (larger numbers of) Bantu people? -Elmer Clark (talk) 08:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)