Talk:South Africa/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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)


Contents

Media

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)

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)

Test broadcasting of TV in South Africa started in 1975, with the first "official" TV broadcasts occurred in 1976. Daaf.

I affirm that it was British TV programs that had a cultural embargo against South Africa ... American shows were broadcast from the beginning ... there were American playwrights who would not allow their plays to be performed in South Africa, however, leading the government to void copyright in South Africa on those persons' works ... Mike hayes

I too challenge the statement "Some news papers, such as The Cape Argus, are more of tabloids than carrying important news, tending to follow more along the lines of sport scandals and celebrity movement." ... I suggest that Wikipedians visit the Cape Argus website at http://www.capeargus.co.za/ and decide for themselves whether this statement is "verified" to use Wikipedian nomenclature ... I also believe that statements of this nature violate Wikipedian neutrality rules, being one person's attack on one newspaper, in spite of claiming to be a generalization which is clearly not the case ... it might also carry more weight if it were written in literate English ... Mike hayes

Bordering countries

I changed this construction: "It is located at the southern tip of the continent, and borders Namibia, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, and Swaziland. The small nation of Lesotho is entirely contained within South African territory."

which could be easilly misconstrued to mean that Lesotho was not a fully independent nation-state but part of South Africa. Lesotho was not included in the original list of bordering countries, and it was refered to as a "nation," which is not neccesarily an independent state - ie "Cherokee Nation." Most importantly, Lesotho was said to be "entirely contained within South African territory." "Contained within" could very easily be understood to mean "a part of," so I changed it to "surrounded by," which is much more clear and unambiguous. It's also the wording used in the Lesotho article. Blackcats 18:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Strange. In the main page version, poor Lesotho is omitted entirely. Who does not like Lesotho and why? --Oop 08:53, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
Why == Why not - fix it before anyone else. Wizzy…☎ 09:34, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

How can one fix the Main Page if it is protected?! --Eleassar777 09:52, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lesotho seems to be having a hard time again. Currently the article reads: "South Africa is located at the southern tip of the continent, and borders independent countries of Namibia, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Swaziland. Lesotho is an enclave, entirely surrounded by South African territory." Unless the reader knows what an "enclave" is (or goes to that article) s/he could easily make the mistake of thinking that it was in distinction to "independent country" and mistakenly think that Lesotho is not an independent nation state. I had a stab at correcting this, but I see that my edit was reverted (perhaps inadvertently), so I'm making a comment here instead this time.

Crust 18:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reword it: "SA entirely surrounds country of Lesotho (which forms enclave)" or similary. Btw, why the countries have redundant epithet "independent"? Pavel Vozenilek 19:48, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First Line

'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)

Whistling Tongue

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)

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)
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)

This is vandalism - I hope it has already been removed - as I reverted it already before (together with other stupidities). --Eleassar777 21:56, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Highest Indian population outside of Asia?

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)

Regular elections

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)

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)

Crime

[1] 1m+ arrested, while total total population 44m. [2] 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. [3] [4] [5] 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)

Seperate section shold be opened for crime, currently it is mentioned in 'Culture' section. Unless a crime is part of culture as in ritual human sacrifice (South America Maya, Actec for ex.), in these cultures that was a ritual, not crime.

National Assembly Electoral System

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)

External links

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)

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)

Advance

I do think it should be mentioned the South Africa's stability and power was clearly established by the European Settlers, and I find it a travesty that anyone dare say it was because of the local population. Clearly it was caused by Colonialism

Since South Africa was less stable in 1965 than in 1695, and South Africa's mineral-sourced wealth is massively reliant on black labour, this is clearly a hideously Eurocentric statement by someone with a limited understanding of "stability" and "power" - a "European" South African

Anon editor reverts

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)

see last sentence of paragraph: [[6]] Adding two words that are fact and history is a problem? 69.217.123.174 15:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Trivialities?

Diaspora Jewish and German settlers are trivial, therefore not to included in this article.69.217.123.174 17:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. — mark ✎ 18:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Remember Jet Jungle?

I've started an article on Jet Jungle. It should definitely go in a SA subcategory, not sure exactly where though. Kuratowski's Ghost 6 July 2005 01:23 (UTC)

History section: Slavery end date

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)

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)

AIDS

Shouldn't there be a bigger mention about AIDS, since it is a very serious problem in the country?

South African Military

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)

Cape Argus

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)


"South African genocide"

I took out the link to this : http://www.icssag.com because quite simply, I think it's POV and there is no genocide going on in SA, there is a lot of crime but in recent years there have been a lot of totally unsubstantiated accusations about how there is a genocide going on against whites which doesn't have a bearing in reality. I'm related to a South African politician who happens to be white, and if this was really happening I doubt that he would be in his position. Should I put it back in with a disclaimer? User:XYaAsehShalomX

Demographics/Farm murders/Biased police

Even if the number of white farmers is declning, so what? It's not just white people's land, and such information does not belong in demographics. It has nothing to do with statistics or facts, it is almost all POV speculation. I think any such further references need be deleted. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 14:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that Elf-friend's edit captured the concept of the white population declining. Yes, the farm attacks are worrying - but there is a whole paragraph on that in the Crime section. Must we repeat it here ? Wizzy…☎ 14:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I made a fusion of both texts at the “crime” item, but with respect to the fact that the farmer issue has a “political” aspect, see for instance: [7] and [8] and [9](The two latter in Afrikaans.)
--Jvb – December 1, 2005
The SA police places bugging devices in the cars of those private professionals (from the main farmer organisation) who try to protect the commercial white farmers against murder and this in a region with multiple farm attacks. On the other side, the murderers' cars are apparently not bugged with devices.
Excerpt: Do farm murderers enjoy indirect protection by the SA police these days?
In Afrikaans: …“die SAPD deur sulke optrede teen boere wat by plaasveiligheidsaksies betrokke is die indruk skep dat hy kop in een mus met plaasmoordenaars verkeer”… “Geniet plaasmoordenaars dus deesdae die indirekte beskerming van die Suid-Afrikaanse polisie?
Translations: "The SAPS gives the impression by such actions that they are working hand-in-glove with farm murderers against farmers who are taking part in farm security measures" (my italics) and "Do farm murderers enjoy indirect protection by the police these days?".
So, even the website that you quote do not state these as fact, but as mere speculation and thus the text that you added is erroneous and should be deleted. I also think that the article on Farm murders is a more appropriate place for this item, if it is presented in a factual and non-speculative way. Elf-friend 13:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
--Jvb – December 2, 2005
JvB, your references (and I don't know how reliable the Praag" particular website is) suggest that the SAPS (no mention of an elite unit is made) may have put tracing equipment on some farmer's cars, who are apparently suspected of vandalizing road signs of towns whose names were changed. It then goes on to make a suggestion (one might almost say quite a logical leap) that this may in some way be aiding farm murders. These references thus do not back up the text that you added to the article and should be deleted. Elf-friend 12:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
The Praag web-site is reliable as to the facts in that respect that it cites TAU SA which is a much bigger organisation. If there would be doubts as to the facts, then this would certainly be mentioned, on Praag’s discussion site or at TAU SA’s site. BTW you speak about farmers’ cars, but I understood that it’s the professional security personnel that is tapped. Not directly the kind of people that makes themselves guilty of “painting graffiti” on road signs. And indeed nobody has been arrested for that.
The text you refer to explicitly states: "Ten minste drie voertuie van boere in die Noord-Transvaal (Limpopoprovinsie) is met opsporingsapparaat bedraad. Die betrokke boere is almal deel van die TLU se huis- en haardbeveiligingsprogram." This translates to: "At least three vehicles of farmers in the Northern Transvaal (Limpopo Province) has been wired with tracking equipment. These farmers are all members of the TAU's house and home protection program." (My italics.) The rest of the content of the articles mentioned also explicitly refer to farmers who are members of farm security programmes. So these are actually farmers ... not profesional security personnel ... Elf-friend 09:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Tapping systems in cars are placed by specialised units, at least in Belgium and such as indicated in the text about South Africa in that country too.
As far as the so-called logical leap is concerned, one should understand that these farmers live under conditions worse than the American army in Iraq and that the farmers feel to a large extent let down by the police. And now they are even told that sparse police resources are spent to monitor those who try to save their lives. Then one should not wonder that much of the beleaguered farmers reach conclusions. How else can it be explained than that a politicised police force has chosen the wrong enemy? But as you insist, I add some explanation to avoid misunderstandings.
We are speaking here about the causes behind the halving of the food production in South Africa. These merit to be mentioned on the front page.
And yet this year South Africa has had the biggest maize harvest in a decade with farmers actually quitting because of the low prices caused by overproduction??? [10], [11]
Moreover, statistics from the FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS also show that cereal production in South Africa since 1994 has certainly not been halved. [12]
These figures from the same source also do not substantiate the halving of production claim [13].
By the way, there are approximately 46,000 commercial farmers in South Africa (Statistics South Africa, 2005), not 25,000 [www.dbsa.org/document/ %5CpDevelopmentReport/Dev%202005/Chapter7.pdf].
So, please substantiate your statement that food production has been halved since 1994, until then I am deleting those parts. Elf-friend 11:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
SA agricultural production is actually becoming more competitive ... [14] Elf-friend 11:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
--Jvb – December 2, 2005
A specialised unit is not the same as an elite unit, such as the South African Police Service Special Task Force. If such a tracker was indeed planted, it could may have been done by a constable with a few day's training. Drawing conclusion about the SAPS from your knowledge of the Belgian police is questionable. Elf-friend 09:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I've tidied up the crime section a bit ... tell me if it needs any improvements :) XYaAsehShalomX 20:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Agriculture in South Africa

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)

Pretoria

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

  • Not yet, although the change looks pretty likely. :) It's still called Pretoria in most of the literature, and by many South Africans, especially white ones. XYaAsehShalomX 16:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

History of Apartheid resistance

I find that the issue of resistance to apartheid and the whole race-agenda wich was so important between 1948-1990 is lacking or dealt with very superfishial at these pages. i looked for it as i am writing an asignment on south africa for the time being. is it not strange that you have to go to a spessial page to read about it whilst you have all the facts about the boers and their doing 200 years ago??? the apartheid history is what people internationaly know of south africa, and what they would expect to find on the main history page over the country. a suggestion: could it not be a subheading under the history topic??

This is a fake Carnival right?

Someone made this up am I correct? Coon Carnival 67.101.123.16 09:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

It's real. XYaAsehShalomX 13:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

History

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)

Big pro-racist bias

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)

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)

Use of the word 'many'

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)