![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 9 |
THIS IS AN ARCHIVE. PLEASE DO NOT EDIT IT -- SEE Talk:South Africa TO MAKE ANY CHANGES.
I added some discussion to History about life after Apartheid and offered another popular theory about improving living conditions.
I think that perhaps we should include a section discussing the animal life. We have plant life, but there are animals living there too.
I Agree - I am going to gather information now and include a new section titled "Animal Life"
The % of people working in agriculture was anonymously changed from 9% to 30%. Anyone have sources for this? Greenman 08:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I have updated the archives, this time with links to the headings. I have also changed all the links to main articles to use the main article template (e.g. {{main|Blah in South Africa}} ). This means that if Wikipedia ever changes its style of link to the main article, we will follow automatically. -- Slashme 17:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I see that the footnote style is all wrong here, but I'm at work, and shouldn't even be editing this at all. When I get time I'll fix it according to the Wikipedia:Template_messages/Sources_of_articles/Generic_citations citation style and Wikipedia:Footnotes. -- Slashme 05:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
"Since South Africa relaxed its border controls after the demise of apartheid, international crime syndicates have entered the country and a large proportion of the world's drug trade flows through the country. citation needed South Africa is also the fourth-largest producer of marijuana in the world, partly due to the fact that it grows wild in certain areas of the country. citation needed"
I removed this until it has sources. I just read similar for Afghanistan and Pakistan. - preceeding comment unsigned by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ).
The Category:South Africa needs major cleanup work. Besides the fact that many South African articles are miscategorized, at the moment the subcats are all over the place. There is e.g. a subcat "South African people" (btw shouldn't it be "People of South Africa"?) which contains - of all things - "South African golfers" as a subcat when there isn't even "South African sportspeople"! Also in certain sectors I feel the level of subcats is too shallow, and in others too deep. Also the subcats aren't consistent e.g. "South African people" contains "Natives of Cape Town", but also "Natives of Eastern Cape Province". Subcat "levels" should be similar i.e. province by province or city by city but not mixed. Also, please check out "Regions of SA" which leads to "regions of Joburg" which leads to a complete mess. I'm not sure how to sort this out, any suggestions would be welcome. Zunaid 14:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Here's my initial stab at a category system:
SA
These I still have to look at:
These two should probably not be touched, they serve a useful editorial purpose:
Final comment. Joburg seems to be overly represented within the cat system, with some cats empty or containing just one or two articles. This could be better presented by leaving those cats/articles in the main SA cat. While it is commendable to create subcats as the main cat expands beyond reason, I don't think it is justified in this case. Zunaid 14:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Would anyone mind if I put up Republic of South Africa in maybe Zulu and Afrikaans along with the English in the title? Most other countries seem to have local names as well as the English Joziboy 24 Feb 2006, 13:07 UTC
Is it still true that Bloemfontein is the judicial capital? The highest court in South Africa is the Constitutional Court, and that's in Johannesburg. Joziboy 1 March 2006, 00:54 UTC
Template:South Africa infobox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.
Why is there no mention of the notorious death squads in this country's History? 80.224.63.140 10:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, there is nothing stopping you from adding something you know.. Gregorydavid 10:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I think this breaks up the huge block of text and makes it more readable. I also think that apartheid was so special it deserves a more prominent flag under the history section, which is why I've gone back to that, stripping out the text that was buried in a paragraph. This looks way more encyclopedic to me. Any thoughts? Guinnog 21:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I started doing a proper copyedit on this article but found it hard. For example, is there on a consensus on the use of 'black' v 'Black', 'white' v 'White'. I started because 'indian' looked silly; but surely they should all be capitalised then? -- Guinnog 21:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Anybody else notice that the total percentage for the demographics equals 101%. Is there any way we can verify these figures?
Páll (Die pienk olifant), Please tell me why you removed the political corruption levels from the South African main page. There is nothing incorrect in those values and they come from a credible source. If you moved those facts to a more appropriate location you would find me in agreement.
However, I get the impression that you have removed them simply because you don't like the hard truth they reveal. I was about to correct many things on that South African page (with known and provable facts) but if unsubstantiated political bias is allowed to overpower researched facts then what's the point? - Eltharian Talk 23 April 2006
Páll (Die pienk olifant), Thank you for answering me at my Eltharian Talk. Okay, I understand what you are saying that it belongs on a political page, but I don't agree. Corruption levels speak of how well the country is run as a matter of fact. It does not delve into the differences of opinion between parties (which I think is indeed appropriate for a political page).
Of course, corruption levels imply things about certain ruling parties which I imagine is why you want to remove it. BUT this is only an implication - readers should be able to judge for themselves what those figures mean.
If one uses such arguments (i.e. that anything slightly or vaguely reflective of a political party should be removed to a seperate political page) then much of the entire South Africa page needs to be removed or re-written. Crime is a typical example - I can't see how you can see to keep the crime paragraphs (which vaguely implies a mismanagement of the police and/or judicial system) but not see to keep corruption. After all, it is political corruption that may well give rise to the mismanagements of those departments and high crime. Of course, political corruption also gives tacit validation to much crime in the country - one only needs to watch TV reality shows which interview gangs or criminals to understand the excuses they use to convince themselves of their behaviour. Corruption and crime are the same disease! Social circumstances can not be divorced from political ones.
If you will allow me I would like to quote from Junius' first public letter to the people of Britain, in 21 Jan 1769, who were going through their own socio-political upheaval at the time.
I hope I am beginning to convince you. After all, looking at your profile, you should easily be able to testify to the low crime in Hong Kong and draw the same correlation with its clean corruption levels - 8.3.
(BTW, I am copying this discussion to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:South_Africa to invite others' views.)
You say that corruption levels should be excluded because it does not contribute to the general overview of the South African main page. On the contrary, corruption permeates through every aspect of society and is of course highly relevant for that page. If Junius' quote did not convince you, and if you can't see how corruption correlates to crime (which certainly affects the entire population) then consider the following. A few years ago it was estimated that corruption in Uganda added 9% to the cost of doing business! Yes, almost 1/10 of all transactions are wasted away to undeserving political or adminstrative figures. At these levels corruption severely impedes economic growth and keeps countries in 3rd world states. Corruption affects everything from crime to economics. How can you possibly think it is NOT part of the general overview of conditions in South Africa?
No offence to User:PZFUN, but I don't find this image very typical or illustrative. I won't revert my own photo which was there in previous versions, but I did wonder if anyone else has an opinion. Guinnog 13:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I've tried repeatedly to engage User:PZFUN without reply about the pictures issue above, and the headings in the History section, also above. I also notice this user has repeatedly removed the concentration camp image from this page on (spurious?) grounds of space. Can I request again that significant changes to the page be discussed here? This will make the page better and avoid needless reversions. Thank you. Guinnog 07:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
After having followed the link to parliamentary democracy from the SA infobox and reading that article, i'm not convinced South Africa is a parliamentary democracy. First of all, we don't have a head of state who is separate from our head of government. We're not highlighted on the map on that page ( Parliamentary democracy) and I've never heard of the system of a vote of no confidence. So I'm pretty sure that makes us a Presidential Democracy, no? Joziboy 5 May 2006, 19:43 (UTC)
Oh okay, my bad :) Joziboy 6 May 2006, 10:27 (UTC)
Someone changed the name at the vey top of the article from "The Republic of South Africa" to simply "South Africa". I feel that it is very important that the full, official name be provided at the top of the article. If you look at other countries (such as "The United States of America" or "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" appears in their respective articles), it is obvious that this is the convention. If there are no objections, I shall consider changing it. -- Chris Lester talk 19:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Well to change to "The Republic of South Africa" has my vote. -- Jcw69 15:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
And now another question of status. Does anyone know if we're a federation? I've been working on the National Council of Provinces page and after having researched it, it sounds as if we are. But I've never heard the label "federation" applied to us... so I'm hesitant to include it in that page (NCOP). Any ideas? Joziboy 17 May 2006, 12:44 (UTC)
Oh yeah no I know it's not the official name. I just meant I'm even weary of using it as an adjective (Ie, the Republic is also a federation) in the article on the NCOP because I've never heard people use that term. You're right, the provincial legislatures have less extensive powers than they do in the USA, but not necessarily less than they do in Germany, which is a federation. Joziboy 18 May 2006, 07:46 (UTC)
Gregorydavid 15:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
It all depends on whether or not the central government can overrule regional legislation whenever it sees fit. If the regional bodies (provincial legislatures) have a constitutionally guaranteed right to rule on certain issues without central interference, then the state is federal. I can't seem to find anything on the provincial legislatures of South Africa which indicates whether or not that's the case. I see on the German-wikipedia article on South Africa though that it describes us as a parliamentary democracy with federal elements. Joziboy 19 May 2006, 19:19 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 9 |
THIS IS AN ARCHIVE. PLEASE DO NOT EDIT IT -- SEE Talk:South Africa TO MAKE ANY CHANGES.
I added some discussion to History about life after Apartheid and offered another popular theory about improving living conditions.
I think that perhaps we should include a section discussing the animal life. We have plant life, but there are animals living there too.
I Agree - I am going to gather information now and include a new section titled "Animal Life"
The % of people working in agriculture was anonymously changed from 9% to 30%. Anyone have sources for this? Greenman 08:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I have updated the archives, this time with links to the headings. I have also changed all the links to main articles to use the main article template (e.g. {{main|Blah in South Africa}} ). This means that if Wikipedia ever changes its style of link to the main article, we will follow automatically. -- Slashme 17:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I see that the footnote style is all wrong here, but I'm at work, and shouldn't even be editing this at all. When I get time I'll fix it according to the Wikipedia:Template_messages/Sources_of_articles/Generic_citations citation style and Wikipedia:Footnotes. -- Slashme 05:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
"Since South Africa relaxed its border controls after the demise of apartheid, international crime syndicates have entered the country and a large proportion of the world's drug trade flows through the country. citation needed South Africa is also the fourth-largest producer of marijuana in the world, partly due to the fact that it grows wild in certain areas of the country. citation needed"
I removed this until it has sources. I just read similar for Afghanistan and Pakistan. - preceeding comment unsigned by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ).
The Category:South Africa needs major cleanup work. Besides the fact that many South African articles are miscategorized, at the moment the subcats are all over the place. There is e.g. a subcat "South African people" (btw shouldn't it be "People of South Africa"?) which contains - of all things - "South African golfers" as a subcat when there isn't even "South African sportspeople"! Also in certain sectors I feel the level of subcats is too shallow, and in others too deep. Also the subcats aren't consistent e.g. "South African people" contains "Natives of Cape Town", but also "Natives of Eastern Cape Province". Subcat "levels" should be similar i.e. province by province or city by city but not mixed. Also, please check out "Regions of SA" which leads to "regions of Joburg" which leads to a complete mess. I'm not sure how to sort this out, any suggestions would be welcome. Zunaid 14:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Here's my initial stab at a category system:
SA
These I still have to look at:
These two should probably not be touched, they serve a useful editorial purpose:
Final comment. Joburg seems to be overly represented within the cat system, with some cats empty or containing just one or two articles. This could be better presented by leaving those cats/articles in the main SA cat. While it is commendable to create subcats as the main cat expands beyond reason, I don't think it is justified in this case. Zunaid 14:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Would anyone mind if I put up Republic of South Africa in maybe Zulu and Afrikaans along with the English in the title? Most other countries seem to have local names as well as the English Joziboy 24 Feb 2006, 13:07 UTC
Is it still true that Bloemfontein is the judicial capital? The highest court in South Africa is the Constitutional Court, and that's in Johannesburg. Joziboy 1 March 2006, 00:54 UTC
Template:South Africa infobox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.
Why is there no mention of the notorious death squads in this country's History? 80.224.63.140 10:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, there is nothing stopping you from adding something you know.. Gregorydavid 10:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I think this breaks up the huge block of text and makes it more readable. I also think that apartheid was so special it deserves a more prominent flag under the history section, which is why I've gone back to that, stripping out the text that was buried in a paragraph. This looks way more encyclopedic to me. Any thoughts? Guinnog 21:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I started doing a proper copyedit on this article but found it hard. For example, is there on a consensus on the use of 'black' v 'Black', 'white' v 'White'. I started because 'indian' looked silly; but surely they should all be capitalised then? -- Guinnog 21:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Anybody else notice that the total percentage for the demographics equals 101%. Is there any way we can verify these figures?
Páll (Die pienk olifant), Please tell me why you removed the political corruption levels from the South African main page. There is nothing incorrect in those values and they come from a credible source. If you moved those facts to a more appropriate location you would find me in agreement.
However, I get the impression that you have removed them simply because you don't like the hard truth they reveal. I was about to correct many things on that South African page (with known and provable facts) but if unsubstantiated political bias is allowed to overpower researched facts then what's the point? - Eltharian Talk 23 April 2006
Páll (Die pienk olifant), Thank you for answering me at my Eltharian Talk. Okay, I understand what you are saying that it belongs on a political page, but I don't agree. Corruption levels speak of how well the country is run as a matter of fact. It does not delve into the differences of opinion between parties (which I think is indeed appropriate for a political page).
Of course, corruption levels imply things about certain ruling parties which I imagine is why you want to remove it. BUT this is only an implication - readers should be able to judge for themselves what those figures mean.
If one uses such arguments (i.e. that anything slightly or vaguely reflective of a political party should be removed to a seperate political page) then much of the entire South Africa page needs to be removed or re-written. Crime is a typical example - I can't see how you can see to keep the crime paragraphs (which vaguely implies a mismanagement of the police and/or judicial system) but not see to keep corruption. After all, it is political corruption that may well give rise to the mismanagements of those departments and high crime. Of course, political corruption also gives tacit validation to much crime in the country - one only needs to watch TV reality shows which interview gangs or criminals to understand the excuses they use to convince themselves of their behaviour. Corruption and crime are the same disease! Social circumstances can not be divorced from political ones.
If you will allow me I would like to quote from Junius' first public letter to the people of Britain, in 21 Jan 1769, who were going through their own socio-political upheaval at the time.
I hope I am beginning to convince you. After all, looking at your profile, you should easily be able to testify to the low crime in Hong Kong and draw the same correlation with its clean corruption levels - 8.3.
(BTW, I am copying this discussion to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:South_Africa to invite others' views.)
You say that corruption levels should be excluded because it does not contribute to the general overview of the South African main page. On the contrary, corruption permeates through every aspect of society and is of course highly relevant for that page. If Junius' quote did not convince you, and if you can't see how corruption correlates to crime (which certainly affects the entire population) then consider the following. A few years ago it was estimated that corruption in Uganda added 9% to the cost of doing business! Yes, almost 1/10 of all transactions are wasted away to undeserving political or adminstrative figures. At these levels corruption severely impedes economic growth and keeps countries in 3rd world states. Corruption affects everything from crime to economics. How can you possibly think it is NOT part of the general overview of conditions in South Africa?
No offence to User:PZFUN, but I don't find this image very typical or illustrative. I won't revert my own photo which was there in previous versions, but I did wonder if anyone else has an opinion. Guinnog 13:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I've tried repeatedly to engage User:PZFUN without reply about the pictures issue above, and the headings in the History section, also above. I also notice this user has repeatedly removed the concentration camp image from this page on (spurious?) grounds of space. Can I request again that significant changes to the page be discussed here? This will make the page better and avoid needless reversions. Thank you. Guinnog 07:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
After having followed the link to parliamentary democracy from the SA infobox and reading that article, i'm not convinced South Africa is a parliamentary democracy. First of all, we don't have a head of state who is separate from our head of government. We're not highlighted on the map on that page ( Parliamentary democracy) and I've never heard of the system of a vote of no confidence. So I'm pretty sure that makes us a Presidential Democracy, no? Joziboy 5 May 2006, 19:43 (UTC)
Oh okay, my bad :) Joziboy 6 May 2006, 10:27 (UTC)
Someone changed the name at the vey top of the article from "The Republic of South Africa" to simply "South Africa". I feel that it is very important that the full, official name be provided at the top of the article. If you look at other countries (such as "The United States of America" or "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" appears in their respective articles), it is obvious that this is the convention. If there are no objections, I shall consider changing it. -- Chris Lester talk 19:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Well to change to "The Republic of South Africa" has my vote. -- Jcw69 15:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
And now another question of status. Does anyone know if we're a federation? I've been working on the National Council of Provinces page and after having researched it, it sounds as if we are. But I've never heard the label "federation" applied to us... so I'm hesitant to include it in that page (NCOP). Any ideas? Joziboy 17 May 2006, 12:44 (UTC)
Oh yeah no I know it's not the official name. I just meant I'm even weary of using it as an adjective (Ie, the Republic is also a federation) in the article on the NCOP because I've never heard people use that term. You're right, the provincial legislatures have less extensive powers than they do in the USA, but not necessarily less than they do in Germany, which is a federation. Joziboy 18 May 2006, 07:46 (UTC)
Gregorydavid 15:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
It all depends on whether or not the central government can overrule regional legislation whenever it sees fit. If the regional bodies (provincial legislatures) have a constitutionally guaranteed right to rule on certain issues without central interference, then the state is federal. I can't seem to find anything on the provincial legislatures of South Africa which indicates whether or not that's the case. I see on the German-wikipedia article on South Africa though that it describes us as a parliamentary democracy with federal elements. Joziboy 19 May 2006, 19:19 (UTC)