![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
@ Htonl - this section deals with the discovery of gold and diamonds. This intensified the subjugation of the indigenous people - these indigenous people - were the Boers. The way you are making this read is that it was a racial thing? European vs Black? - This is not the case at all - it was about MONEY, weirdly enough, when money is on the table, race walks out the door... It was not about the Zulus, Not the Xhosa etc. Please read the citations added. Then: Undo your non cited and incorrect edit. (The only other indigenous people who were already subjugated, were the Griquas (as it were their diamonds) - please discuss so the slanted POV can be corrected Zarpboer ( talk) 13:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Now, to continue: my sahistory link has nothing to do with the 1903 mining taxes and I have no idea where you got that from. The paragraph in question talks about how the discovery of diamonds and gold led to the Mineral Revolution, and then goes on to talk about the effects that the Mineral Revolution had on South Africa. Let me quote which bit of the sahistory page I am referring to, just in case there is any confusion:
“ | Gold was an extremely valuable metal. It was the basis of the world's monetary system and it was also prized for jewellery. The Rand mines were the largest ever discovered anywhere in the world and represented a much greater store of wealth than even the diamond fields. The mine owners exercised considerable political power, and subsidised the governments in various ways because they needed its co-operation to provide sympathetic policing and anti-worker laws.
In this context, it was important to create a regular labour supply and to channel it to the mining centres. To induce men to go to work on the mines, the government introduced various taxes which were payable in cash. Migrant labourers helped to build the economy and prosperity of South Africa by their contribution to the gold-mining industry. Migrant labourers were neither here nor there. At work, where they spent most of their time, they were treated as sojourners whose only purpose was to market their labour to provide comfort for the townspeople. Compounds enabled mine owners to keep wages low. The capitalists were only too happy to have a workforce without the full cost of supporting workers and their families in town. The mine owners were not concerned about the domestic life of migrant labourers; neither were they interested in increasing the purchasing power of their workforce. At home, migrant workers were strangers to their families. Worse still, the household had the responsibility of shouldering the social costs of caring for the children and giving them what education they could. Fathers were often regarded as strangers by their children. Sons were compelled by tax demands to join their fathers as soon as they became 18. They were appalled by the extramarital unions their fathers had entered. The mothers, too, complained that to their husbands they were just old-age providers or even hospitals. While these remarks are truthful, the reader must be aware that the situation was beyond the control of the migrants — it was the plan of their employers to use the strength of the workers' active years. From an employer’s point of view, labour was cheap when the least possible amount was contributed to the subsistence and upkeep of the labourer. |
” |
If we were to follow your argument that that paragraph is only about the immediate consequences of the discoveries and not those of the following mining boom, then we have to exclude the alleged "subjugation" of the Boers by the British as well. After all, the discovery of gold was in 1886 and the ZAR was only "subjugated" in 1899. - htonl ( talk) 14:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
OK. Then how about we drop the "subjugation" sentence for now, and let the paragraph be:
“ | The discovery of diamonds in 1867 and gold in 1884 in the interior started the Mineral Revolution and increased economic growth and immigration. The struggle to control these important economic resources would also become a major factor in relations between white and black people, and between the Boers and the British. | ” |
? - htonl ( talk) 15:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
“ | The discovery of diamonds in 1867 and gold in 1884 in the interior started the Mineral Revolution and increased economic growth and immigration. The struggle to control these important economic resources would cause a war between the Boers, who owned the Gold and the British. Later after a lot of additional immigration, three wars, and in a different country, it would also affect the relations between white and black people. | ” |
- which is not at all encyclopedic and this needs to be dealt with - one thing at a time. It is simply confusing to make this a white vs black thing in 1869, it was first a Boer vs Brit thing and then a white vs black thing? Zarpboer ( talk) 15:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
“ | The discovery of diamonds in 1867 and gold in 1884 in the interior started the Mineral Revolution and increased economic growth and immigration into the Boer countries by both black people and other foreigners. The struggle to control these important economic resources would cause a war between the Boers, who owned the Gold and the British. Many white bywoner farmers were removed from Gold bearing property without any compensation and their families had to pack up and leave the property many of them were born on. | ” |
- Now that is factual and fair. Then, I still do want to add the Indian slaves as well. The Indian people truly suffered in this country, so did the Chinese and yes, of course, it is common cause that the black people suffered the worst. But it should all be said and reflected? Zarpboer ( talk) 10:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of South Africa's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "imf":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
@ Htonl - this section deals with the discovery of gold and diamonds. This intensified the subjugation of the indigenous people - these indigenous people - were the Boers. The way you are making this read is that it was a racial thing? European vs Black? - This is not the case at all - it was about MONEY, weirdly enough, when money is on the table, race walks out the door... It was not about the Zulus, Not the Xhosa etc. Please read the citations added. Then: Undo your non cited and incorrect edit. (The only other indigenous people who were already subjugated, were the Griquas (as it were their diamonds) - please discuss so the slanted POV can be corrected Zarpboer ( talk) 13:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Now, to continue: my sahistory link has nothing to do with the 1903 mining taxes and I have no idea where you got that from. The paragraph in question talks about how the discovery of diamonds and gold led to the Mineral Revolution, and then goes on to talk about the effects that the Mineral Revolution had on South Africa. Let me quote which bit of the sahistory page I am referring to, just in case there is any confusion:
“ | Gold was an extremely valuable metal. It was the basis of the world's monetary system and it was also prized for jewellery. The Rand mines were the largest ever discovered anywhere in the world and represented a much greater store of wealth than even the diamond fields. The mine owners exercised considerable political power, and subsidised the governments in various ways because they needed its co-operation to provide sympathetic policing and anti-worker laws.
In this context, it was important to create a regular labour supply and to channel it to the mining centres. To induce men to go to work on the mines, the government introduced various taxes which were payable in cash. Migrant labourers helped to build the economy and prosperity of South Africa by their contribution to the gold-mining industry. Migrant labourers were neither here nor there. At work, where they spent most of their time, they were treated as sojourners whose only purpose was to market their labour to provide comfort for the townspeople. Compounds enabled mine owners to keep wages low. The capitalists were only too happy to have a workforce without the full cost of supporting workers and their families in town. The mine owners were not concerned about the domestic life of migrant labourers; neither were they interested in increasing the purchasing power of their workforce. At home, migrant workers were strangers to their families. Worse still, the household had the responsibility of shouldering the social costs of caring for the children and giving them what education they could. Fathers were often regarded as strangers by their children. Sons were compelled by tax demands to join their fathers as soon as they became 18. They were appalled by the extramarital unions their fathers had entered. The mothers, too, complained that to their husbands they were just old-age providers or even hospitals. While these remarks are truthful, the reader must be aware that the situation was beyond the control of the migrants — it was the plan of their employers to use the strength of the workers' active years. From an employer’s point of view, labour was cheap when the least possible amount was contributed to the subsistence and upkeep of the labourer. |
” |
If we were to follow your argument that that paragraph is only about the immediate consequences of the discoveries and not those of the following mining boom, then we have to exclude the alleged "subjugation" of the Boers by the British as well. After all, the discovery of gold was in 1886 and the ZAR was only "subjugated" in 1899. - htonl ( talk) 14:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
OK. Then how about we drop the "subjugation" sentence for now, and let the paragraph be:
“ | The discovery of diamonds in 1867 and gold in 1884 in the interior started the Mineral Revolution and increased economic growth and immigration. The struggle to control these important economic resources would also become a major factor in relations between white and black people, and between the Boers and the British. | ” |
? - htonl ( talk) 15:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
“ | The discovery of diamonds in 1867 and gold in 1884 in the interior started the Mineral Revolution and increased economic growth and immigration. The struggle to control these important economic resources would cause a war between the Boers, who owned the Gold and the British. Later after a lot of additional immigration, three wars, and in a different country, it would also affect the relations between white and black people. | ” |
- which is not at all encyclopedic and this needs to be dealt with - one thing at a time. It is simply confusing to make this a white vs black thing in 1869, it was first a Boer vs Brit thing and then a white vs black thing? Zarpboer ( talk) 15:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
“ | The discovery of diamonds in 1867 and gold in 1884 in the interior started the Mineral Revolution and increased economic growth and immigration into the Boer countries by both black people and other foreigners. The struggle to control these important economic resources would cause a war between the Boers, who owned the Gold and the British. Many white bywoner farmers were removed from Gold bearing property without any compensation and their families had to pack up and leave the property many of them were born on. | ” |
- Now that is factual and fair. Then, I still do want to add the Indian slaves as well. The Indian people truly suffered in this country, so did the Chinese and yes, of course, it is common cause that the black people suffered the worst. But it should all be said and reflected? Zarpboer ( talk) 10:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of South Africa's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "imf":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi everybody. On behalf of the teams behind the Wikipedia Primary School research project, I would like to announce that this article was selected a while ago to be reviewed by an external expert. We'd now like to ask interested editors to join our efforts and improve the article before March 15, 2015 (any timezone) as they see fit; a revision will be then sent to the designated expert for review. Any notes and remarks written by the external expert will be made available on this page under a CC-BY-SA license as soon as possible, so that you can read them, discuss them and then decide if and how to use them. Please sign up here to let us know you're collaborating. Thanks a lot for your support! Elitre (WPS) ( talk) 15:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
What exactly is the point of having the map point out that 1 African country ( Morrocco) isn't part of the African Union? It doesn't seem particularly relevant to this article. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:C421:D27F:537:E61E ( talk) 01:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
why for some countries 'religion' is an entire section and for others such as this one it does not even exist? seriously, why the editors of Wikipedia are not a bit more professional and much less biased???
Article has some major faults, a few of which are identified as follows:
Having just read Mandela's autobiography, Long Walk to Freedom, I believe the ANC's role in establishing democracy is underrepresented in the "Republic" section of this article. I point this out only because this underrepresentation appears to be misleading, though presumably unintentional. Were it not for the efforts of Mandela and many other ANC members, the National Party would not have agreed to negotiate for democracy. Indeed, it was in response to the ANC's demonstrations and declarations that Mr. de Klerk began negotiations with Mr. Mandela. This may seem a small detail, but in representing it correctly, a more accurate history of the development of South Africa is painted. It was the ANC who spent decades directly and indirectly informing the National Party that negotiations were needed. I believe Mandela's brilliant vision and lifelong efforts (and those of many other ANC leaders) should be recognized more accurately in this section. '
In speaking of his fellow "freedom-fighters," Mandela wrote:
[T]he decades of oppression and brutality had another, unintended effect, and that was that it produced the Oliver Tambos, the Walter Sisulus, the Chief Luthulis, the Yusuf Dadoos, the Bram Fischers, the Robert Sobukwes of our time -- men of such extraordinary courage, wisdom, and generosity that their like may never be known again. Perhaps it requires such depth of oppression to create such heights of character. My country is rich in the minerals and gems that lie beneath its soil, but I have always known that its greatest wealth is its people, finer and truer than the purest diamonds (Long Walk to Freedom," p. 622).
In homage to the lives these men truly lived, I believe it is necessary to convey the understanding that the ANC led the South African people to establish democracy in the Republic of South Africa. According to Mandela's record, the ANC was the instigator of talks with the government, not the other way around.
This article reads, "Ultimately, F. W. de Klerk opened bilateral discussions with Nelson Mandela in 1993 for a transition of policies and government." While true, I believe it would be helpful to mention that it was after Mandela's request for these types of actions for many years that de Klerk did this.
The "Republic" section continues, "In 1990 the National Party government took the first step towards dismantling discrimination when it lifted the ban on the African National Congress and other political organisations. It released Nelson Mandela from prison after twenty-seven years' serving a sentence for sabotage. A negotiation process followed." Perhaps the term "took the first step" is misleading here, considering that it had been decades since the ANC had begun its first steps on the road to dismantling discrimination. It might also be useful to include here that, in 1993, Mandela, along with de Klerk, was a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, signifying their steps together toward peace.
Thank you. 67.2.90.233 ( talk) 00:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)11/27/15 Kaite Williams
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
South Africa. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
South Africa has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I just wanted to notify the editors of this page that the line: "The sailors were able to survive by obtaining fresh water and meat from the natives." found under: European colonisation.. cannot be found in the source. Nor can it be found anywhere else online at least. I'm not sure if the editor has perhaps found this somewhere else, but I'd like to see a source for this claim.
Best regards, J. Bergkamp Jasonbergkamp ( talk) 15:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 7 external links on
South Africa. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, we can read all kind of racial groups in this map except "whites" group... /info/en/?search=File:South_Africa_-_population_migrations.svg whites are only mentionned in the legend which is not the case of other groups... Is this fair ? Is this not denigrating ? Like erasing the white presence for centuries in this country ? It hurst me a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.64.198.180 ( talk) 13:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
According to the link to Statistics South Africa, in 2004 80% of the population in South Africa was black, 8% white, 8% colored and over 2% Indian.-- 83.165.178.34 ( talk) 21:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
What about Lucas Mangope? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.44.14 ( talk) 18:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi everybody. On behalf of the teams behind the Wikipedia Primary School research project, I would like to announce that this article was selected a while ago to be reviewed by an external expert. Notes and remarks written by the external expert are available on this page under a CC-BY-SA license, so that you can read them, discuss them and then decide if and how to use them. We'd like to thank Ineke Van Kessel for her work and for her helpful notes. Please sign up here to let us know you're collaborating. Thanks a lot for your support! -- Anthere ( talk) 12:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
To facilitate the editing process, I copied Ineke notes below.
Is the summary of the article a complete, thorough, and concise introduction to the topic? How do you think the summary could be improved? Which meaningful data are missing? Is there something that you find too much detailed for a general overview of the topic?
The summary is rather bland, and misses the point that apartheid South Africa was for decades isolated and almost universally criticized for its racial policies. It should include a mention of Nelson Mandela, who is without doubt the most famous (South) African. After a long and sometimes violent struggle, the transition from apartheid to an inclusive democracy was largely peaceful, against long-held expectations of a bloody racial war. This transition became known as the South African miracle, in which Mandela played a key role.
Delete: “It is the most southernmost….”at the end of the first paragraph. This is superfluous. The sentence: “since 1994, all ethnic and linguistic groups….” is somewhat misleading, as representation in parliament is not based on ethnicity or language, but on citizenship.
End note 17 should be updated, as these are figures from 2009.
Is the article properly presenting the topic for a general public? Does the article provide a complete and easy-to-navigate structure? Which paragraph would you add, unify or split into different parts? Please provide a list of suggestions. Is the article well written and understandable at a high school level?
The article is well written and clear.
Overall it is easy to navigate, but some sections belong under a different heading:
Is the article comprehensive of major facts related to the topic? Is the article adequately placing the subject in context? What does it miss? Please provide a list of topics you think should be included in the article (suggestions must be related to bibliography). Do you find that some arguments are not meaningful or representative of the topic for a general public. What should be deleted? Please explain why.
Overall, the article is fairly comprehensive and adequately contextualized. Crucial patterns in the history of South Africa would become more visible and better understandable if better use is made of some of the standard works. The author makes an excessive use of a large number of sometimes obscure sources, rather than citing authoritative standard works. This results in a sometimes haphazard sequence of important and not-so-important facts, rather than in a coherent narrative.
One could question the balance between different sections, e.g. quite a lot of detail on geography, but nothing on:
Delete:
Is the article neutral (it presents general and acknowledged views fairly and without bias)? Is the article representative of the international dimension and consolidated research about the topic? If applicable, does the article feature examples from all over the world (no localisms)? Please draft a list of what is missing with related references.
No problems with neutrality. In terms of international dimension, there is no discussion of South African exceptionalism. Racial segregation was not exceptional in the world until the aftermath of WW II. In the age of decolonization, from the 1960s, racial segregration was out of tune with developments in the rest of Africa and the world. The international solidarity campaigns against apartheid should be mentioned, as well as sanctions and boycotts.
Is the list of publications comprehensive and updated? Does it list the fundamental monographs and papers? Please provide primary/generic and secondary/original resources which need to be included and suggest the list of publications which should be removed.
Some important standard works are missing, while many references need an update. Some sources are dubious or at least not authoritative. In a number of notes, no source is given.
Missing:
Errors:
The description of Dutch settlers seems to have much more passive phrasing than the description of the British incursions.
Here's the section I'm looking at: "As they expanded east, the Dutch settlers met the southwesterly migrating Xhosa people in the region of the Fish River. A series of wars, called the Cape Frontier Wars, were fought over conflicting land and livestock interests. ... The British annexed the Cape Colony in 1806, and continued the frontier wars against the Xhosa; the British pushed the eastern frontier through a line of forts established along the Fish River and they consolidated the territory by encouraging British settlement. During the 1820s both the Boers (original Dutch, Flemish, German, and French settlers) and the British 1820 Settlers claimed land in the north and east of the country. Conflicts arose among the Xhosa, Zulu, Sotho and Boer groups who competed to expand their territories."
The Dutch "met" the Xhosa, wars "were fought", and "conflicts arose". And the Xhosa and the Dutch fought because they both had (apparently equally valid) "interests" in land and livestock. Whereas the British (actively) "continued the frontier wars", "annexed", "pushed", and "consolidated".
Were the British colonial incursions much more deliberate or militant than the Dutch colonists who worked their way inland? I am curious if the historical reality justifies this difference of phrasing. The tone of these sentences seem to avoid placing blame on the Dutch for causing the conflicts they were involved in, while the British are clearly portrayed as colonial aggressors.
-- Marticato ( talk) 22:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
South Africa has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Someone has changed the flag of South Africa to the old flag which was in place during apartheid. I believe this is an act of vandalism. Biggins1995 ( talk) 22:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
South Africa has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
DeathlyKeanan ( talk) 08:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)In the history of South Africa part I suggest that the 2016 election results are entered as they showed a fundamental shift in the politics of the country.
South Africa, officially the Republic of South Africa (RSA), is the southernmost country in Africa. It is bounded on the south by 2,798 kilometres of coastline of Southern Africa stretching along the South Atlantic and Indian Oceans,[9][10][11] on the north by the neighbouring countries of Namibia, Botswana and Zimbabwe, and on the east and northeast by Mozambique and Swaziland, and surrounding the kingdom of Lesotho.[12] South Africa is the 25th-largest country in the world by land area, and with close to 53 million people, is the world's 24th-most populous nation. It is the southernmost country on the mainland of the Old World or the Eastern Hemisphere. It is the only country that borders both the Atlantic Ocean and the Indian Ocean.[13] About 80 percent of South Africans are of Sub-Saharan African ancestry,[5] divided among a variety of ethnic groups speaking different Bantu languages, nine of which have official status.[11] The remaining population consists of Africa's largest communities of European (white), Asian (Indian), and multiracial (coloured) ancestry.
South Africa is a multiethnic society encompassing a wide variety of cultures, languages, and religions. Its pluralistic makeup is reflected in the constitution's recognition of 11 official languages, which is among the highest number of any country in the world.[11] Two of these languages are of European origin: Afrikaans developed from Dutch and serves as the first language of most white and coloured South Africans; English reflects the legacy of British colonialism, and is commonly used in public and commercial life, though it is fourth-ranked as a spoken first language.[11] The country is one of the few in Africa never to have had a coup d'état, and regular elections have been held for almost a century. However, the vast majority of black South Africans were not enfranchised until 1994. During the 20th century, the black majority sought to recover its rights from the dominant white minority, with this struggle playing a large role in the country's recent history and politics. The National Party imposed apartheid in 1948, institutionalizing previous racial segregation. After a long and sometimes violent struggle by the African National Congress and other anti-apartheid activists both inside and outside the country, discriminatory laws began to be repealed or abolished from 1990 onwards.
Since 1994, all ethnic and linguistic groups have had political representation in the country's democracy, which comprises a parliamentary republic and nine provinces. South Africa is often referred to as the "Rainbow Nation" to describe the country's newly developing multicultural diversity in the wake of segregationist apartheid ideology.[14] The World Bank classifies South Africa as an upper-middle-income economy, and a newly industrialized country.[15][16] Its economy is the second-largest in Africa, and the 34th-largest in the world.[6] In terms of purchasing power parity, South Africa has the seventh-highest per capita income in Africa. However, poverty and inequality remain widespread, with about a quarter of the population unemployed and living on less than US$1.25 a day.[17][18] Nevertheless, South Africa has been identified as a middle power in international affairs, and maintains significant regional influence.[19][20]
South Africa is also a member of BRICS and the G20. [1] [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wandaboy ( talk • contribs) 14:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
South Africa has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
South Africa has Africa's most developed economy and is a member of BRICS and the G20.
165.255.163.175 ( talk) 15:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Not done as the article already mentions BRICS and G20 - and you have not provided a
reliable source for "most developed economy" - according to the
List of African countries by GDP (nominal) it is behind Nigeria and Egypt in GDP -
Arjayay (
talk)
18:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
should we add the coat of arms in infobox, like other African countries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.40.137.202 ( talk) 11:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
In the second paragraph, there is the following sentence, "During the 20th century, the black majority sought to recover its rights from the dominant white minority...". Is recover its rights the right word choice? First, the indigenous population had had no rights before the very concept was formed by the European thinkers of the Enlightenment in the XVII-XVIII centuries. Second, they had no civilized country to exercise them even if they'd possessed them (certainly not in the British/Dutch colonies, and before that they lived in tribes). So what justifies this word choice?-- Adûnâi ( talk) 19:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Dear editors,
I would like to draw your attention to a media upload that may be of relevance to this page:
The Temminck Groll Collection consists of 2,641 historical photographs taken by the Dutch architect and architectural historian Coen Temminck Groll (1925-2015). The photos were taken in regions with which the Dutch have had historical relations, including countries in Africa, South America and Southeast Asia (see the category description for a full listing). The photos were taken during Temminck Groll's travels and study of 'shared cultural heritage' (heritage of the Netherlands located outside the country’s borders) and mainly date to the 1960s and 1970s. The photographs were digitised by the Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands and made available to Wikimedia Commons in the context of the project The Netherlands and the world. If you have any questions about this upload, or have other media requests regarding Dutch shared cultural heritage, don't hesitate to leave a message at the project page!
Kind regards, -- AWossink ( talk) 14:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
In the first map in the infobox, it says that the African Union is light blue and that Africa is "light blue & dark grey". Well, I can only see one shade of grey, which includes Spain and all of the Middle East. Am I missing something, or is this caption wrong? AtHomeIn神戸 ( talk) 08:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 24 external links on South Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.statssa.gov.za/Census2011/Products/Census_2011_Census_in_brief.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.statssa.gov.za/Census2011/Products/Census_2011_Census_in_brief.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on South Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Is there nobody that is working on the football pages in South Africa? The PSL page seems to be about two weeks behind, while the other leagues pages are even further behind, if they even exist! Please help? Freddie2016 ( talk) 14:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
These protests having going for quite a while now and should really have an article about them. Currently, we only have a redirect. Charles Essie ( talk) 22:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on South Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.csir.co.za/Built_environment/Planning_support_systems/gatedcomsa/docs/case_studies.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Please note for references: The website www.southafrica.info no longer exists. It has been amalgamated into a new site: BrandSouthAfrica.com. Redirects are in place, but some of the links don't seem to work. BrandSouthAfrica.com is a project of Brand South Africa, the South African Department of Communication's official marketing agency. Thanks! MarthaNg ( talk) 20:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
"discriminatory laws began to be repealed or abolished from 1990" - Is there some distinction? Won't one verb do? Also, given "began to be", the appropriate preposition would seem to be "in", not "from" 1990. Is this some example of regional usage or just poor English?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.210.230 ( talk) 22:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
South Africa has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I strongly suggest that all reference links to www.southafrica.info pages be replaced with links to Internet Archive/Wayback Machine pages.
The site www.southafrica.info ceased to exist at the end of 2016. Its URLS now redirect to www.brandsouthafrica.com, which is constantly updated with new images,information, etc. Any links to www.southafrica.info from 2017 onwards would be misleading and historically inaccurate.
For this article, I suggest the following replacements, to two links in the references:
[119] New era as South Africa joins BRICS https://web.archive.org/web/20110418004139/http://www.southafrica.info:80/global/brics/brics-080411.htm
[120] SA brings 'unique attributes' to BRICS https://web.archive.org/web/20110709031314/http://www.southafrica.info:80/global/brics/brics-140411.htm
[166] The languages of South Africa https://web.archive.org/web/20110304001836/http://www.southafrica.info/about/people/language.htm
Hope this makes sense. 41.193.217.7 ( talk) 00:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Why is South Africa's geographic location referenced in terms of African Union instead of Africa in the infopanel map? It would make sense if South Africa was a non-independent state or region in the country African Union (like one of the states in USA, or an administrative or other kind of region in some other country), but since that is not the case, I fail to see the significance of referring to African Union here. It would be equally ridiculous to show a country's location in the UN. The location within the continent of Africa (or in the world as opposed to within th UN), however, would make sense. 84.248.218.89 ( talk) 19:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on South Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
This protected post flies against the face of reason and HISTORY and must be removed. The Khoisan are the indigenous people in southern Africa, and are dissimilar to Bantu races literally through DNA. Khoisan haplogroup LO has been tested and proven to be over 250 000 years old, with archeology placing our people firmly in Southern Africa. The Bantu are late settlers. As our inherent human rights continued to be oppressed, our history is now also being skewed... disgusting Khoisanrevival ( talk) 06:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
A discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Africa#Should South Africa articles use "continental system" numbers? will impact this article.
A simple example would be " Table Mountain is at an elevation of 1084,6 metres" (instead of 1,084.6 metres). Batternut ( talk) 10:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
To impose or not to impose gap-separation (1234567.8 in place of 1,234,567.8) upon existing articles is now the question, at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Africa#Should existing South Africa articles be changed to use gaps as thousands separators?.
Batternut (
talk)
20:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on South Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
South Africa has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
96.19.139.172 ( talk) 18:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
The smidgeon of info on the Black Empowerment Laws in your protected, uneditable article do not mention the labor implications of unemployment for people classified by the ANC government as White. It is very difficult and in some situations, such as government work, almost impossible for a Boer to find work.
http://www.bowmanslaw.com/insights/summary-of-black-economic-empowerment-in-south-africa/
I've seen articles about German periods, and there is separate articles for the different periods of Germany like Nazi Germany, West Germany, East Germany, Weimar Republic etc. I think Wiki needs a whole new article about Apartheid South Africa. Would've been useful for historians, those who are interested in that sort of politics and so on.
Is it possible to make a country box to that article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.174.153.74 ( talk) 17:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
South Africa has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add the line next to "Nevertheless, South Africa has been identified as a middle power in international affairs, and maintains significant regional influence.": South Africa is a founding member of the United Nations, the African Union, the Non-Aligned Movement, the Southern African Development Community, BRICS and the G20. 135.23.145.14 ( talk) 21:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Should there not be a section on the ongoing killing of 10,000s of white farmers and the rising anti-white racism in the country, not to mention stealing their farmland without compensation?
I know there is a page for "racism in South Africa", but this phenomenon should be considered a major part of the country's history. The prejudice and bigotry against whites right now is arguably worse than against blacks during apartheid, which has its own section in history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jez9999 ( talk • contribs) 20:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes there should be, support my changes below this thread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin.j.fox ( talk • contribs) 02:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
South Africa has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to add this to the title summary:
Since early 2013, the left wing political party the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) has been rising in popularity with a policy of racially based land expropriation of the Afrikaner population.[25] The EFF states that the policy of land expropriation along racially discriminatory grounds is not about revenge but about dignity, the party believes that South African land belongs to the countries indigenous population and that a campaign of land redistribution will rectify a historical injustice.[26] In early 2018 the ruling African National Congress (ANC) joined the EFF in passing legislation designed to commit to an official policy of land redistribution.[27] The racial hatred being generated by the political rhetoric of the land redistribution issue has created a humanitarian crisis in the country as largely impoverished indigenous African gangs have committed increasingly terrifying attacks on white owned farms. The brutality of the attacks which have included torture, rape and murder have led to calls from other "civilized countries" to open special humanitarian streams to deal with the crisis.[28] Martin.j.fox ( talk) 02:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
The idea that Bloemfontein is the judicial capital doesn't seem to be valid post-2012, since the Supreme Court of Appeal is no longer the apex court for any matters. With Johannesburg being the seat of the Constitutional Court, which now has general appeal jurisdiction, Johannesburg could be seen as the "Judicial capital". In fact, the concept of a "judicial capital" seems flimsy, post-1994. Reliable sources are requested to support the contention that Bloemfontein is the "judicial capital", as of 2018, otherwise consideration should be given to removing it from the article. Park3r ( talk) 03:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
"Most deaths are experienced by economically active individuals" could probably be simplified. What exactly does it mean here? / Julle ( talk) 19:46, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Need help in that question Damaris Gesare ( talk) 08:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
South Africa has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
41.114.71.149 ( talk) 19:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
South Africa has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Klerksdorp is the largest City in the North West Province, not Rustenburg Jannie King ( talk) 08:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello! I have taken on said article and plan to revise it over the course of the semester. Feel free to check it out and offer any suggestions you deem fit. Natsz72 ( talk) 03:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
History The San people were the first settlers; the Khoikhoi and Bantu-speaking tribes followed. The Dutch East India Company landed the first European settlers on the Cape of Good Hope in 1652, launching a colony that by the end of the 18th century numbered only about 15,000. Known as Boers or Afrikaners, and speaking a Dutch dialect known as Afrikaans, the settlers as early as 1795 tried to establish an independent republic.
After occupying the Cape Colony in that year, Britain took permanent possession in 1815 at the end of the Napoleonic Wars, bringing in 5,000 settlers. Anglicization of government and the freeing of slaves in 1833 drove about 12,000 Afrikaners to make the “great trek” north and east into African tribal territory, where they established the republics of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State.
The discovery of diamonds in 1867 and gold nine years later brought an influx of “outlanders” into the republics and spurred Cape Colony prime minister Cecil Rhodes to plot annexation. Rhodes's scheme of sparking an “outlander” rebellion, to which an armed party under Leander Starr Jameson would ride to the rescue, misfired in 1895, forcing Rhodes to resign. What British expansionists called the “inevitable” war with the Boers broke out on Oct. 11, 1899. The defeat of the Boers in 1902 led in 1910 to the Union of South Africa, composed of four provinces, the two former republics, and the old Cape and Natal colonies. Louis Botha, a Boer, became the first prime minister. Organized political activity among Africans started with the establishment of the African National Congress in 1912. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.200.66 ( talk) 19:15, 16 March 2019 (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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
@ Htonl - this section deals with the discovery of gold and diamonds. This intensified the subjugation of the indigenous people - these indigenous people - were the Boers. The way you are making this read is that it was a racial thing? European vs Black? - This is not the case at all - it was about MONEY, weirdly enough, when money is on the table, race walks out the door... It was not about the Zulus, Not the Xhosa etc. Please read the citations added. Then: Undo your non cited and incorrect edit. (The only other indigenous people who were already subjugated, were the Griquas (as it were their diamonds) - please discuss so the slanted POV can be corrected Zarpboer ( talk) 13:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Now, to continue: my sahistory link has nothing to do with the 1903 mining taxes and I have no idea where you got that from. The paragraph in question talks about how the discovery of diamonds and gold led to the Mineral Revolution, and then goes on to talk about the effects that the Mineral Revolution had on South Africa. Let me quote which bit of the sahistory page I am referring to, just in case there is any confusion:
“ | Gold was an extremely valuable metal. It was the basis of the world's monetary system and it was also prized for jewellery. The Rand mines were the largest ever discovered anywhere in the world and represented a much greater store of wealth than even the diamond fields. The mine owners exercised considerable political power, and subsidised the governments in various ways because they needed its co-operation to provide sympathetic policing and anti-worker laws.
In this context, it was important to create a regular labour supply and to channel it to the mining centres. To induce men to go to work on the mines, the government introduced various taxes which were payable in cash. Migrant labourers helped to build the economy and prosperity of South Africa by their contribution to the gold-mining industry. Migrant labourers were neither here nor there. At work, where they spent most of their time, they were treated as sojourners whose only purpose was to market their labour to provide comfort for the townspeople. Compounds enabled mine owners to keep wages low. The capitalists were only too happy to have a workforce without the full cost of supporting workers and their families in town. The mine owners were not concerned about the domestic life of migrant labourers; neither were they interested in increasing the purchasing power of their workforce. At home, migrant workers were strangers to their families. Worse still, the household had the responsibility of shouldering the social costs of caring for the children and giving them what education they could. Fathers were often regarded as strangers by their children. Sons were compelled by tax demands to join their fathers as soon as they became 18. They were appalled by the extramarital unions their fathers had entered. The mothers, too, complained that to their husbands they were just old-age providers or even hospitals. While these remarks are truthful, the reader must be aware that the situation was beyond the control of the migrants — it was the plan of their employers to use the strength of the workers' active years. From an employer’s point of view, labour was cheap when the least possible amount was contributed to the subsistence and upkeep of the labourer. |
” |
If we were to follow your argument that that paragraph is only about the immediate consequences of the discoveries and not those of the following mining boom, then we have to exclude the alleged "subjugation" of the Boers by the British as well. After all, the discovery of gold was in 1886 and the ZAR was only "subjugated" in 1899. - htonl ( talk) 14:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
OK. Then how about we drop the "subjugation" sentence for now, and let the paragraph be:
“ | The discovery of diamonds in 1867 and gold in 1884 in the interior started the Mineral Revolution and increased economic growth and immigration. The struggle to control these important economic resources would also become a major factor in relations between white and black people, and between the Boers and the British. | ” |
? - htonl ( talk) 15:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
“ | The discovery of diamonds in 1867 and gold in 1884 in the interior started the Mineral Revolution and increased economic growth and immigration. The struggle to control these important economic resources would cause a war between the Boers, who owned the Gold and the British. Later after a lot of additional immigration, three wars, and in a different country, it would also affect the relations between white and black people. | ” |
- which is not at all encyclopedic and this needs to be dealt with - one thing at a time. It is simply confusing to make this a white vs black thing in 1869, it was first a Boer vs Brit thing and then a white vs black thing? Zarpboer ( talk) 15:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
“ | The discovery of diamonds in 1867 and gold in 1884 in the interior started the Mineral Revolution and increased economic growth and immigration into the Boer countries by both black people and other foreigners. The struggle to control these important economic resources would cause a war between the Boers, who owned the Gold and the British. Many white bywoner farmers were removed from Gold bearing property without any compensation and their families had to pack up and leave the property many of them were born on. | ” |
- Now that is factual and fair. Then, I still do want to add the Indian slaves as well. The Indian people truly suffered in this country, so did the Chinese and yes, of course, it is common cause that the black people suffered the worst. But it should all be said and reflected? Zarpboer ( talk) 10:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of South Africa's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "imf":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
@ Htonl - this section deals with the discovery of gold and diamonds. This intensified the subjugation of the indigenous people - these indigenous people - were the Boers. The way you are making this read is that it was a racial thing? European vs Black? - This is not the case at all - it was about MONEY, weirdly enough, when money is on the table, race walks out the door... It was not about the Zulus, Not the Xhosa etc. Please read the citations added. Then: Undo your non cited and incorrect edit. (The only other indigenous people who were already subjugated, were the Griquas (as it were their diamonds) - please discuss so the slanted POV can be corrected Zarpboer ( talk) 13:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Now, to continue: my sahistory link has nothing to do with the 1903 mining taxes and I have no idea where you got that from. The paragraph in question talks about how the discovery of diamonds and gold led to the Mineral Revolution, and then goes on to talk about the effects that the Mineral Revolution had on South Africa. Let me quote which bit of the sahistory page I am referring to, just in case there is any confusion:
“ | Gold was an extremely valuable metal. It was the basis of the world's monetary system and it was also prized for jewellery. The Rand mines were the largest ever discovered anywhere in the world and represented a much greater store of wealth than even the diamond fields. The mine owners exercised considerable political power, and subsidised the governments in various ways because they needed its co-operation to provide sympathetic policing and anti-worker laws.
In this context, it was important to create a regular labour supply and to channel it to the mining centres. To induce men to go to work on the mines, the government introduced various taxes which were payable in cash. Migrant labourers helped to build the economy and prosperity of South Africa by their contribution to the gold-mining industry. Migrant labourers were neither here nor there. At work, where they spent most of their time, they were treated as sojourners whose only purpose was to market their labour to provide comfort for the townspeople. Compounds enabled mine owners to keep wages low. The capitalists were only too happy to have a workforce without the full cost of supporting workers and their families in town. The mine owners were not concerned about the domestic life of migrant labourers; neither were they interested in increasing the purchasing power of their workforce. At home, migrant workers were strangers to their families. Worse still, the household had the responsibility of shouldering the social costs of caring for the children and giving them what education they could. Fathers were often regarded as strangers by their children. Sons were compelled by tax demands to join their fathers as soon as they became 18. They were appalled by the extramarital unions their fathers had entered. The mothers, too, complained that to their husbands they were just old-age providers or even hospitals. While these remarks are truthful, the reader must be aware that the situation was beyond the control of the migrants — it was the plan of their employers to use the strength of the workers' active years. From an employer’s point of view, labour was cheap when the least possible amount was contributed to the subsistence and upkeep of the labourer. |
” |
If we were to follow your argument that that paragraph is only about the immediate consequences of the discoveries and not those of the following mining boom, then we have to exclude the alleged "subjugation" of the Boers by the British as well. After all, the discovery of gold was in 1886 and the ZAR was only "subjugated" in 1899. - htonl ( talk) 14:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
OK. Then how about we drop the "subjugation" sentence for now, and let the paragraph be:
“ | The discovery of diamonds in 1867 and gold in 1884 in the interior started the Mineral Revolution and increased economic growth and immigration. The struggle to control these important economic resources would also become a major factor in relations between white and black people, and between the Boers and the British. | ” |
? - htonl ( talk) 15:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
“ | The discovery of diamonds in 1867 and gold in 1884 in the interior started the Mineral Revolution and increased economic growth and immigration. The struggle to control these important economic resources would cause a war between the Boers, who owned the Gold and the British. Later after a lot of additional immigration, three wars, and in a different country, it would also affect the relations between white and black people. | ” |
- which is not at all encyclopedic and this needs to be dealt with - one thing at a time. It is simply confusing to make this a white vs black thing in 1869, it was first a Boer vs Brit thing and then a white vs black thing? Zarpboer ( talk) 15:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
“ | The discovery of diamonds in 1867 and gold in 1884 in the interior started the Mineral Revolution and increased economic growth and immigration into the Boer countries by both black people and other foreigners. The struggle to control these important economic resources would cause a war between the Boers, who owned the Gold and the British. Many white bywoner farmers were removed from Gold bearing property without any compensation and their families had to pack up and leave the property many of them were born on. | ” |
- Now that is factual and fair. Then, I still do want to add the Indian slaves as well. The Indian people truly suffered in this country, so did the Chinese and yes, of course, it is common cause that the black people suffered the worst. But it should all be said and reflected? Zarpboer ( talk) 10:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of South Africa's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "imf":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi everybody. On behalf of the teams behind the Wikipedia Primary School research project, I would like to announce that this article was selected a while ago to be reviewed by an external expert. We'd now like to ask interested editors to join our efforts and improve the article before March 15, 2015 (any timezone) as they see fit; a revision will be then sent to the designated expert for review. Any notes and remarks written by the external expert will be made available on this page under a CC-BY-SA license as soon as possible, so that you can read them, discuss them and then decide if and how to use them. Please sign up here to let us know you're collaborating. Thanks a lot for your support! Elitre (WPS) ( talk) 15:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
What exactly is the point of having the map point out that 1 African country ( Morrocco) isn't part of the African Union? It doesn't seem particularly relevant to this article. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:C421:D27F:537:E61E ( talk) 01:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
why for some countries 'religion' is an entire section and for others such as this one it does not even exist? seriously, why the editors of Wikipedia are not a bit more professional and much less biased???
Article has some major faults, a few of which are identified as follows:
Having just read Mandela's autobiography, Long Walk to Freedom, I believe the ANC's role in establishing democracy is underrepresented in the "Republic" section of this article. I point this out only because this underrepresentation appears to be misleading, though presumably unintentional. Were it not for the efforts of Mandela and many other ANC members, the National Party would not have agreed to negotiate for democracy. Indeed, it was in response to the ANC's demonstrations and declarations that Mr. de Klerk began negotiations with Mr. Mandela. This may seem a small detail, but in representing it correctly, a more accurate history of the development of South Africa is painted. It was the ANC who spent decades directly and indirectly informing the National Party that negotiations were needed. I believe Mandela's brilliant vision and lifelong efforts (and those of many other ANC leaders) should be recognized more accurately in this section. '
In speaking of his fellow "freedom-fighters," Mandela wrote:
[T]he decades of oppression and brutality had another, unintended effect, and that was that it produced the Oliver Tambos, the Walter Sisulus, the Chief Luthulis, the Yusuf Dadoos, the Bram Fischers, the Robert Sobukwes of our time -- men of such extraordinary courage, wisdom, and generosity that their like may never be known again. Perhaps it requires such depth of oppression to create such heights of character. My country is rich in the minerals and gems that lie beneath its soil, but I have always known that its greatest wealth is its people, finer and truer than the purest diamonds (Long Walk to Freedom," p. 622).
In homage to the lives these men truly lived, I believe it is necessary to convey the understanding that the ANC led the South African people to establish democracy in the Republic of South Africa. According to Mandela's record, the ANC was the instigator of talks with the government, not the other way around.
This article reads, "Ultimately, F. W. de Klerk opened bilateral discussions with Nelson Mandela in 1993 for a transition of policies and government." While true, I believe it would be helpful to mention that it was after Mandela's request for these types of actions for many years that de Klerk did this.
The "Republic" section continues, "In 1990 the National Party government took the first step towards dismantling discrimination when it lifted the ban on the African National Congress and other political organisations. It released Nelson Mandela from prison after twenty-seven years' serving a sentence for sabotage. A negotiation process followed." Perhaps the term "took the first step" is misleading here, considering that it had been decades since the ANC had begun its first steps on the road to dismantling discrimination. It might also be useful to include here that, in 1993, Mandela, along with de Klerk, was a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, signifying their steps together toward peace.
Thank you. 67.2.90.233 ( talk) 00:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)11/27/15 Kaite Williams
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
South Africa. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
South Africa has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I just wanted to notify the editors of this page that the line: "The sailors were able to survive by obtaining fresh water and meat from the natives." found under: European colonisation.. cannot be found in the source. Nor can it be found anywhere else online at least. I'm not sure if the editor has perhaps found this somewhere else, but I'd like to see a source for this claim.
Best regards, J. Bergkamp Jasonbergkamp ( talk) 15:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 7 external links on
South Africa. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, we can read all kind of racial groups in this map except "whites" group... /info/en/?search=File:South_Africa_-_population_migrations.svg whites are only mentionned in the legend which is not the case of other groups... Is this fair ? Is this not denigrating ? Like erasing the white presence for centuries in this country ? It hurst me a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.64.198.180 ( talk) 13:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
According to the link to Statistics South Africa, in 2004 80% of the population in South Africa was black, 8% white, 8% colored and over 2% Indian.-- 83.165.178.34 ( talk) 21:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
What about Lucas Mangope? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.44.14 ( talk) 18:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi everybody. On behalf of the teams behind the Wikipedia Primary School research project, I would like to announce that this article was selected a while ago to be reviewed by an external expert. Notes and remarks written by the external expert are available on this page under a CC-BY-SA license, so that you can read them, discuss them and then decide if and how to use them. We'd like to thank Ineke Van Kessel for her work and for her helpful notes. Please sign up here to let us know you're collaborating. Thanks a lot for your support! -- Anthere ( talk) 12:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
To facilitate the editing process, I copied Ineke notes below.
Is the summary of the article a complete, thorough, and concise introduction to the topic? How do you think the summary could be improved? Which meaningful data are missing? Is there something that you find too much detailed for a general overview of the topic?
The summary is rather bland, and misses the point that apartheid South Africa was for decades isolated and almost universally criticized for its racial policies. It should include a mention of Nelson Mandela, who is without doubt the most famous (South) African. After a long and sometimes violent struggle, the transition from apartheid to an inclusive democracy was largely peaceful, against long-held expectations of a bloody racial war. This transition became known as the South African miracle, in which Mandela played a key role.
Delete: “It is the most southernmost….”at the end of the first paragraph. This is superfluous. The sentence: “since 1994, all ethnic and linguistic groups….” is somewhat misleading, as representation in parliament is not based on ethnicity or language, but on citizenship.
End note 17 should be updated, as these are figures from 2009.
Is the article properly presenting the topic for a general public? Does the article provide a complete and easy-to-navigate structure? Which paragraph would you add, unify or split into different parts? Please provide a list of suggestions. Is the article well written and understandable at a high school level?
The article is well written and clear.
Overall it is easy to navigate, but some sections belong under a different heading:
Is the article comprehensive of major facts related to the topic? Is the article adequately placing the subject in context? What does it miss? Please provide a list of topics you think should be included in the article (suggestions must be related to bibliography). Do you find that some arguments are not meaningful or representative of the topic for a general public. What should be deleted? Please explain why.
Overall, the article is fairly comprehensive and adequately contextualized. Crucial patterns in the history of South Africa would become more visible and better understandable if better use is made of some of the standard works. The author makes an excessive use of a large number of sometimes obscure sources, rather than citing authoritative standard works. This results in a sometimes haphazard sequence of important and not-so-important facts, rather than in a coherent narrative.
One could question the balance between different sections, e.g. quite a lot of detail on geography, but nothing on:
Delete:
Is the article neutral (it presents general and acknowledged views fairly and without bias)? Is the article representative of the international dimension and consolidated research about the topic? If applicable, does the article feature examples from all over the world (no localisms)? Please draft a list of what is missing with related references.
No problems with neutrality. In terms of international dimension, there is no discussion of South African exceptionalism. Racial segregation was not exceptional in the world until the aftermath of WW II. In the age of decolonization, from the 1960s, racial segregration was out of tune with developments in the rest of Africa and the world. The international solidarity campaigns against apartheid should be mentioned, as well as sanctions and boycotts.
Is the list of publications comprehensive and updated? Does it list the fundamental monographs and papers? Please provide primary/generic and secondary/original resources which need to be included and suggest the list of publications which should be removed.
Some important standard works are missing, while many references need an update. Some sources are dubious or at least not authoritative. In a number of notes, no source is given.
Missing:
Errors:
The description of Dutch settlers seems to have much more passive phrasing than the description of the British incursions.
Here's the section I'm looking at: "As they expanded east, the Dutch settlers met the southwesterly migrating Xhosa people in the region of the Fish River. A series of wars, called the Cape Frontier Wars, were fought over conflicting land and livestock interests. ... The British annexed the Cape Colony in 1806, and continued the frontier wars against the Xhosa; the British pushed the eastern frontier through a line of forts established along the Fish River and they consolidated the territory by encouraging British settlement. During the 1820s both the Boers (original Dutch, Flemish, German, and French settlers) and the British 1820 Settlers claimed land in the north and east of the country. Conflicts arose among the Xhosa, Zulu, Sotho and Boer groups who competed to expand their territories."
The Dutch "met" the Xhosa, wars "were fought", and "conflicts arose". And the Xhosa and the Dutch fought because they both had (apparently equally valid) "interests" in land and livestock. Whereas the British (actively) "continued the frontier wars", "annexed", "pushed", and "consolidated".
Were the British colonial incursions much more deliberate or militant than the Dutch colonists who worked their way inland? I am curious if the historical reality justifies this difference of phrasing. The tone of these sentences seem to avoid placing blame on the Dutch for causing the conflicts they were involved in, while the British are clearly portrayed as colonial aggressors.
-- Marticato ( talk) 22:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
South Africa has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Someone has changed the flag of South Africa to the old flag which was in place during apartheid. I believe this is an act of vandalism. Biggins1995 ( talk) 22:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
South Africa has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
DeathlyKeanan ( talk) 08:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)In the history of South Africa part I suggest that the 2016 election results are entered as they showed a fundamental shift in the politics of the country.
South Africa, officially the Republic of South Africa (RSA), is the southernmost country in Africa. It is bounded on the south by 2,798 kilometres of coastline of Southern Africa stretching along the South Atlantic and Indian Oceans,[9][10][11] on the north by the neighbouring countries of Namibia, Botswana and Zimbabwe, and on the east and northeast by Mozambique and Swaziland, and surrounding the kingdom of Lesotho.[12] South Africa is the 25th-largest country in the world by land area, and with close to 53 million people, is the world's 24th-most populous nation. It is the southernmost country on the mainland of the Old World or the Eastern Hemisphere. It is the only country that borders both the Atlantic Ocean and the Indian Ocean.[13] About 80 percent of South Africans are of Sub-Saharan African ancestry,[5] divided among a variety of ethnic groups speaking different Bantu languages, nine of which have official status.[11] The remaining population consists of Africa's largest communities of European (white), Asian (Indian), and multiracial (coloured) ancestry.
South Africa is a multiethnic society encompassing a wide variety of cultures, languages, and religions. Its pluralistic makeup is reflected in the constitution's recognition of 11 official languages, which is among the highest number of any country in the world.[11] Two of these languages are of European origin: Afrikaans developed from Dutch and serves as the first language of most white and coloured South Africans; English reflects the legacy of British colonialism, and is commonly used in public and commercial life, though it is fourth-ranked as a spoken first language.[11] The country is one of the few in Africa never to have had a coup d'état, and regular elections have been held for almost a century. However, the vast majority of black South Africans were not enfranchised until 1994. During the 20th century, the black majority sought to recover its rights from the dominant white minority, with this struggle playing a large role in the country's recent history and politics. The National Party imposed apartheid in 1948, institutionalizing previous racial segregation. After a long and sometimes violent struggle by the African National Congress and other anti-apartheid activists both inside and outside the country, discriminatory laws began to be repealed or abolished from 1990 onwards.
Since 1994, all ethnic and linguistic groups have had political representation in the country's democracy, which comprises a parliamentary republic and nine provinces. South Africa is often referred to as the "Rainbow Nation" to describe the country's newly developing multicultural diversity in the wake of segregationist apartheid ideology.[14] The World Bank classifies South Africa as an upper-middle-income economy, and a newly industrialized country.[15][16] Its economy is the second-largest in Africa, and the 34th-largest in the world.[6] In terms of purchasing power parity, South Africa has the seventh-highest per capita income in Africa. However, poverty and inequality remain widespread, with about a quarter of the population unemployed and living on less than US$1.25 a day.[17][18] Nevertheless, South Africa has been identified as a middle power in international affairs, and maintains significant regional influence.[19][20]
South Africa is also a member of BRICS and the G20. [1] [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wandaboy ( talk • contribs) 14:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
South Africa has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
South Africa has Africa's most developed economy and is a member of BRICS and the G20.
165.255.163.175 ( talk) 15:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Not done as the article already mentions BRICS and G20 - and you have not provided a
reliable source for "most developed economy" - according to the
List of African countries by GDP (nominal) it is behind Nigeria and Egypt in GDP -
Arjayay (
talk)
18:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
should we add the coat of arms in infobox, like other African countries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.40.137.202 ( talk) 11:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
In the second paragraph, there is the following sentence, "During the 20th century, the black majority sought to recover its rights from the dominant white minority...". Is recover its rights the right word choice? First, the indigenous population had had no rights before the very concept was formed by the European thinkers of the Enlightenment in the XVII-XVIII centuries. Second, they had no civilized country to exercise them even if they'd possessed them (certainly not in the British/Dutch colonies, and before that they lived in tribes). So what justifies this word choice?-- Adûnâi ( talk) 19:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Dear editors,
I would like to draw your attention to a media upload that may be of relevance to this page:
The Temminck Groll Collection consists of 2,641 historical photographs taken by the Dutch architect and architectural historian Coen Temminck Groll (1925-2015). The photos were taken in regions with which the Dutch have had historical relations, including countries in Africa, South America and Southeast Asia (see the category description for a full listing). The photos were taken during Temminck Groll's travels and study of 'shared cultural heritage' (heritage of the Netherlands located outside the country’s borders) and mainly date to the 1960s and 1970s. The photographs were digitised by the Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands and made available to Wikimedia Commons in the context of the project The Netherlands and the world. If you have any questions about this upload, or have other media requests regarding Dutch shared cultural heritage, don't hesitate to leave a message at the project page!
Kind regards, -- AWossink ( talk) 14:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
In the first map in the infobox, it says that the African Union is light blue and that Africa is "light blue & dark grey". Well, I can only see one shade of grey, which includes Spain and all of the Middle East. Am I missing something, or is this caption wrong? AtHomeIn神戸 ( talk) 08:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 24 external links on South Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.statssa.gov.za/Census2011/Products/Census_2011_Census_in_brief.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.statssa.gov.za/Census2011/Products/Census_2011_Census_in_brief.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on South Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Is there nobody that is working on the football pages in South Africa? The PSL page seems to be about two weeks behind, while the other leagues pages are even further behind, if they even exist! Please help? Freddie2016 ( talk) 14:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
These protests having going for quite a while now and should really have an article about them. Currently, we only have a redirect. Charles Essie ( talk) 22:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on South Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.csir.co.za/Built_environment/Planning_support_systems/gatedcomsa/docs/case_studies.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Please note for references: The website www.southafrica.info no longer exists. It has been amalgamated into a new site: BrandSouthAfrica.com. Redirects are in place, but some of the links don't seem to work. BrandSouthAfrica.com is a project of Brand South Africa, the South African Department of Communication's official marketing agency. Thanks! MarthaNg ( talk) 20:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
"discriminatory laws began to be repealed or abolished from 1990" - Is there some distinction? Won't one verb do? Also, given "began to be", the appropriate preposition would seem to be "in", not "from" 1990. Is this some example of regional usage or just poor English?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.210.230 ( talk) 22:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
South Africa has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I strongly suggest that all reference links to www.southafrica.info pages be replaced with links to Internet Archive/Wayback Machine pages.
The site www.southafrica.info ceased to exist at the end of 2016. Its URLS now redirect to www.brandsouthafrica.com, which is constantly updated with new images,information, etc. Any links to www.southafrica.info from 2017 onwards would be misleading and historically inaccurate.
For this article, I suggest the following replacements, to two links in the references:
[119] New era as South Africa joins BRICS https://web.archive.org/web/20110418004139/http://www.southafrica.info:80/global/brics/brics-080411.htm
[120] SA brings 'unique attributes' to BRICS https://web.archive.org/web/20110709031314/http://www.southafrica.info:80/global/brics/brics-140411.htm
[166] The languages of South Africa https://web.archive.org/web/20110304001836/http://www.southafrica.info/about/people/language.htm
Hope this makes sense. 41.193.217.7 ( talk) 00:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Why is South Africa's geographic location referenced in terms of African Union instead of Africa in the infopanel map? It would make sense if South Africa was a non-independent state or region in the country African Union (like one of the states in USA, or an administrative or other kind of region in some other country), but since that is not the case, I fail to see the significance of referring to African Union here. It would be equally ridiculous to show a country's location in the UN. The location within the continent of Africa (or in the world as opposed to within th UN), however, would make sense. 84.248.218.89 ( talk) 19:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on South Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
This protected post flies against the face of reason and HISTORY and must be removed. The Khoisan are the indigenous people in southern Africa, and are dissimilar to Bantu races literally through DNA. Khoisan haplogroup LO has been tested and proven to be over 250 000 years old, with archeology placing our people firmly in Southern Africa. The Bantu are late settlers. As our inherent human rights continued to be oppressed, our history is now also being skewed... disgusting Khoisanrevival ( talk) 06:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
A discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Africa#Should South Africa articles use "continental system" numbers? will impact this article.
A simple example would be " Table Mountain is at an elevation of 1084,6 metres" (instead of 1,084.6 metres). Batternut ( talk) 10:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
To impose or not to impose gap-separation (1234567.8 in place of 1,234,567.8) upon existing articles is now the question, at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Africa#Should existing South Africa articles be changed to use gaps as thousands separators?.
Batternut (
talk)
20:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on South Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
South Africa has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
96.19.139.172 ( talk) 18:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
The smidgeon of info on the Black Empowerment Laws in your protected, uneditable article do not mention the labor implications of unemployment for people classified by the ANC government as White. It is very difficult and in some situations, such as government work, almost impossible for a Boer to find work.
http://www.bowmanslaw.com/insights/summary-of-black-economic-empowerment-in-south-africa/
I've seen articles about German periods, and there is separate articles for the different periods of Germany like Nazi Germany, West Germany, East Germany, Weimar Republic etc. I think Wiki needs a whole new article about Apartheid South Africa. Would've been useful for historians, those who are interested in that sort of politics and so on.
Is it possible to make a country box to that article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.174.153.74 ( talk) 17:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
South Africa has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add the line next to "Nevertheless, South Africa has been identified as a middle power in international affairs, and maintains significant regional influence.": South Africa is a founding member of the United Nations, the African Union, the Non-Aligned Movement, the Southern African Development Community, BRICS and the G20. 135.23.145.14 ( talk) 21:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Should there not be a section on the ongoing killing of 10,000s of white farmers and the rising anti-white racism in the country, not to mention stealing their farmland without compensation?
I know there is a page for "racism in South Africa", but this phenomenon should be considered a major part of the country's history. The prejudice and bigotry against whites right now is arguably worse than against blacks during apartheid, which has its own section in history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jez9999 ( talk • contribs) 20:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes there should be, support my changes below this thread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin.j.fox ( talk • contribs) 02:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
South Africa has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to add this to the title summary:
Since early 2013, the left wing political party the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) has been rising in popularity with a policy of racially based land expropriation of the Afrikaner population.[25] The EFF states that the policy of land expropriation along racially discriminatory grounds is not about revenge but about dignity, the party believes that South African land belongs to the countries indigenous population and that a campaign of land redistribution will rectify a historical injustice.[26] In early 2018 the ruling African National Congress (ANC) joined the EFF in passing legislation designed to commit to an official policy of land redistribution.[27] The racial hatred being generated by the political rhetoric of the land redistribution issue has created a humanitarian crisis in the country as largely impoverished indigenous African gangs have committed increasingly terrifying attacks on white owned farms. The brutality of the attacks which have included torture, rape and murder have led to calls from other "civilized countries" to open special humanitarian streams to deal with the crisis.[28] Martin.j.fox ( talk) 02:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
The idea that Bloemfontein is the judicial capital doesn't seem to be valid post-2012, since the Supreme Court of Appeal is no longer the apex court for any matters. With Johannesburg being the seat of the Constitutional Court, which now has general appeal jurisdiction, Johannesburg could be seen as the "Judicial capital". In fact, the concept of a "judicial capital" seems flimsy, post-1994. Reliable sources are requested to support the contention that Bloemfontein is the "judicial capital", as of 2018, otherwise consideration should be given to removing it from the article. Park3r ( talk) 03:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
"Most deaths are experienced by economically active individuals" could probably be simplified. What exactly does it mean here? / Julle ( talk) 19:46, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Need help in that question Damaris Gesare ( talk) 08:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
South Africa has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
41.114.71.149 ( talk) 19:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
South Africa has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Klerksdorp is the largest City in the North West Province, not Rustenburg Jannie King ( talk) 08:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello! I have taken on said article and plan to revise it over the course of the semester. Feel free to check it out and offer any suggestions you deem fit. Natsz72 ( talk) 03:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
History The San people were the first settlers; the Khoikhoi and Bantu-speaking tribes followed. The Dutch East India Company landed the first European settlers on the Cape of Good Hope in 1652, launching a colony that by the end of the 18th century numbered only about 15,000. Known as Boers or Afrikaners, and speaking a Dutch dialect known as Afrikaans, the settlers as early as 1795 tried to establish an independent republic.
After occupying the Cape Colony in that year, Britain took permanent possession in 1815 at the end of the Napoleonic Wars, bringing in 5,000 settlers. Anglicization of government and the freeing of slaves in 1833 drove about 12,000 Afrikaners to make the “great trek” north and east into African tribal territory, where they established the republics of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State.
The discovery of diamonds in 1867 and gold nine years later brought an influx of “outlanders” into the republics and spurred Cape Colony prime minister Cecil Rhodes to plot annexation. Rhodes's scheme of sparking an “outlander” rebellion, to which an armed party under Leander Starr Jameson would ride to the rescue, misfired in 1895, forcing Rhodes to resign. What British expansionists called the “inevitable” war with the Boers broke out on Oct. 11, 1899. The defeat of the Boers in 1902 led in 1910 to the Union of South Africa, composed of four provinces, the two former republics, and the old Cape and Natal colonies. Louis Botha, a Boer, became the first prime minister. Organized political activity among Africans started with the establishment of the African National Congress in 1912. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.200.66 ( talk) 19:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)