![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
I am currently writing an article on the British concentration camps in South Africa for Wikipédia in Fr. I am looking for RECENT references in English about the black /native concentration camps that were usually built alongside the boer concentration camps. Also for pictures figuring people of African black and or coloured ascent IN the boer camps or in the native / black camps. I know some dutch, so I think I could grasp information in afrikaans if needed. I wouldn't be interested in information about the boer concentration camp experience in afrikaans, as I already have a lot of documentation about it. However, as it seems there is so little information about the African experience of british concentration camps, I am willing to put the extra effort on this, should I have to look up word by word.
Also the memory of black/coloured victims has been much erased, I know that in some South African towns, memorials for the black victims of the Boer war and the black concentration camps have been erected since the end of apartheid. Any picture of such a memorial or a link to existing pictures on wikimedia commons would be much appreciated.
I know this isn't the right place to ask for such information. I must say I have almost never contributed to the English version of Wikipedia and I am quite lost here. I am also unfamiliar to wikimedia commons. So if anyone would be kind enough to help me one way or another, I'd really appreciate.
Braveheidi ( talk) 21:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I don't feel very comfortable with the presence of "ethnic" stats in the column on the right of the page of this article. It sounds to me like a continuation of Apartheid classification of people. For example, what about people coming from a mix of origins and cultures? What is their place in these stats? I don't mean that the people who wrote the article were ill-minded, I supposed they just wanted to express the diversity of this country. Maybe there would be another way of doing it, for example by explaining the various geographical origins of the people and by developping the subject "culture", giving a wider view on the cultural diversity in South-Africa.
Actually, the whole article feels to me quite "racialised", with a focus on only two main groups, the "blacks" and the "whites" (see for example under the title "culture"). Would it be possible to speak about the people in another way than the colour of their skin? People whoses ancestors came from India or Malaysia (for example), have probably also a very rich culture, worth to be mentionned, and I am sure that the South-African melting-pot produces some unique and very interesting cultural products as consequence of bringing together ways and ideas from different cultures.
Thank you for having read this. All of the best to the writers. 2A02:1811:D35:5600:C8B9:DC85:22DD:89C2 ( talk) 09:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Have changed the paragraph implying that the Dutch Republiek van Zuid-Afrika was the official name of South Africa until 1984. International codes such as .za (internet domain name) etc. retained and still retain the Dutch abbreviation to avoid confusion with Saudi Arabia (.sa), but since its formation in 1961 the Republic of South Africa has been nothing but die Republiek van Suid-Afrika in Afrikaans. See South African postage stamps of those times to begin with. It was never Republiek van Zuid-Afrika (which was the old name in the 1800s of the later colony of Transvaal and the province of Transvaal thereafter). I myself have been living in South Africa since 1939 and find the notion that we were living in the Dutch Republiek van Zuid-Afrika up to the nineteen-eighties laughable. Mieliestronk ( talk) 20:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
South Africa has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
South Africa isn't a country it is a region so I request you fix this ASAP for educational purposes. Thanks. 2600:1700:AF50:24A0:359E:D4B:9590:E989 ( talk) 19:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
A discussion has begun at Talk:Bantu peoples in South Africa#Name on whether the name is appropriate and if not, can a better name be found. -- Red King ( talk) 13:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion, the 'Notes' tab should be removed from the article if there are no notes in it as in my opinion it is pointless to have an empty tab in the article. Xboxsponge15 ( talk) 10:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
In the second sentence of the article, it is stated that South Africa "covers an area of 1,221,037 kilometres (758,717 mi)". Area is a dimensionful quantity, with dimension [Length]2 and hence cannot be measured in units of kilometres, which are used to measure quantities of dimension length. In other words, 1 221 037 kilometres (758 717 miles) is a distance or length, not an area. The standard metric units for country surface area is square kilometres, with square miles as an Imperial equivalent. The conversion factor to square miles is approximately 1.62=2.56 and not 1.6, so the approximate area in square miles is 471,445 sq mi. These correct quantities are stated in the sidebar and the Geography section, but urgently need to be corrected in the initial paragraph. Cnrwilste004 ( talk) 10:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
South Africa has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the clause "covers an area of 1,221,037 kilometres (758,717 mi)" to "covers an area of 1,221,037 km2 (471,445 sq mi)" or something equivalent. See my comments above for details on why. Thank you in advance. Cnrwilste004 ( talk) 13:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
The article generally---and specifically the introduction---has a definite bias and focus on European perspectives and a disproportionate (relative to the demographic distribution outlined in the article) focus on matters of interest to or related to the South African population of European decent. As a white South African myself, I am not well-placed to address this problem, but a more representative description and discussion is required to ensure the article does not contribute to perpetuating existing misrepresentations of South Africa and South Africans or to continued inequality and marginalisation of the majority of South Africa's population. Cnrwilste004 ( talk) 14:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Me and
Tumi Rad have been involved in a dispute over the sentence About 80% of South Africans are of Bantu ancestry, divided among a variety of ethnic groups speaking different African languages.
User Tumi Rad feels the term Bantu
should be substituted with "African". My opinion, About 80% of South Africans are of Bantu ancestry...
is accurate because the
Khoisan are indigenous to Africa, yet today they are classed under the term "Coloured". Also, the lead of
Khoisan reads Khoisan...is a catch-all term for the "non-Bantu" indigenous peoples of Southern Africa...
. Maybe
Discott can help?
Lefcentreright
Discuss
21:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I thought about it and changed it to Black African ancestry
since it was the term used in the 2011 census.
Lefcentreright
Discuss
23:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Black African ancestryis most likely the best alternative unless you can find something more specific to Black African ancestry in Southern Africa generally. The term "African" to refer to black South Africans specifically is problematic as it implicitly excludes other South Africans from the identity of being from, or connected deeply to, Africa. Similar, for example, to describing only white people in a European country as "Europeans" thereby excluding non-white Europeans from being considered "Europeans".-- Discott ( talk) 09:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Lefcentreright, Park3r, Cool gamer24, and Elinor.Dashwood: the dispute about Bloemfontein's status as the judicial capital has been playing itself out over various different pages and I think it's time we had a discussion. If I may summarise, the question appears to be: given the changed structure of the courts post-1994, and particularly given the changes of the Seventeenth Amendment of the Constitution, is it still right to call Bloemfontein the judicial capital of South Africa?
My view is: it is not. The Seventeenth Amendment declares that, "The Chief Justice is the head of the judiciary," and the Chief Justice has his seat at the Constitutional Court in Johannesburg. Therefore Johannesburg is the judicial capital of the country. If Parliament were moved from Cape Town to some other city, we would not still call Cape Town the legislative capital. There is not, in fact, any law that defines the capital(s) of the country; you can search the text of the Constitution and the only mention of capitals is in section 42(6): "The seat of Parliament is Cape Town...". The claims for Bloemfontein as judicial capital are based on a historical situation that no longer applies. - htonl ( talk) 15:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Capitals Pretoria (administrative) Cape Town (legislative) Bloemfontein (judicial) The Constitutional Court is located in Johannesburg.?
South Africa currently has three main capital cities – Pretoria as the administrative capital, and Cape Town as the legislative capital. Bloemfontein acts as the judicial capital of the country.
Three cities serve as capitals of the country– Pretoria (executive), Cape Town (legislative), and Bloemfontein (judicial).
Thanks for trying to mediate @ htonl - but just as a legal aside not all cases can be taken to the Constitutional Court on appeal; therefore the SCA is still the highest law in the land for cases where no constitutional arguments can be made. In this case the Government's own official website should be taken into account - https://www.gov.za/about-sa/south-africas-provinces.-- Elinor.Dashwood ( talk) 16:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't think the Seventeenth Amendment is relevant here. I have checked a broad swathe of SA government and foreign government sources (some of which are cited above) and found they all describe Bloemfontein as the judicial capital. I suspect that this is a purely symbolic designation, and that the designation is not affected by the Supreme Court of Appeals or its status at all. Since it appears in all the official sources it does not strike me as an informal designation (such as Johannesburg being the financial capital city). It is probably a symbolic designation assigned to it in a law at some point, possibly a very old one. It is not unusual for capital cities to be symbolic - the capital of the Netherlands is Amsterdam even though every single function of a capital city is actually based in another city, The Hague. It is an entirely symbolic designation. I suspect that the same goes for Bloemfontein, and that it would probably count as judicial capital even if the Supreme Court of Appeal were to be moved!
What is interesting though is that I could not find a single reference as to why it is the judicial capital. I don't mean the history behind the decision, which is well-known, but the actual legislation designating the capital cities of South Africa. Surely there must be some law on the books somewhere? I spent a good hour looking and NONE of the sources, including the government sources and an academic article, cited any such law. Could it be that @ Park3r: is right? I feel not because of the abundance of government documents calling Bloemfontein a capital, but could it be that the government just sort of...forgot? It would be nice to have the actual law to cite. If somebody could find this that would be very useful! Francoisdjvr ( talk) 18:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Cape Town (legislative), Pretoria (administrative), Bloemfontein (judicial) and Pietermaritzburg (archival). From 1994 to 2004, KwaZulu-Natal legally had two capitals ( Pietermaritzburg and Ulundi). Ulundi was just a ceremonial capital with no real power (legislature, premier's seat and the high court has always been in Pietermaritzburg). The KZN provincial government later dropped the dual-capital status due to Uundi's lack of proper infrastructure. The government says we have three capitals, then so be it. It has been said so on the government website (which has been cited), so it shouldn't be disputed. Johannesburg has been referred to as the provincial capital city of Gauteng and NOT a capital of South Africa, despite it being the seat of the Constitutional Court of South Africa, the highest national court. The source that Park3r is not reliable because it is written like an opinion piece. For instance,
Apartheid policies stigmatised the Appeal Court and, as we argue in this paper, the stigma rubbed off on Bloemfontein.How is that academic? Also, the paper does not even correctly say how many capitals the Union of South Africa had. It says it only had three, which is incorrect because it had four. Best, Lefcentreright Discuss 19:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
18. Save as in section twenty-three excepted, Pretoria shall be the seat of Government of the Union.
23. Capetown shall be the seat of the Legislature of the Union.
109. The Appellate Division shall sit in Bloemfontein, but may from time to time for the convenience of suitors hold its sittings at other places within the Union.
46. (1) The National Assembly shall sit at the Houses of Parliament in Cape Town, unless [...]
53. (1) The Senate shall sit at the Houses of Parliament in Cape Town, unless [...]
106. (1) The seat of the Constitutional Court shall be Johannesburg.
(2) The seat of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court shall be Bloemfontein.
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Saffa. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 25#Saffa until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Soumya-8974
talk
contribs
subpages
15:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
South Africa has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the 32th to 32nd on the GDP part of the statistics table. Metalphnx ( talk) 11:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I was very surprised to not find the words ordentlikheid and ordentlik in the English or even the Afrikaans Wiktionary since they are or were used very often and in very multifaceted ways in South Africa. Here and here are detailed discussions of the very important social situations they describe and that are determined by them. These terms are or were apparently often used in English too, very similar to the use of apartheid in English.
It's just as surprising that there is not even a single paragraph on ordentlikheid in either the Afrikaans or English Wikipedias.
The main reason i looked for these terms in Wiktionary and Wikipedia is because i heard that they don't or no longer exist in Dutch, but then they should be mentioned as older forms of Dutch. -- Espoo ( talk) 07:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
South Africaà. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 22#South Africaà until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Hog Farm
Talk
17:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
As I am going through the article as a whole in order to {lang} tag as much as I can, I've noticed some things. I'm not great at dedicated effort to improve the actual content of articles, so I'm listing them here in order for these not to disappear into the recesses of my brain.
I need to go do something else now. I'll update this post when I return to lang tagging the article. -- Xurizuri ( talk) 08:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Anyone think there should be separate article for 1961-1994 South Africa? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theasiancowboy ( talk • contribs) 15:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
South Africa has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2607:9880:2068:A9:F8E7:B97D:DD86:FD01 ( talk) 19:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Ijnvbv
![]() | This
edit request to
South Africa has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the driving side to right. South Africans do not drive on the left. Giggleknacks ( talk) 12:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Please fix Giggleknacks ( talk) 12:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
South Africa has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change second-largest economy in Africa to third-largest. Egypt is now the second-largest economy. Also now the 41st largest economy in place of 32nd. source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1120999/gdp-of-african-countries-by-country/ Suffy69 ( talk) 09:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
the map of the provinces of South Africa still says Swaziland on it, where it should say Eswatini. DirkJandeGeer ( talk) 12:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Many Maps haven't adapted to the new name. Maybe later in the future. PASTOR11 ( talk) 20:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
81.105.95.101 ( talk) 20:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC) constitution says two thirds majority and we can change a name. We have that and changed it.
When is everyone getting injections West Africa ( talk) 10:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I mean like why can't children get injections as well West Africa ( talk) 10:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
The talk pages are to improve the page, not general discussions ShivanshPlays1 ( talk) 23:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't think so Moeketsi Nkhahle ( talk) 22:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Nothing about the iconography of the flag? Why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.157.18 ( talk) 13:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
South Africa is also part of the African Union (AU) where it's also part of AfCFTA, Southern African Customs Union (SACU), Common Monetary Area (CMA), and the Southern African Development Community (SADC). Editor8601 ( talk) 13:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
The current population of South Africa is about 55 million, or (according to the Wikipedia page) 51.7 million (2011 census) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matievisthekat ( talk • contribs) 10:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2018 and 22 December 2018. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Arthurlaw21.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 09:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2018 and 22 December 2018. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Lenapd.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 09:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Literacy rate uses data from 2007, when there is more recent data from the World Bank. Into references a book saying quality of life has improved significantly after apartheid - this should be caveated with the fact that since 2010 progress has stalled/reversed (see poverty rates, literacy rates, etc), and this should be added to relevant sections too. This information is widely available but doesn't make it into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.26.32.154 ( talk) 12:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Port Elizabeth's new name is Gqeberha and should be changed on this page. NCLUE ( talk) 16:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Different types of droughts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:2880:32FF:76:0:0:FACE:B00C ( talk) 10:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
PL answer my question 41.114.47.115 ( talk) 06:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Explain the change were made in this public holidays 24September 41.113.198.213 ( talk) 07:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
South Africa has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change eastern cape population 2020 from 6,734.000 to 6,734,000 195.249.78.90 ( talk) 10:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
For my school project 197.184.179.21 ( talk) 19:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I have decided to not get into bigger problems I have decided to take the right way, before making an edit I want to reach a consensus. As you saw in the history of the page I wanted to put the official languages in order of native speakers, Zulu is the most widely spoken language in South Africa, so I wanted to put it like this. But the problem arose when a user named Canterbury Tail told me that I don't have to link the dialect just as the language [[South African English|English]], more information is in this reply, I obeyed those policies just as seen here, but then the user Moxy reverted my edit, and then on my discussion page he told me everything to the contrary that I should put the languages of a country like this: [[Canadian English|English]] when he did not see on my discussion page that they told me not to do that, there is another way to do it and apply it, the worst thing is that he reported me when I was only following a policy and now at this moment I am too, too confused. So please tell me how I have to put the languages in the official languages section: like this [[South African English|English]]? Or just like this [[English language|English]]? How is it then? Do I put the dialect as just the language or do I just put the language and that's it? TheEncyclopediaReader Contact me! :) 18:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
@ EuKoketsolion and Desertambition: How about describing South Africa as a regional state (or regionalised unitary state) in the infobox? It splits the difference quite nicely between federal and unitary, neither of which entirely fits South Africa. - htonl ( talk) 21:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @Hlonl, thanks for the above. Let me prepare my response in favour of SA being more of federation vs it being a unitary state. Let's not forget that 8 provinces are run by the ANC, who believe in a command structure as a form of governance. And feel like the WC has no political will to run itself as a federal unit. EuKoketsolion ( talk) 17:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
In terms of section 1 of the constitution it is "one state". The provinces. Section 104 clearly limits the authority of the provinces. ( The relevant schedules) MoHaG ( talk) 09:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
South Africa is a federation made of 9 provinces with their own prime ministers (premiers), and legislators. And have a great deal of powers that are independent, the constitution states that national, provincial and local are unique. If the provinces (which are all governed by the ANC) pushes really hard you'd find that they have policing powers, power to set up their own education systems, and in a limited form, raise their own taxes. SA is more of a stunted federation then a devolved unitary state in the sense that the existance, powers of provinces are enshrined in the consitituon and can't be taken away without a two thirds majority vs the UK where the powers of England and other countries can be taken away with changes to the constitution.
Here's some reading materials.
https://www.oecd.org/regional/regional-policy/profile-South-Africa.pdf
https://www.gov.za/documents/constitution/chapter-3-co-operative-government EuKoketsolion ( talk) 17:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
I want to do an assignment of Life Orientation for grade 12 41.114.176.173 ( talk) 02:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
No mention of this? Jokem ( talk) 22:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
I’ve raised this before, but there was no consensus a few years ago and some editors felt very strongly about this issue, so I deferred to the then lack of appetite for change. The lede currently states: *executive, judicial and legislative branches of government based in Pretoria, Bloemfontein and Cape Town respectively.”
The problem is that the evidence of Bloemfontein being the “judicial capital”, which was always surprisingly scant, is now wholly dubious. Is the judicial branch “based” in Bloemfontein? In what sense? The Supreme Court of Appeal is not the highest court in any respect and hasn’t been for some years. The Constitutional Court is based in Johannesburg, and is the highest court in all matters. The Chief Justice is the head of the Constitutional Court, and is based in Johannesburg. If anything Johannesburg is the “judicial capital” (although it would be WP:SYNTH to put that in the article, and I wouldn’t).
There was little objection, however, to the location of the new Constitutional Court in Johannesburg, a move which stripped Bloemfontein of its judicial capital status [6]
If we were to find more reliable sources that disprove the idea that Bloemfontein is the “judicial capital”, would editors be amenable to changing it? To me it feels like a rusted-on factoid, that partly exists because of WP:CIRCULAR references, including possibly from South African “offical” government sites that may not qualify as WP:RS. Park3r ( talk) 22:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
South Africa has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
An additional colloquial demonym for South Africans in Saffa 41.13.129.142 ( talk) 18:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
I think that the transfer to black majority rule should not be in the box labeled 'independence from the United Kingdom'. South Africa became completely independent of the United Kingdom de jure and de facto in 1961. The transfer to black majority rule had nothing to do with independence from the Kingdom. RegrettingMistakes777 ( talk) 20:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm unsure of the inclusion of this for the dual reasons that the implementation of apartheid isn't mentioned and that it could perhaps be combined with "democratisation". Any thoughts? Regards, thorpewilliam ( talk) 03:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Semi protected means I can’t edit, and the article needs fixing. for example official languages of the Republic are Sepedi, Sesotho, Setswana, siSwati, Tshivenda, Xitsonga, Afrikaans, English, isiNdebele, isiXhosa and isiZulu.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.95.101 ( talk) 20:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Why there no military information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.114.64.150 ( talk) 10:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
South Africa has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
both this wiki and tanzania's state they are the most populous country located entirely south of the equator. my guess is this wiki is wrong, since South Africa's population is 60 million, whereas Tanzania's is 63 million. 2A02:8109:ABBF:B1E8:7C1A:82C:F138:C1EB ( talk) 23:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
South Africa currently has an electrical generating total of 51,309 megawatts (MW). This electricity is comprised of 46,776 MW from thermal sources including coal, petroleum, natural gas, and nuclear 661 MW generated by hydroelectric, and 3,872 MW from other renewable sources including solar and wind. Around 86% of South Africans currently have access to electricity, 66% from rural and 93% of urban households. This accounts to nearly 2.2 million households without power. [1]
Coal is the most used source of generating electricity in South Africa accounting for around 77% of the current electricity production. Coal in South Africa has 5 companies that account for 85% of the production of saleable coal and these companies include Ingwe Collieries Limited, Anglo Coal, Sasol, Eyesizwe, and Kumba Resources Limited. [2] Coal is an abundant resource in South Africa and the reason why coal has a such a low cost of production for energy per MW. South Africa is also the the worlds 7th largest exporter of coal most of which is exported to other African countries. [3] Within South Africa’s 2030 Energy Plan there is the goal of only increasing production of electricity from coal by 1000 MW and decreasing the countries usage of coal for energy down to 46% of total energy consumption. [4]
South Africa first began using nuclear energy in the 1980s when it constructed a nuclear power station. Within South Africa there are a considerable amount of uranium deposits and therefore has the capability to use nuclear energy more than the current consumption of around 6% of the country’s energy needs. [5] Minister Jeff Radebe has come out in support of no increase in nuclear generating electricity within the country until the year 2030 when it will be reevaluated against current needs. This is a change in action as the former President Jacob Zuma had been pushing for the construction of eight new nuclear power generating stations. For South Africa’s 2030 Energy Plan Nuclear is projected to only represent 2% of energy production. [4]
South Africa is currently under-utilizing it's solar capacity. South Africa has an estimated 220 W/m2 capability compared to 150 W/m2 in US and 100 W/m2 in Europe. South Africa is an ideal candidate for the wide spread use of photovoltaic cells as a form of generating the electrical needs of the country. [6] A new contract for $4.7 billion dollars allocated to 27 different projects consisting of mainly solar and wind projects that hope to increase current production of electricity through renewable sources. [7] With the increase in spending to renewable sources South Africa's 2030 Energy Plan is projected to increase solar production to 11% of the countries energy needs and increase wind production to 15% of the countries energy needs. [4] South Africa has over 30 installed wind energy projects and the most dominant reason comes from the Renewable Energy Independent Power Producers Procurement Programme. With these Programmes of wind energy they have created an estimated 30,000 jobs total in construction and operation of the onshore wind farms. [8]
South Africa has made changes to future goals for energy sources and has committed itself to 36% of energy production coming from fully renewable sources of solar, wind, and electric power. In the goal is to lower the reliance upon coal as a source of energy for the country from producing 77% to producing 46% of the countries electrical needs. [4]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurlaw21 ( talk • contribs) 00:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
The source for South Africa's National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (149), links to Cameroon's Biodiversity Status Strategy and Action Plan. 78.158.238.239 ( talk) 15:11, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
SouthAfrica and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 4#SouthAfrica until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Steel1943 (
talk)
20:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 10:53, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
I feel that recent additions to the article give undue weight to opinion pieces that are not backed up by fact and are not made by particularly noteworthy people. BazingaMan455 ( talk) 02:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Some input on this would be highly appreciated. Thanks. M.Bitton ( talk) 20:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be "coastline that stretches" instead of "coastline that stretch" in the opening paragraph? Allonb77 ( talk) 06:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
South Africa has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I saw some missing things such us Pretoria, the seat of the executive. Someone forgot the branch in the sentence. Latteoctober ( talk) 06:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
South Africa has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
102.157.222.109 ( talk) 17:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Languages with specific status : Spanish
This is undoubtedly going to be a very notable and potentially controversial change, but I feel as if it is improper for there to not be a separate article on Apartheid-era South Africa and modern day South Africa. By not having a separate article, crucial details about Apartheid-era South Africa lack a central place for them to be explored, such as foreign policy, economic policy, and the differing demographic makeup of the nation at the time. I am aware that the article Apartheid exists, however, Apartheid refers only to the racial policy and segregated nature of the regime. It's like not having an article on Nazi Germany because Racial policy of Nazi Germany and Nuremberg Laws exist.
Although they are both the same geographic country and have the same official name (which doesn't disqualify a separate article, South Korea has a separate article for each government between 1948 and 1987 and it was always called the "Republic of Korea"), they are entirely and completely different in many aspects, such as:
Ultimately, I propose that by creating a new article for the defunct state of Apartheid South Africa would be entirely warranted in encyclopedic terms and also be immensely helpful for anyone who wants to understand the differences of modern South Africa and that of the previous era. I would argue that Wikipedia already has separate "former state" articles already for much more minor changes in governance- e.g. Second Czechoslovak Republic- and that its wrong to not have one for what is arguably one of the most distinct entities of the Cold War contrasted to now. My proposed title for this new article would be Republic of South Africa (1961 - 1994), but of course this could be changed. I am eager to hear everyone's opinions on this matter. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 17:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. I just generally support this idea because it splits the racist state from the modern day South Africa. Patriciogetsongettingridofhiswiki ( talk) 04:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC) Disagree, I would rather us have a page speaking about the apartheid South Africa, and indicate in the article that there is a separate page concerning apartheid South Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mthunzi Mapatwana ( talk • contribs) 17:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
By way of analogy; there is one main article about the United States of America. It is not split into seperate articles for pre-civil war and post-civil war, or split every time a constitutional amendment was enacted. There are of course a variety of articles about all these historic topics, but nobody has suggested entirely seperate "main root articles" for the different eras of the US's history. We must have an all-encompassing "main root" summary/overview article about South Africa, and this one is it. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 09:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
There are two conflicting sentences, where it describes life in South Africa having been significantly improved in the opening paragraph, while in the most recent History section, South Africa is mentioned as being a failed state. There ought to be a mention about failed state status in the opening paragraph. 2601:647:4000:12E0:C5FE:7A13:71B3:969E ( talk) 07:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
South Africa has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The population density is noted as "169th", yet the reference link lists South Africa as 137th, I believe that 137th is the correct number. Paul Mad Stephenson ( talk) 09:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
South Africa has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The South African date format is dd/mm/yyyy and not reversed as stated 2607:FB91:966:CDCD:89F3:4A7C:6BAE:6B52 ( talk) 15:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
The Mfecane period was a key point in South African history. Shouldn't there be a subsection summarising what happened? EuKoketsolion ( talk) 14:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
British colonial authorities held significant racial biases against the indiginous population of South Africa as the colonizers took further control of economic resources (Cunynghame 1879). Source: Cunynghame, Arthur Thurlon. 1879. My Command in South Africa. 1874-1878. Comprising Experiences of Travel in the Colonies of South Africa and the Independent States. Macmillan and Co. Sunday morning121 ( talk) 13:51, 21 November 2023 (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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
I am currently writing an article on the British concentration camps in South Africa for Wikipédia in Fr. I am looking for RECENT references in English about the black /native concentration camps that were usually built alongside the boer concentration camps. Also for pictures figuring people of African black and or coloured ascent IN the boer camps or in the native / black camps. I know some dutch, so I think I could grasp information in afrikaans if needed. I wouldn't be interested in information about the boer concentration camp experience in afrikaans, as I already have a lot of documentation about it. However, as it seems there is so little information about the African experience of british concentration camps, I am willing to put the extra effort on this, should I have to look up word by word.
Also the memory of black/coloured victims has been much erased, I know that in some South African towns, memorials for the black victims of the Boer war and the black concentration camps have been erected since the end of apartheid. Any picture of such a memorial or a link to existing pictures on wikimedia commons would be much appreciated.
I know this isn't the right place to ask for such information. I must say I have almost never contributed to the English version of Wikipedia and I am quite lost here. I am also unfamiliar to wikimedia commons. So if anyone would be kind enough to help me one way or another, I'd really appreciate.
Braveheidi ( talk) 21:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I don't feel very comfortable with the presence of "ethnic" stats in the column on the right of the page of this article. It sounds to me like a continuation of Apartheid classification of people. For example, what about people coming from a mix of origins and cultures? What is their place in these stats? I don't mean that the people who wrote the article were ill-minded, I supposed they just wanted to express the diversity of this country. Maybe there would be another way of doing it, for example by explaining the various geographical origins of the people and by developping the subject "culture", giving a wider view on the cultural diversity in South-Africa.
Actually, the whole article feels to me quite "racialised", with a focus on only two main groups, the "blacks" and the "whites" (see for example under the title "culture"). Would it be possible to speak about the people in another way than the colour of their skin? People whoses ancestors came from India or Malaysia (for example), have probably also a very rich culture, worth to be mentionned, and I am sure that the South-African melting-pot produces some unique and very interesting cultural products as consequence of bringing together ways and ideas from different cultures.
Thank you for having read this. All of the best to the writers. 2A02:1811:D35:5600:C8B9:DC85:22DD:89C2 ( talk) 09:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Have changed the paragraph implying that the Dutch Republiek van Zuid-Afrika was the official name of South Africa until 1984. International codes such as .za (internet domain name) etc. retained and still retain the Dutch abbreviation to avoid confusion with Saudi Arabia (.sa), but since its formation in 1961 the Republic of South Africa has been nothing but die Republiek van Suid-Afrika in Afrikaans. See South African postage stamps of those times to begin with. It was never Republiek van Zuid-Afrika (which was the old name in the 1800s of the later colony of Transvaal and the province of Transvaal thereafter). I myself have been living in South Africa since 1939 and find the notion that we were living in the Dutch Republiek van Zuid-Afrika up to the nineteen-eighties laughable. Mieliestronk ( talk) 20:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
South Africa has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
South Africa isn't a country it is a region so I request you fix this ASAP for educational purposes. Thanks. 2600:1700:AF50:24A0:359E:D4B:9590:E989 ( talk) 19:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
A discussion has begun at Talk:Bantu peoples in South Africa#Name on whether the name is appropriate and if not, can a better name be found. -- Red King ( talk) 13:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion, the 'Notes' tab should be removed from the article if there are no notes in it as in my opinion it is pointless to have an empty tab in the article. Xboxsponge15 ( talk) 10:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
In the second sentence of the article, it is stated that South Africa "covers an area of 1,221,037 kilometres (758,717 mi)". Area is a dimensionful quantity, with dimension [Length]2 and hence cannot be measured in units of kilometres, which are used to measure quantities of dimension length. In other words, 1 221 037 kilometres (758 717 miles) is a distance or length, not an area. The standard metric units for country surface area is square kilometres, with square miles as an Imperial equivalent. The conversion factor to square miles is approximately 1.62=2.56 and not 1.6, so the approximate area in square miles is 471,445 sq mi. These correct quantities are stated in the sidebar and the Geography section, but urgently need to be corrected in the initial paragraph. Cnrwilste004 ( talk) 10:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
South Africa has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the clause "covers an area of 1,221,037 kilometres (758,717 mi)" to "covers an area of 1,221,037 km2 (471,445 sq mi)" or something equivalent. See my comments above for details on why. Thank you in advance. Cnrwilste004 ( talk) 13:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
The article generally---and specifically the introduction---has a definite bias and focus on European perspectives and a disproportionate (relative to the demographic distribution outlined in the article) focus on matters of interest to or related to the South African population of European decent. As a white South African myself, I am not well-placed to address this problem, but a more representative description and discussion is required to ensure the article does not contribute to perpetuating existing misrepresentations of South Africa and South Africans or to continued inequality and marginalisation of the majority of South Africa's population. Cnrwilste004 ( talk) 14:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Me and
Tumi Rad have been involved in a dispute over the sentence About 80% of South Africans are of Bantu ancestry, divided among a variety of ethnic groups speaking different African languages.
User Tumi Rad feels the term Bantu
should be substituted with "African". My opinion, About 80% of South Africans are of Bantu ancestry...
is accurate because the
Khoisan are indigenous to Africa, yet today they are classed under the term "Coloured". Also, the lead of
Khoisan reads Khoisan...is a catch-all term for the "non-Bantu" indigenous peoples of Southern Africa...
. Maybe
Discott can help?
Lefcentreright
Discuss
21:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I thought about it and changed it to Black African ancestry
since it was the term used in the 2011 census.
Lefcentreright
Discuss
23:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Black African ancestryis most likely the best alternative unless you can find something more specific to Black African ancestry in Southern Africa generally. The term "African" to refer to black South Africans specifically is problematic as it implicitly excludes other South Africans from the identity of being from, or connected deeply to, Africa. Similar, for example, to describing only white people in a European country as "Europeans" thereby excluding non-white Europeans from being considered "Europeans".-- Discott ( talk) 09:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Lefcentreright, Park3r, Cool gamer24, and Elinor.Dashwood: the dispute about Bloemfontein's status as the judicial capital has been playing itself out over various different pages and I think it's time we had a discussion. If I may summarise, the question appears to be: given the changed structure of the courts post-1994, and particularly given the changes of the Seventeenth Amendment of the Constitution, is it still right to call Bloemfontein the judicial capital of South Africa?
My view is: it is not. The Seventeenth Amendment declares that, "The Chief Justice is the head of the judiciary," and the Chief Justice has his seat at the Constitutional Court in Johannesburg. Therefore Johannesburg is the judicial capital of the country. If Parliament were moved from Cape Town to some other city, we would not still call Cape Town the legislative capital. There is not, in fact, any law that defines the capital(s) of the country; you can search the text of the Constitution and the only mention of capitals is in section 42(6): "The seat of Parliament is Cape Town...". The claims for Bloemfontein as judicial capital are based on a historical situation that no longer applies. - htonl ( talk) 15:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Capitals Pretoria (administrative) Cape Town (legislative) Bloemfontein (judicial) The Constitutional Court is located in Johannesburg.?
South Africa currently has three main capital cities – Pretoria as the administrative capital, and Cape Town as the legislative capital. Bloemfontein acts as the judicial capital of the country.
Three cities serve as capitals of the country– Pretoria (executive), Cape Town (legislative), and Bloemfontein (judicial).
Thanks for trying to mediate @ htonl - but just as a legal aside not all cases can be taken to the Constitutional Court on appeal; therefore the SCA is still the highest law in the land for cases where no constitutional arguments can be made. In this case the Government's own official website should be taken into account - https://www.gov.za/about-sa/south-africas-provinces.-- Elinor.Dashwood ( talk) 16:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't think the Seventeenth Amendment is relevant here. I have checked a broad swathe of SA government and foreign government sources (some of which are cited above) and found they all describe Bloemfontein as the judicial capital. I suspect that this is a purely symbolic designation, and that the designation is not affected by the Supreme Court of Appeals or its status at all. Since it appears in all the official sources it does not strike me as an informal designation (such as Johannesburg being the financial capital city). It is probably a symbolic designation assigned to it in a law at some point, possibly a very old one. It is not unusual for capital cities to be symbolic - the capital of the Netherlands is Amsterdam even though every single function of a capital city is actually based in another city, The Hague. It is an entirely symbolic designation. I suspect that the same goes for Bloemfontein, and that it would probably count as judicial capital even if the Supreme Court of Appeal were to be moved!
What is interesting though is that I could not find a single reference as to why it is the judicial capital. I don't mean the history behind the decision, which is well-known, but the actual legislation designating the capital cities of South Africa. Surely there must be some law on the books somewhere? I spent a good hour looking and NONE of the sources, including the government sources and an academic article, cited any such law. Could it be that @ Park3r: is right? I feel not because of the abundance of government documents calling Bloemfontein a capital, but could it be that the government just sort of...forgot? It would be nice to have the actual law to cite. If somebody could find this that would be very useful! Francoisdjvr ( talk) 18:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Cape Town (legislative), Pretoria (administrative), Bloemfontein (judicial) and Pietermaritzburg (archival). From 1994 to 2004, KwaZulu-Natal legally had two capitals ( Pietermaritzburg and Ulundi). Ulundi was just a ceremonial capital with no real power (legislature, premier's seat and the high court has always been in Pietermaritzburg). The KZN provincial government later dropped the dual-capital status due to Uundi's lack of proper infrastructure. The government says we have three capitals, then so be it. It has been said so on the government website (which has been cited), so it shouldn't be disputed. Johannesburg has been referred to as the provincial capital city of Gauteng and NOT a capital of South Africa, despite it being the seat of the Constitutional Court of South Africa, the highest national court. The source that Park3r is not reliable because it is written like an opinion piece. For instance,
Apartheid policies stigmatised the Appeal Court and, as we argue in this paper, the stigma rubbed off on Bloemfontein.How is that academic? Also, the paper does not even correctly say how many capitals the Union of South Africa had. It says it only had three, which is incorrect because it had four. Best, Lefcentreright Discuss 19:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
18. Save as in section twenty-three excepted, Pretoria shall be the seat of Government of the Union.
23. Capetown shall be the seat of the Legislature of the Union.
109. The Appellate Division shall sit in Bloemfontein, but may from time to time for the convenience of suitors hold its sittings at other places within the Union.
46. (1) The National Assembly shall sit at the Houses of Parliament in Cape Town, unless [...]
53. (1) The Senate shall sit at the Houses of Parliament in Cape Town, unless [...]
106. (1) The seat of the Constitutional Court shall be Johannesburg.
(2) The seat of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court shall be Bloemfontein.
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Saffa. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 25#Saffa until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Soumya-8974
talk
contribs
subpages
15:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
South Africa has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the 32th to 32nd on the GDP part of the statistics table. Metalphnx ( talk) 11:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I was very surprised to not find the words ordentlikheid and ordentlik in the English or even the Afrikaans Wiktionary since they are or were used very often and in very multifaceted ways in South Africa. Here and here are detailed discussions of the very important social situations they describe and that are determined by them. These terms are or were apparently often used in English too, very similar to the use of apartheid in English.
It's just as surprising that there is not even a single paragraph on ordentlikheid in either the Afrikaans or English Wikipedias.
The main reason i looked for these terms in Wiktionary and Wikipedia is because i heard that they don't or no longer exist in Dutch, but then they should be mentioned as older forms of Dutch. -- Espoo ( talk) 07:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
South Africaà. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 22#South Africaà until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Hog Farm
Talk
17:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
As I am going through the article as a whole in order to {lang} tag as much as I can, I've noticed some things. I'm not great at dedicated effort to improve the actual content of articles, so I'm listing them here in order for these not to disappear into the recesses of my brain.
I need to go do something else now. I'll update this post when I return to lang tagging the article. -- Xurizuri ( talk) 08:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Anyone think there should be separate article for 1961-1994 South Africa? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theasiancowboy ( talk • contribs) 15:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
South Africa has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2607:9880:2068:A9:F8E7:B97D:DD86:FD01 ( talk) 19:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Ijnvbv
![]() | This
edit request to
South Africa has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the driving side to right. South Africans do not drive on the left. Giggleknacks ( talk) 12:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Please fix Giggleknacks ( talk) 12:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
South Africa has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change second-largest economy in Africa to third-largest. Egypt is now the second-largest economy. Also now the 41st largest economy in place of 32nd. source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1120999/gdp-of-african-countries-by-country/ Suffy69 ( talk) 09:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
the map of the provinces of South Africa still says Swaziland on it, where it should say Eswatini. DirkJandeGeer ( talk) 12:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Many Maps haven't adapted to the new name. Maybe later in the future. PASTOR11 ( talk) 20:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
81.105.95.101 ( talk) 20:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC) constitution says two thirds majority and we can change a name. We have that and changed it.
When is everyone getting injections West Africa ( talk) 10:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I mean like why can't children get injections as well West Africa ( talk) 10:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
The talk pages are to improve the page, not general discussions ShivanshPlays1 ( talk) 23:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't think so Moeketsi Nkhahle ( talk) 22:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Nothing about the iconography of the flag? Why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.157.18 ( talk) 13:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
South Africa is also part of the African Union (AU) where it's also part of AfCFTA, Southern African Customs Union (SACU), Common Monetary Area (CMA), and the Southern African Development Community (SADC). Editor8601 ( talk) 13:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
The current population of South Africa is about 55 million, or (according to the Wikipedia page) 51.7 million (2011 census) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matievisthekat ( talk • contribs) 10:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2018 and 22 December 2018. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Arthurlaw21.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 09:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2018 and 22 December 2018. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Lenapd.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 09:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Literacy rate uses data from 2007, when there is more recent data from the World Bank. Into references a book saying quality of life has improved significantly after apartheid - this should be caveated with the fact that since 2010 progress has stalled/reversed (see poverty rates, literacy rates, etc), and this should be added to relevant sections too. This information is widely available but doesn't make it into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.26.32.154 ( talk) 12:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Port Elizabeth's new name is Gqeberha and should be changed on this page. NCLUE ( talk) 16:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Different types of droughts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:2880:32FF:76:0:0:FACE:B00C ( talk) 10:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
PL answer my question 41.114.47.115 ( talk) 06:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Explain the change were made in this public holidays 24September 41.113.198.213 ( talk) 07:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
South Africa has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change eastern cape population 2020 from 6,734.000 to 6,734,000 195.249.78.90 ( talk) 10:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
For my school project 197.184.179.21 ( talk) 19:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I have decided to not get into bigger problems I have decided to take the right way, before making an edit I want to reach a consensus. As you saw in the history of the page I wanted to put the official languages in order of native speakers, Zulu is the most widely spoken language in South Africa, so I wanted to put it like this. But the problem arose when a user named Canterbury Tail told me that I don't have to link the dialect just as the language [[South African English|English]], more information is in this reply, I obeyed those policies just as seen here, but then the user Moxy reverted my edit, and then on my discussion page he told me everything to the contrary that I should put the languages of a country like this: [[Canadian English|English]] when he did not see on my discussion page that they told me not to do that, there is another way to do it and apply it, the worst thing is that he reported me when I was only following a policy and now at this moment I am too, too confused. So please tell me how I have to put the languages in the official languages section: like this [[South African English|English]]? Or just like this [[English language|English]]? How is it then? Do I put the dialect as just the language or do I just put the language and that's it? TheEncyclopediaReader Contact me! :) 18:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
@ EuKoketsolion and Desertambition: How about describing South Africa as a regional state (or regionalised unitary state) in the infobox? It splits the difference quite nicely between federal and unitary, neither of which entirely fits South Africa. - htonl ( talk) 21:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @Hlonl, thanks for the above. Let me prepare my response in favour of SA being more of federation vs it being a unitary state. Let's not forget that 8 provinces are run by the ANC, who believe in a command structure as a form of governance. And feel like the WC has no political will to run itself as a federal unit. EuKoketsolion ( talk) 17:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
In terms of section 1 of the constitution it is "one state". The provinces. Section 104 clearly limits the authority of the provinces. ( The relevant schedules) MoHaG ( talk) 09:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
South Africa is a federation made of 9 provinces with their own prime ministers (premiers), and legislators. And have a great deal of powers that are independent, the constitution states that national, provincial and local are unique. If the provinces (which are all governed by the ANC) pushes really hard you'd find that they have policing powers, power to set up their own education systems, and in a limited form, raise their own taxes. SA is more of a stunted federation then a devolved unitary state in the sense that the existance, powers of provinces are enshrined in the consitituon and can't be taken away without a two thirds majority vs the UK where the powers of England and other countries can be taken away with changes to the constitution.
Here's some reading materials.
https://www.oecd.org/regional/regional-policy/profile-South-Africa.pdf
https://www.gov.za/documents/constitution/chapter-3-co-operative-government EuKoketsolion ( talk) 17:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
I want to do an assignment of Life Orientation for grade 12 41.114.176.173 ( talk) 02:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
No mention of this? Jokem ( talk) 22:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
I’ve raised this before, but there was no consensus a few years ago and some editors felt very strongly about this issue, so I deferred to the then lack of appetite for change. The lede currently states: *executive, judicial and legislative branches of government based in Pretoria, Bloemfontein and Cape Town respectively.”
The problem is that the evidence of Bloemfontein being the “judicial capital”, which was always surprisingly scant, is now wholly dubious. Is the judicial branch “based” in Bloemfontein? In what sense? The Supreme Court of Appeal is not the highest court in any respect and hasn’t been for some years. The Constitutional Court is based in Johannesburg, and is the highest court in all matters. The Chief Justice is the head of the Constitutional Court, and is based in Johannesburg. If anything Johannesburg is the “judicial capital” (although it would be WP:SYNTH to put that in the article, and I wouldn’t).
There was little objection, however, to the location of the new Constitutional Court in Johannesburg, a move which stripped Bloemfontein of its judicial capital status [6]
If we were to find more reliable sources that disprove the idea that Bloemfontein is the “judicial capital”, would editors be amenable to changing it? To me it feels like a rusted-on factoid, that partly exists because of WP:CIRCULAR references, including possibly from South African “offical” government sites that may not qualify as WP:RS. Park3r ( talk) 22:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
South Africa has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
An additional colloquial demonym for South Africans in Saffa 41.13.129.142 ( talk) 18:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
I think that the transfer to black majority rule should not be in the box labeled 'independence from the United Kingdom'. South Africa became completely independent of the United Kingdom de jure and de facto in 1961. The transfer to black majority rule had nothing to do with independence from the Kingdom. RegrettingMistakes777 ( talk) 20:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm unsure of the inclusion of this for the dual reasons that the implementation of apartheid isn't mentioned and that it could perhaps be combined with "democratisation". Any thoughts? Regards, thorpewilliam ( talk) 03:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Semi protected means I can’t edit, and the article needs fixing. for example official languages of the Republic are Sepedi, Sesotho, Setswana, siSwati, Tshivenda, Xitsonga, Afrikaans, English, isiNdebele, isiXhosa and isiZulu.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.95.101 ( talk) 20:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Why there no military information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.114.64.150 ( talk) 10:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
South Africa has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
both this wiki and tanzania's state they are the most populous country located entirely south of the equator. my guess is this wiki is wrong, since South Africa's population is 60 million, whereas Tanzania's is 63 million. 2A02:8109:ABBF:B1E8:7C1A:82C:F138:C1EB ( talk) 23:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
South Africa currently has an electrical generating total of 51,309 megawatts (MW). This electricity is comprised of 46,776 MW from thermal sources including coal, petroleum, natural gas, and nuclear 661 MW generated by hydroelectric, and 3,872 MW from other renewable sources including solar and wind. Around 86% of South Africans currently have access to electricity, 66% from rural and 93% of urban households. This accounts to nearly 2.2 million households without power. [1]
Coal is the most used source of generating electricity in South Africa accounting for around 77% of the current electricity production. Coal in South Africa has 5 companies that account for 85% of the production of saleable coal and these companies include Ingwe Collieries Limited, Anglo Coal, Sasol, Eyesizwe, and Kumba Resources Limited. [2] Coal is an abundant resource in South Africa and the reason why coal has a such a low cost of production for energy per MW. South Africa is also the the worlds 7th largest exporter of coal most of which is exported to other African countries. [3] Within South Africa’s 2030 Energy Plan there is the goal of only increasing production of electricity from coal by 1000 MW and decreasing the countries usage of coal for energy down to 46% of total energy consumption. [4]
South Africa first began using nuclear energy in the 1980s when it constructed a nuclear power station. Within South Africa there are a considerable amount of uranium deposits and therefore has the capability to use nuclear energy more than the current consumption of around 6% of the country’s energy needs. [5] Minister Jeff Radebe has come out in support of no increase in nuclear generating electricity within the country until the year 2030 when it will be reevaluated against current needs. This is a change in action as the former President Jacob Zuma had been pushing for the construction of eight new nuclear power generating stations. For South Africa’s 2030 Energy Plan Nuclear is projected to only represent 2% of energy production. [4]
South Africa is currently under-utilizing it's solar capacity. South Africa has an estimated 220 W/m2 capability compared to 150 W/m2 in US and 100 W/m2 in Europe. South Africa is an ideal candidate for the wide spread use of photovoltaic cells as a form of generating the electrical needs of the country. [6] A new contract for $4.7 billion dollars allocated to 27 different projects consisting of mainly solar and wind projects that hope to increase current production of electricity through renewable sources. [7] With the increase in spending to renewable sources South Africa's 2030 Energy Plan is projected to increase solar production to 11% of the countries energy needs and increase wind production to 15% of the countries energy needs. [4] South Africa has over 30 installed wind energy projects and the most dominant reason comes from the Renewable Energy Independent Power Producers Procurement Programme. With these Programmes of wind energy they have created an estimated 30,000 jobs total in construction and operation of the onshore wind farms. [8]
South Africa has made changes to future goals for energy sources and has committed itself to 36% of energy production coming from fully renewable sources of solar, wind, and electric power. In the goal is to lower the reliance upon coal as a source of energy for the country from producing 77% to producing 46% of the countries electrical needs. [4]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurlaw21 ( talk • contribs) 00:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
The source for South Africa's National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (149), links to Cameroon's Biodiversity Status Strategy and Action Plan. 78.158.238.239 ( talk) 15:11, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
SouthAfrica and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 4#SouthAfrica until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Steel1943 (
talk)
20:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 10:53, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
I feel that recent additions to the article give undue weight to opinion pieces that are not backed up by fact and are not made by particularly noteworthy people. BazingaMan455 ( talk) 02:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Some input on this would be highly appreciated. Thanks. M.Bitton ( talk) 20:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be "coastline that stretches" instead of "coastline that stretch" in the opening paragraph? Allonb77 ( talk) 06:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
South Africa has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I saw some missing things such us Pretoria, the seat of the executive. Someone forgot the branch in the sentence. Latteoctober ( talk) 06:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
South Africa has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
102.157.222.109 ( talk) 17:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Languages with specific status : Spanish
This is undoubtedly going to be a very notable and potentially controversial change, but I feel as if it is improper for there to not be a separate article on Apartheid-era South Africa and modern day South Africa. By not having a separate article, crucial details about Apartheid-era South Africa lack a central place for them to be explored, such as foreign policy, economic policy, and the differing demographic makeup of the nation at the time. I am aware that the article Apartheid exists, however, Apartheid refers only to the racial policy and segregated nature of the regime. It's like not having an article on Nazi Germany because Racial policy of Nazi Germany and Nuremberg Laws exist.
Although they are both the same geographic country and have the same official name (which doesn't disqualify a separate article, South Korea has a separate article for each government between 1948 and 1987 and it was always called the "Republic of Korea"), they are entirely and completely different in many aspects, such as:
Ultimately, I propose that by creating a new article for the defunct state of Apartheid South Africa would be entirely warranted in encyclopedic terms and also be immensely helpful for anyone who wants to understand the differences of modern South Africa and that of the previous era. I would argue that Wikipedia already has separate "former state" articles already for much more minor changes in governance- e.g. Second Czechoslovak Republic- and that its wrong to not have one for what is arguably one of the most distinct entities of the Cold War contrasted to now. My proposed title for this new article would be Republic of South Africa (1961 - 1994), but of course this could be changed. I am eager to hear everyone's opinions on this matter. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 17:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. I just generally support this idea because it splits the racist state from the modern day South Africa. Patriciogetsongettingridofhiswiki ( talk) 04:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC) Disagree, I would rather us have a page speaking about the apartheid South Africa, and indicate in the article that there is a separate page concerning apartheid South Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mthunzi Mapatwana ( talk • contribs) 17:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
By way of analogy; there is one main article about the United States of America. It is not split into seperate articles for pre-civil war and post-civil war, or split every time a constitutional amendment was enacted. There are of course a variety of articles about all these historic topics, but nobody has suggested entirely seperate "main root articles" for the different eras of the US's history. We must have an all-encompassing "main root" summary/overview article about South Africa, and this one is it. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 09:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
There are two conflicting sentences, where it describes life in South Africa having been significantly improved in the opening paragraph, while in the most recent History section, South Africa is mentioned as being a failed state. There ought to be a mention about failed state status in the opening paragraph. 2601:647:4000:12E0:C5FE:7A13:71B3:969E ( talk) 07:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
South Africa has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The population density is noted as "169th", yet the reference link lists South Africa as 137th, I believe that 137th is the correct number. Paul Mad Stephenson ( talk) 09:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
South Africa has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The South African date format is dd/mm/yyyy and not reversed as stated 2607:FB91:966:CDCD:89F3:4A7C:6BAE:6B52 ( talk) 15:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
The Mfecane period was a key point in South African history. Shouldn't there be a subsection summarising what happened? EuKoketsolion ( talk) 14:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
British colonial authorities held significant racial biases against the indiginous population of South Africa as the colonizers took further control of economic resources (Cunynghame 1879). Source: Cunynghame, Arthur Thurlon. 1879. My Command in South Africa. 1874-1878. Comprising Experiences of Travel in the Colonies of South Africa and the Independent States. Macmillan and Co. Sunday morning121 ( talk) 13:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)