Talk:South Africa/Archive 4

Missing Information

About crime and the fall of apartheid. It is noted that many of the people have moved to gated communities; however, these communities are nearly exclusively White. There are a few non-gated White neighborhoods but they are far in few. Most are gated, and inside the gates the houses are gated as well with bars on windows and private security firms roaming the streets. I think this section should be expanded; furthermore, more then one million whites have left South Africa since the fall of apartheid because of the downright staggering rape, murder, and crime rates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Volksgeist (talk • contribs)

The above statement is nonsense. I live here, there aint no "exclusively white" gated communities. There aren't even so many gated communites to start with. Please do not make sweeping statements about complete rubbish on here, Wikipedia is for facts. Scotteh 18:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your comments and provide (a) your source (statistics) for this information; (b) the relevance of your white-black analysis. You are stereotyping, and without statistical evidence, this information cannot be added. -- Chris Lester ^talk 10:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

In any case, it is patently ridiculous to claim that "there are a few non-gated White neighbourhoods", implying that most white neighbourhoods are gated. I don't know what the situation may be in Jo'burg, but certainly in Cape Town the gated suburbs are few and far between (although admittedly increasing in number) and by far the majority of white people live in ordinary "open" suburbs. It may well be true about the gated houses, bars on windows, security firms, etc.; but the same could, after all, be said of Los Angeles. It's also misleading to ascribe emigration entirely to crime; although some whites certainly have emigrated because of crime, many others emigrated simply to follow better economic opportunities elsewhere or, in certain cases, because they have lingering racist objections to living in a country with a "black" government. - htonl 00:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where in South Africa you grew up but an "ordinary" suburb is not one where houses are surrounded by huge walls and bars on windows. At least it wasn't before apartheid. And the situation in Los Angeles, well, similar demographics have caused the gated/bared communities as well. And the large majority of ex-South Africans I talk to have moved because of crime. It's simply too dangerous since the fall of apartheid. Murder, rape, happening constantly. Can't even stop a red lights at night... etc. Volksgeist 04:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not about who you talk to, it's about what you can prove. Scotteh 19:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The South African expatriate community is a strange one and not always the best source of information about South Africa. I've stopped at red lights, even in Hillbrow, supposedly the most dangerous place in South Africa. I've walked around at night, and gone into squatter camps — all things that should have gotten me killed. Yet, amazingly, they didn't. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 19:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm originally from South Africa now live in the USA. Crime is horrible, hospitals are horrible, police are horrible, etc. Furthermore, qualified Whites are actually declined jobs even if they are more skilled because of the stupid empowerment act. I see no viable future for the Boers or English in SA unless something changes. I give the country 10-20 years before it turns into what happened to Zimbabwe. I don't know where you live in SA, PZFUN, but what you describe is radically different then what I've seen in the years following apartheid. Volksgeist 23:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Please take no offence, but South Africa is a beautiful, wonderful country. Yet, as a free country and democracy, you are allowed to express your views, even if I think you're criminally full of shit. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 05:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Beautiful countries don't lead the world in all aspects of murder, rape, armed robbery and thievery. Beautiful countries don't throw people in jail to get raped because they got a speeding ticket. In beautiful countries you do not need to live in walled compounds with private security firms because of the crime problem. And finally, beautiful countries do not have a problem with "baby rape." South Africa will turn into a Zimbabwe once you bite the hand that feeds. Volksgeist 12:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't argue with Volksgeist there... But calling us Boers and referring to English people as English is racist. If you want to refer to us, call us Afrikaans people, or whatever you find appropriate. Or if you use informal names to describe a race then do so on the same level with each race, not glorifying anyone with sophisticated referrences (whatever the spelling of that is). Scotteh 12:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Volksgeist, South Africa doesn't lead the world in murder. Serbitar 05:07, 20 Jun

Is this what South Africa is really like? I'm a white New Zealander and i'll be going to South Africa next year for a student exchange but i'm not so sure i want go now because lately i've heard alot of negative things about the racial tension, crime etc....Can someone please enlighten me i really want to know what the real South Africa is like. Many of the expat SA's in NZ go on about it been a rather dangerous place. Do you get like white schools and black schools? Arguss 9:43, 23 June 2006

Hi, I am from there it really is a beautiful nation and I think you will like it. What school are you going to? Where? And are you living on campus? Most of the major universities have populations that are 60% White (Pretoria) but that doesn't mean the surrounding areas are. There are no apartheid-like schools; however, there areas in the suburbs of the cities that are usually 100% White -- they have huge walls, security fences, private security teams, etc etc etc. It really is a dangerous place after the fall of apartheid. I don't know if you will be driving but I wouldn't after 8pm without a South African to help you out. Anyone, please tell me where you'll be going and we can probably help you out more. Volksgeist 16:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should come to Strand, if it really makes you feel more comfortable being around whites. However, if you're English, go to Somerset West, where all the rich (white) English people live. Scotteh 14:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Volksgeist seems to be an irrational user, who does not take fact into account. All his statements are emotive, unproven and very often pure hogwash. Volksgeist should realize that the dangers are not that great and that he is probably making a mountain out of a molehill. Wikipedia is not the place to preach hatred and nonsense.

Look at some of his other edits, all showing how blatantly racist he is: [1] or [2]. Please calm down, and give us some decent statistics to support your claims. Otherwise, take that nonsense somewhere else!!! -- Chris Lester ^talk 20:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The only 'claims' I need to make are about South Africa from when I lived there. This guy is going around Cape Town, maybe you can help him out as I lived in Pretoria not Cape Town. You may not agree with what I say but I am willing to bet you probably live in some type of suburban enviroment outside of the city. Furthermore, I would be more then willing to guess the demographics of said community. I somehow doubt you will go out past dark to go buy something at the supermarket as you once might have. He's actually going to go to a university outside of Cape Town, perhaps you could give him some advice as well? Volksgeist 21:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

When did you leave South Africa Volksgeist? While, Yes I live in a so called "Gated" community in Pretoria, it became one after i moved in here. Crime is bad here, but definatly NOT as you put it. I do in fact go out to buy something at the supermarket at night, and I do in fact walk around places like Hatfield at night and feel perfectly safe. Give us some hard proof of what your saying. South Africa is a beautiful country and I'd recommend anybody to come here for holiday (Just give hillbrow a miss) Jediwannabe 13:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Gated may depend on definition, however, the crime statistics for SAfrica should be available pre and post apartheid. You may hate apartheid but maybe you don't like dead?

NP sympathy for NAZI Germany debate

I have to take issue with the following statement: "The right-wing National Party sympathised with Nazi Germany during the war, and sought greater racial segregation, or apartheid, after it."

This sentence is utterly misleading and possibly false.

South Africa formed part of the Allied Forces during WWI and WWII. They fought against Germany. The statement should be edited out or otherwise explained in more detail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.54.202.82 (talk • contribs)

Yes, but the National Party was not in government during the war - it only came into power in 1948. At the outbreak of war there was a split in the United Party; Barry Hertzog left the UP to join the NP, and was replaced by Jan Smuts as prime minister. During the war many of the people who were later to be senior members of government in the early NP years - John Vorster, for example - were actually interned because of their Nazi sympathies. My reference for this is the Reader's Digest Illustrated History of South Africa. - htonl 14:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, many members of the Broederbond went to jail because of their anti-British and pro-Nazi sympathies. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 17:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This sounds a lot like a recent debate in the Cape Times, over letters published by Nazi sympathisers in the Nat party. Apparently some key figures openly expressed their support of the Nazis. I'll look for the exact reference.Ethnopunk 14:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Coloured

This doesn't make sense: "It has the largest population of people of Coloured (i.e., mixed racial background), European, and Indian communities in Africa." I looked up "Coloured" and it is a term used in Apartheid South Africa, according to wikipedia, so it doesn't make any sense to use it in a trans-African context. Surely that sentence should say "the largest mixed racial population" ?

No, Coloured is still used in South Africa and it does not have the negative connotations that it has in other English-speaking countries (most coloured people refer to themselves as that and find "mixed-race" to be an offensive term since it implies they have no specific ethnicity of their own). Although I'm not sure by the "European". That is maybe early Apartheid terminology. South Africa's whites are White Africans, not Europeans. Joziboy 08:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

What nonsense you have emptied your mouth of there. I am white. I live in South Africa. I consider myself to be European. I don't like the idea of being tagged by some dude over Wikipedia like I'm a MP3 on the internet. Don't create a conflict where people refer to themselves otherwise as you would have wished they did. Scotteh 15:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough :) Each to their own. I find the notion of being "European" ridiculous (and yes, I'm a white South African too) since we've been in South Africa for hundreds of years. That would mean Australians, Latin Americans, Americans etc are all European? Joziboy 16:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Go Joziboy, go! .... don't feel the trolls :) Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 17:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Racism in SA under the ANC

Should you guys not be writing about the current problems of racism in South Africa, especially the new racist economic policies of the government and the rewriting of the constitution in recent years making race a mandatory requirement for school and job selection ?

A starting point would be http://globalpolitician.com/subarticle.asp?SID=56&cid=8

Now who the heck are you? And yes, I think you have a point there. I think it would be interesting for people to hear the story from a different point of view. Scotteh 14:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

"As a computer industry specialist who designs and builds computer systems, whenever I see black African leaders talking in bold scientific terms, I usually laugh, because they have no conception what those fancy, multi-syllabled words actually mean!" - that Jan Lamprecht is a laugh a minute. Apparently the "Zulu tribe" killed everyone in central South Africa and when the Trekkers found the place it was a "vacuum". Really? Moshoeshoe I turns in his grave. I was watching a documentary yesterday on SABC 1; according to it one of the steps in becoming an African and not a European is to learn the true history of the country. Another step is to learn an African language ("I'm an African - my family has been living here for 200 years!" and they never once made the effort to learn the local language? This is not Holland). What is this "racism" of which you speak (please do tell me)? Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 17:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, when I see any politician, of whatever race or nationality, talking in bold scientific terms, I usually laugh, because they don't generally know what they're talking about. (Just look at American Senator Ted Stevens and his "series of tubes" explanation of the Internet.) ;-) But I agree completely - that Lamprecht man is a nut. I mean - "Recent studies have shown that most Blacks are not interested in farming." - huh? Why did so many people apply to the Land Claims Commission then? Maybe they're not interested in farming because they know that they can't afford to buy a farm at the prices that are being asked? Judging by the few articles I've read from that link, he's also rabidly economically conservative, believing in a completely free market with absolutely no regulation. He's trying to conjure up fear of both the "Swart Gevaar" and the "Rooi Gevaar". - htonl 00:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

"Serious of tubes"! Arguing a certain point of view is wonderful and all but if you're going to use lies in your argument then you have to ask yourself if you really should have that POV. Eg in his African Renaissance article (or was it the one on language policy in education) he says that African languages are primitive and don't have scientific words like English. He does know that almost none of the Scientific words in English are of Germanic origin, right? They have the Greeks, Romans, and Arabs to thank for that. No one "owns" Science or the Industrial Revolution, in the same way that none of our homonid ancestors "owned" fire, and the ancient Sumerians did not "own" writing, and ancient North Africans did not "own" the Iron Age; we are where we are today because they spread their knowledge and the freedom that it gave them. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 13:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Haha, what a ridiculous thing for the guy to say! English is the biggest mongrel of a language - and any "advancement" it has made is purely due to borrowing freely from other languages (Cappucino? Braai? Deja vu? Shongololo?). There was an article in The Economist about a year back about how Europe came to dominate the world for a while (it's obviously only a phase, Asia's on the rise, and the Egyptians were great long before the Europeans) simply because of the spread of wheat. So much for superiority! :) I for one think it's sad that "progress" squashes out other forms of human life - people weren't dying by the truckload of starvation in Africa until industrial capitalism arrived.. but perhaps this isn't the place for that discussion :) Joziboy 16:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops! I meant series of tubes! Okay, so we all agree then, Jan is a retard. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 18:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is another few articles about the face of racism in the new SA, please take a look at it http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20050219103803315C822723#jump

http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20060717013608931C182085

http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20060723084516410C321002

http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20060626032107791C241717

http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=qw1150302961723B234

And then also corruption in SA by key government officials should be highlighted

http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20060715082042398C370544

http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=276501&area=/insight/insight__national/

http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=271798&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__national/ I think that enough for now , but I think SA is turning in to a world joke

Opps I forgot, the best one yet about crime !!!!!!!!

http://www.crimexposouthafrica.co.za/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.128.35.243 (talk • contribs) .

Yes, of course. South Africa was so much better during Apartheid. Do you know what the real joke here is? You - an annoying juvenile joke like an exploding toilet; kindly disappear and bless us real South Africans and Wikipedians with your absence. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 21:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. Apart from the first linked article (rioting at UP), which is admittedly disturbing, and the Crime Expo SA site, which is just plain ridiculous, the rest of those articles reflect merely a country which, like any other country, is imperfect. I could produce a bunch of articles about racial tensions and political scandal in, for example, the UK. What does that prove? Nothing. I wish these people would stop posting blather on the talk page, telling us what they think we should be writing about and what articles they think we should be reading, and instead start adding relevant, verifiable and NPOV information to the article. But I suppose that's too much to ask; so I guess I would be satisfied if they could, as you put it, "kindly disappear". - htonl 04:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you guy’s don’t see the difference between the trees and the forest.

On a case by case basis each individual claim is acceptable and tolerable , but in general problems in SA with regards to Racism , Crime and corruption is developing to such proportions that it will lead eventually to another failed state scenario , just like most other countries in Africa

From the outside looking into SA tings seem to heading in the wrong direction , an African phenomenon.

"Tings" are not heading in the wrong direction - you seem to forget just how low our starting position was. Apartheid was a base, cruel, animal system that crippled a few generations and will continue to have effects for the immediate future. Most consider what we've achieved in these twelve years to be miraculous. As for crime - crime stats are always higher in countries that are going through a transition, read any book on criminology. Joziboy 08:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

What's your point!? Why is someone living in Cleveland, Ohio so obsessed with trying to show just how much of a "shit-hole" (Volksgeist's favourite noun) the country is. Let me guess, it's becoming "another Zimbabwe", right? Doesn't it strike you as perculiar that none of the editors actually living in South Africa (the ones who are supposedly getting robbed, raped, and murdered everyday) actually agrees with you? And what exactly do you personally believe is the primary reason behind this hell-on-Earth (do tell)? Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 08:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, It’s interesting that only 12 years into democracy , half , if not more of the cabinet has been implicated in some form of corruption and most of the parliament seems to be implicated to.

Also the ex deputy president saga ( now that’s really funny) corruption, rape ext ext………… The new deputy president, that wants land reform skills from Zimbabwe.

The president himself is implicated in corruption. That’s Africa for you!

Not to mention the problems with declining service levels and municipalities going the wrong way

Maybe you should put in the Article that SA is becoming a typical Africa state?

Oh my god, where to start? First of all, keep your snide little comments about "that's Africa for you" to yourself. Why is being an African country a bad thing? Most African states inherited colonial structures which were designed specifically for wealth extraction without infrastructure/human development - just look at the railway system at independence (from mineral-rich areas to ports to be carried to Europe, with nothing linking towns, schools, regions together). States were therefore weak and relied on resources rather than people (since education was never a priority, or developing a broad tax base), which the IMF then forced the states to privatise. But enough about the rest of the continent.

South Africa was obliged to pay off it's apartheid debt after 1994, despite the fact that it was racked up by funding the oppressive state. Despite that, we've managed to get the economy growing fast, extend housing, education, welfare. We've got one of the most respected constitutions in the world, have set a precedent for TRC's in other countries, and are doing so well that Tony Blair wants to extend the G8 to include us. Sure we have problems, but what country doesn't? Joziboy 09:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, and we're hosting the next Soccer World Cup, have the most traded developing-nation currency in the world, decreasing (albeit high) crime levels... is this enough to show that there's another side to your coin? Joziboy 09:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

“”Oh my god, where to start? First of all, keep your snide little comments about "that's Africa for you" to yourself. Why is being an African country a bad thing?””

Most states in Africa seems to on a down hill , that why , really embarrassing if you are from Africa , I would say

“” Most African states inherited colonial structures which were designed specifically for wealth extraction without infrastructure/human development - just look at the railway system at independence (from mineral-rich areas to ports to be carried to Europe, with nothing linking towns, schools, regions together).””

Now in the East , they had the same bad “”Colonization”” thing and yet most countries are advancing at a steady pace , take Vietnam , South Korea for instance, in spite of the gruesome past they are doing well, unlike African states, that not to mention India ,China, Singapore ext ext. Therefore your Colonization argument is nothing but a bad excuse to hide the ineptitude of African Governments .

“” States were therefore weak and relied on resources rather than people (since education was never a priority, or developing a broad tax base), which the IMF then forced the states to privatise.”” You have had 30 or 40 years to correct that , but still your governments all react in the same way , lot’s of talk and buzz words and no action.

“”But enough about the rest of the continent. South Africa was obliged to pay off it's apartheid debt after 1994, despite the fact that it was racked up by funding the oppressive state. Despite that, we've managed to get the economy growing fast, extend housing, education, welfare”” Your economy is not growing fast , it’s just keeping up with world growth at the moment , right there in the middle some where. Your current acout deficit is looking as bad as that of the USA proportional to your GDP. The good news is that your currency may collapse and then you might be able to compete with China and India in terms of labor rates The going rate in China for a factory worker is less than $100 us a month. How much is it in SA?

“” We've got one of the most respected constitutions in the world, have set a precedent for TRC's in other countries, Your constitution is only a nice bunch of words , looking more at the reality in SA your government is unable /unwilling to implement there own laws. I have noticed that in SA law and practice differs -------- see your corrupt leaders

“” and are doing so well that Tony Blair wants to extend the G8 to include us”” The G8 will not include SA until it’s a formidable part of the world economy . At the moment your economy only represents about 1% US economy What’s frightening is that the rest of Africa does represent about the same amount. Maybe with western companies developing oilfields in Angola and Nigeria that will change.

. “”Sure we have problems, but what country doesn't? Joziboy 09:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC) “” And they seem to be getting more and more , slowly spinning out of control

“”Oh yes, and we're hosting the next Soccer World Cup, have the most traded developing-nation currency in the world, decreasing (albeit high) crime levels... is this enough to show that there's another side to your coin? Joziboy 09:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC) “”

I heard the Germans were so Upset with the SA government’s inability to organize the event , that they offered to organize it for you Then there was that leak from FIFA that the USA will be the Back up plan for the World Cup , because no work has started yet and the infrastructure is not present to host the event .

Seems that this one is currently heading to be a embarrassment for Africa , not just the RSA

Decreasing crime levels ?

I read that your government refuses , is incapable of publishing them. On the same note , according to your local insurance brokers claims related to crime is on the increase , especially violent crimes.

Tell me If I am correct , I heard that about 20 000 south African are murdered a year, According to my info that would be putting SA on par with Iraq . Is this true ?

Urgh, I don't have the energy for this. You've clearly made up your mind that SA is a dump and that's fine. All of us who come from there or live there love the place and are very very bored of Afro-pessimism. Joziboy 17:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

There's a simple solution Joziboy, don't feed the troll. OK, he's not strictly speaking a troll, as he probably believes the stuff he writes, but the principle is the same :) Greenman 19:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey , I just reflecting what your own free press is printing. This is how the RSA is seen from the outside , it’s starting to look disturbing !!

Similarities between the Nazi regime compared to the ANC government in SA

Viewing SA from the outside from a safe distance I am disturbed to see a major philosophical comparativeness with the old Nazi regime in Germany “”Nazism was the ideology held by the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, commonly called the NSDAP or Nazi Party). The word Nazism is most often used in connection with the government of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945, also known as the "Third Reich". In terms of ideology, Nazism combines racialism, nationalism, anti-Semitism and anti-communism, and draws from a variety of other sources. Currently, Nazism is outlawed as a political ideology in modern Germany, as are forms of iconography and propaganda from the Nazi era. Still, remnants and revivalists, known as "Neo-Nazis", continue to operate in Germany and abroad.””

From the description provided in Wikipedia it’s easy to see the similarities , The ANC government in SA has started with racial policies similar to the Nazi party in the early years , fostering a new black nationalism ( instead of German nationalism) , and being anti European/people of European decent /”settlers” ( instead of anti-Semitism) , with an anti-western ( instead of anti-communism)

I suppose the “African Renaissance” is their version of the “ third Reich “

Similar to the old Nazi’s the South African government is telling business/sports organizations/ who they should employ ,how many of each group based on racial quotas.

I wonder if this is going to go the same road ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.128.35.243 (talk • contribs)

I hereby invoke Godwin's Law: this discussion is therefore closed. YHL. HAND. - htonl 02:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

That’s a shame , coping out of a nice discussion. Why don’t we try it from a different angle since this one seems to be politically incorrect for you ?

Moenie met die doos praat nie, asb! Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 09:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

That’s a very rude line you just used , It took me a while but I did get a translation on it !!

I love afrikaans, in afrikaans calling someone a "doos" is a rather bad insult, but if you directly translate "doos" into english it becomes "box". So "Moenie met die doos praat nie, asb!" means in english "Please don't speak to the box" (Directly translated of course). In terms of actual meaning it really means "Please don't speak to the idiot". Just a small language lesson Jediwannabe 14:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Crime Expo SA URL Added

A link to the Crime Expo SA website is added to warn tourists about the dangers involved in visiting South Africa. Tourists need to be able to make an informed decision before visiting South Africa. It should be left to the individual tourist to decide for him / herself if they want to visit South Africa. Any tourist must have the freedom of information / freedom to choose. A tourist must have the option of obtaining unedited information. In the Crime Expo SA website, ordinary persons and tourists can tell their stories on their experience with crime in South Africa. Victims of crime can write about their experiences. South Africa is a wonderful country, but the high crime rate is a very big problem.

Tourist brochures only show beautiful pictures of South Africa. Crime Expo SA shows a “different” South Africa. A true experience of South Africa is somewhere in-between. The experiences of tourist visiting South Africa can differ from “absolutely wonderful” experiences, to “horrible” experiences. A tourist may leave South Africa with beautiful photos or they may leave in a coffin. This is the case for visiting any country in the world, but the crime rate in South Africa is very high and unacceptable. The crime rate in SA is higher than at some other tourist destinations.

URL DELETED

The URL (http://www.crimexposouthafrica.org/) was added and 2 minutes later it was deleted. Why do you want to withhold information from tourists? Tourists must note that there is people that delete any information that may provide negative information about South Africa, but that tells the truth (or that provide personal opinion).

or that provide personal opinion - we stay strictly away from personal opinion on wikipedia. Wizzy…☎ 12:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Tourist must have freedom of choice. There should be balance. Victims of crime should also be heard. Why are they silenced? Who is against victims of crime telling their stories? Please restore the original text.

If a tourist visits South Africa and become a victim of crime, do they have the right to tell their stories or do they need to keep quite? The person that deleted the URL does not want victims of crime to tell their stories, or hear the stories of other crime victims. For what other reason would it be deleted?

Personal opinions have no place here. Wizzy…☎ 12:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it again, for the same reason as Shrensh. Please seek consensus here before adding it again. Thanks. --Guinnog 12:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the website some of the comments there sound slightly paranoid. some of them just seem like regular things in most countries. perhaps south africans are just overhyped about the rest of the world. Zazaban 06:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just deleted it again. I agree, while crime in South Africa is a serious issue, that website is just using scare tactics and is irrelevant to the article.Shrensh 07:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have some real stats about crime in SA: maybe they should be added instead? -- Chris Lester ^talk 15:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Crime citations please

The government is criticised for doing too little to stop crime. Some question the effectiveness of the South African Police Service, which is known to make use of private security firms to protect its police stations[citation needed]. Due to the high crime rate in South Africa, many private individuals also make use of these systems[citation needed].

The Government was criticized when the Minister of Safety and Security was in Burundi promoting peace and democracy while there was a spate of crime in Gauteng. This spate included the killings of an alarming number of people, including members of the South African Police Service killed while performing their duties[citation needed].

Lack of citations make bunny cry, especially in a story where everything else is cited. ManicParroT 19:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Read the history again & again until you SEE that the poverty is all caused by the WAGE SYSTEM! It is slavery! 100%! So USA should end the wage since we force it on the world, in ignorance! You can't "raise wages" to help ALL peoplem, we can only end the wage system worldwide! If USA ends our wage (to help starving americans) that would pull all nations into ending their wage systems & only that will help every person. Every person needs an RFID to eliminate money now! Sundiiiaaa 04:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

oh why? because the whole world follows after america.America's changing the wage system wouldn't make anyone else change theirs the whole world does not copy america Charlieh7337 (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Archived

Please remove this message with first post. The rest of the content has been archived -- Chris Lester ^talk 18:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That was really archived way too soon.... Zazaban 05:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Scouting in South Africa

Can we add a section on the South African Scout Association to the article (Titled something like Scouting in South Africa). Scouting in general owes many of it's traditions (and in fact it's very extensise) to South Africa. Scouting has also been around in South African since 1908 and was one of the first truely multi-racial organisations (With multi-racial meetings taking place since the 1970s). There are rougly 300 000 scouts in South Africa (with approximatly 70% of them in rural areas)

I think that adding a section on the SASA will really help this article Jediwannabe 08:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that scouting is important enough to have a whole section in this article. If you look at the section topics, they are all pretty general topics - "Geography", "Culture", "Economy" etc. Maybe scouting deserves a mention in the "Culture" section. - htonl 12:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. I'll for one or two extra comments, then I'll add it in the the Culture section (If there are no objections) Jediwannabe 15:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming that everybody is cool with me adding a bit about scouting in sa under "culture" then? Jediwannabe 05:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Religion

There should really be a section on religion--either as its own section or as a subsection of demographics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.168.41 (talk • contribs)

I agree. I don't know if a seperate section is necessary, but there should be some mention of it somewhere on one of the South Africa pages. An article about a country just doesn't seem complete without the very word "religion" being mentioned in it... ¬¬¬¬

True. One place to start looking for info might be [3]. - htonl 19:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That's an incredible source! It's one of the most accurate descriptions of African Traditional Religion I've seen on the internet. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 20:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Scythian1 has changed the number of Muslims in the population from 1.5% to 2-3%, twice. The source for the 1.5% is the official Stats SA census from 2001, and is backed up by US State Dept and the CIA world factbook. The 2nd time you changed this number, you said that your sources were "more recent", however one of your sources is a book published in 1994! Unless there's some more compelling evidence that the census is that far out, I'd suggest we leave it at the official figure. On a side note, I notice that you cited the CIA factbook when you updated Georgia's Islamic population, but you have replaced the CIA factbook's number for Uganda and South Africa. In all cases you have chosen the source which has the highest Muslim population. If you wish to change the South African population, please discuss here first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HiltonLange (talk • contribs) 06:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I see you've just put your stats in again. Until you can justify why 2001 official census data from Stats SA is inferior to a book which makes a rough reference to "2-3%", I don't believe we need a special note about the Islamic population. If you can provide a verifiable reason why you believe that your source carries at least equal weight to a national census, I'm all ears. Please discuss on the talk page, and don't just edit again. --HiltonLange (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Crime Expo - a plug?

I don't know about anyone else, but the paragraph dedicated to the Crime Expo website under Crime seems to me to be a blatant plug for the site. I think a link like this can be in the 'External links' section, but doesn't warrant being written about directly, since it doesn't add much to the content of the site ... I'd go so far as to hazard that this may be simply here to draw traffic.

May I suggest some discussion regarding this? If no-one is forthcoming, I will remove the offending paragraph.

Stuart Steedman 07:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do remove it. The thing that really makes me wonder is how all of these sock-puppets and very new users are related. Are they all just User:JackAss? Is the creator of the Crimexpo site also involved? It doesn't look good for the "for"s when a new user with no edits to their name spontaneously materialises and fixes the link in this article (and then promptly disappears). You really do need to think hard about your position when you find yourself resorting to such dirty tactics (and violating Wikipedia policy: WP:SOCK). Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 07:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the link in the external links section that linked to the crime expo site. Whoever added it (an unregistered user) actually had the audacity to write: "Added Crime link to provide a non-biased view for safety of potential tourists." Explain to me how a site is non-biased when the author of the site describes South Africa as a "hell on earth." Besides, wikipedia is not here 'for the safety of potential tourists,' nor is it here to advertise unreliable and biased (and frankly, offensive) websites. This link certainly does not meet any of wikipedia's requirements for external links, nor can it be considered a reliable source. If there should be any link to crime statistics it should be to the statistics section of the SAPS website. Lionchow 13:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, the link shouldn't be on the main SA article. Incidentally, someone (presumably the same individual you refer to) keep adding the same link at the Wikitravel site (http://wikitravel.org/en/South_Africa). I've been removing it there too (as an ip). Mikker ^(...) 17:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

If you do intend to link to the SAPS Website for crime statistics, please add a note (a disclaimer if you like) stating that the Minister of Safety and Security has placed a moratorium on the release of South African crime statistics to the media. In effect, all stats are at least one year old before release. DawnTreader 196.207.40.213 18:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Crime is a reality - why do you choose to ignore the facts?

Hi there, I'm the creator of crimeprotest.co.za, with no relation to Neil Watson.

Please help me by telling me what's wrong with the content I posted to the SA site, and if possible provide me with guidelines on how the content should be posted:

"A website to raise public awareness of crime, gather support to re-instate the death penalty, and pressurise government to do more about the crime problem has been created in July of 2006. The site invites the general public to provide ideas to government to assist in stamping out crime. Several other websites have also been created with various agendas, all focussing on the crime problem, of which Crime Expo South Africa was the most controversial. This site was created to expose the crime problem in South Africa to the world, and possibly have negative implications on the 2010 FIFA World Cup."

The crimeprotest.co.za website is created by community, for community, to improve the situation in South Africa, no more no less. I can't see Watson's site mentioned but not crimeprotest? IMHO, it does not make sense...

Take them both out. There are lots of websites, on lots of issues re: South Africa. Concerned people who are afraid to divulge who they are needn't divulge themselves here either. Wizzy…☎ 12:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

To expand on Wizzy's explanation, just because this is the article on South Africa doesn't mean that anything relating to South Africa can (or should) be included in this article. By necessity, the main article on a country must be a summary or a general overview. Perhaps the paragraph you give above would be appropriate for a more specific article, like Crime in South Africa, say. (I see that article doesn't exist, but maybe it should be started.)

Given, however, the importance which the crime problem has at the moment in public opinion, a discussion of the public concern about crime is certainly relevant (IMO) to this article. And that discussion is what we already had in the Crime section, even before the links to Crime Expo SA started being added.

Basically what I am saying is that Wikipedia is not a repository of links. Just as you don't see a discussion of Hellkom in the Economy or Media sections, so you don't see discussion of Crime Expo in the Crime section. In general, websites that relate to a country are not viable for inclusion in the main country article. - htonl 15:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the info and explanations, even though Wizzy's comments are uncalled for. If you live in South Africa or read the news, you'll probably know how corrupt government is, and how dangerous it is to interfere in their matters; See my anonymousity in that context, and respect my views as I respect yours. Have you ever considered that this site (crimeprotest) has been designed for free and is being maintained for free? Have you considered the objectives and reasons for the site's existence? It's clear that you have not been affected by violent crime if you take these matters so lightly, and throw it (crime) in with other issues. Just read a few South African newspapers for a week, and you'l soon realise that crime is not like the other issues. I did not invite flaming in any way, and never condone it when it's uncalled for. Flamers are usually much more confident on the Internet than in real life. Wikipedia is owned by the world, not a select few who choose to lable themselves as wizards. Thanks again for the positive explanation Htonl! - Crime Protest Webmaster (webmaster_|_at_|_crimeprotest.co.za) 19 August 2006 11:21 (GMT+2:00)

"and how dangerous it is to interfer in their matters" - which version of South Africa are you living in? Declaring yourself to be the "crimeprotest webmaster" is a great way to make sure you have little "anonymousity"; besides, I doubt that that's the primary reason why you're too chicken to register for a Wikipedia account. Your internet bandwidth comes from Telkom, which is almost entirely owned by the government; so why haven't they closed your site down, then, if they are indeed as dangerous as you say? Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 10:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

same version as you, Zyxoas: the version wher corruption, crime and lawlessness reigns! The version where HIV is a myth. The version where Christianity is banned from schools. The version where Police service do not exist. There is a huge difference between chicken and stupid. I'll rather be chicken then. I have all the anonymousity I need, thank you. I have a Wikipedia account, and cannot see how that has anything to do with my identity(??). Government cannot close the site down because (1) They do not have the skills. (2) There are still laws in place to prevent then from doing that. You have a lot to say about me. What more have you done for South Africa other than your Sotho translations? Do you think I'm doing this for persoanl gain? Are you afraid that you'll miss the soccer world cup? Where are you coming from with this attitude? (or rather come again.. as they say) Cpwebmaster 09:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Though I agree with Zyxoas, wikipedia is not a place to debate these issues. And also, I totally agree with the decision not to have the website in the text. In fact, it shouldn't even be a link IMO. Mikker ^(...) 15:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

(This is a response to the Crime Protest webmaster, not to Zyxoas or Mikkerpikker). The fact that the site is designed and run for free and the motivations for its existence don't affect its relevance (or not) to this article. I have never suggested that crime shouldn't be discussed in this article; only that specific websites are not sufficiently important to get whole paragraphs devoted to them. I have in fact been personally affected by crime, though not nearly as seriously as many other people have; but in any case, I reject the argument that only those who are victims of crime have the "right" to have a say in these kinds of discussions. I do in fact read the Cape Times every day; I am well aware that crime is a very serious problem. But wouldn't you agree that HIV/AIDS, poverty and unemployment are equally important "issues" (or whatever one might call them)? Especially so since poverty and unemployment are among the things that drive people into crime. - htonl 18:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I now see that these sites do not belong under the main article, and have started with the stub for Crime in South Africa. I wouldn't put HIV/AIDS under the same umbrella as crime. HIV and AIDS has to do with belief systems, lifestyle and culture - I believe it's choice (except for cases of blood transfusion, accidents etc.), and if you choose to have unprotected sex like South Africa's ex vice president Jacob Zuma, then it's you choose your own destiny. He knew the woman he allegedly raped has HIV and still chose to have unprotected sex with her. Luckily we have lots of garlic and the African Potato and we can always have a quick shower to wash off the HIV after unprotected sex. Poverty and unemployment causes crime, but what causes poverty and unemployment? Corruption, mismanagement of a country, lack of schooling etc; basically all forms of bad governance of a country causes and breeds more crime. When you have as many unschooled, uncultured people as we have in South Africa, there is not really much point in debating the issue of why crime exists - the acts of assault, murder and rape are utterly barbaric, especially the forms thereof found in South Africa, committed by barbarians for no othe reason than primal instinct. Some extremists even believe that boer genocide or ethnic cleansing is happening in South Africa. - Cpwebmaster 09:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Cpwebmaster

That's funny. HIV is not a choice, Mr. "Anonymousity". You went to school; you are not living in poverty; you have a TV and a radio in your house. As I explained to my 13 year old nephew after he expressed shock when I made the comment that Fredy Mercury died from AIDS, AIDS does not affect mostly "black" people - it affects mostly poor people. The type who can't go to school, can't afford a radio or TV, and are powerless to protect their dignity (shadow, in the African languages). And what caused their poverty? Let's just say they weren't filthy rich pre-1994. Also, if a population of people are systemically raped and brutalised continuously for several generations you can't expect them to suddenly become perfect, elevated people immediately when the victimisation stops. There was nothing "civilised" about Apartheid (which means a lot more than simply "apartness"). Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 10:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This whole discussion is similar to the one I had a few months ago about how relevant South Africa's worsening corruption levels were [[4]] to the main South African page. It seems to boil down to what some consider a typical encyclopædia entry might contain. Traditionally, encyclopædia did not cover things like crime and corruption, so they have a point. However, Wikipedia is different and also in today's world we have better ways of analysing these things (especially corruption) so who says it should not be included?

What people would want to read NOW should be the criteria for its content. In my view, people certainly would be intrigued to read that a country (not at war) has unnatural death figures exceeding those in Iraq (apparently both car accident victims and murder victims exceed Iraq's deaths). People might also be interested to read that the number of unnatural deaths annually since Apartheid, exceeds all political deaths during the Apartheid years combined. I reckon that crime and corruption is now so pervasive in South African life that to give it the watered-down overview that it currently has is a cover-up crime in itself.

My April section on corruption levels worsening so rapidly has unfortunately been removed permanently by the likes of encyclopædia traditionalists. I have unfortunately not been able to convince them that it should be mentioned as part-and-parcel of the piece on crime. I am glad to hear Cpwebmaster echoing the notion that crime stems from government's corruption and mismanagement. I quote again from Junius' first 1769 public letter to the people of Britain, who were going through their own socio-political upheaval at the time (i.e. the corruptions of the Duke of Grafton).

The ruin or prosperity of a state depends so much upon the administration of its government, that, to be acquainted with the merit of a ministry, we need only observe the condition of the people. If we see them obedient to the laws, prosperous in their industry, united at home, and respected abroad, we may reasonably presume that their affairs are conducted by men of experience, abilities and virtue. If, on the contrary, we see a universal spirit of distrust and dissatisfaction, a rapid decay of trade, dissensions in all parts of the empire, and a total loss of respect in the eyes of foreign powers, we may pronounce, without hesitation, that the government of that country is weak, distracted, and corrupt.

I differ with Cpwebmaster and htonl on one issue - that poverty and unemployment causes crime. There are many poverty striken people throughout the world and in Africa where crime has not reached ludicrous levels. This poverty and unemployment routine we hear time and time again - it is the clichéd "we are not criminals; we are merely the victims of circumstance". If you looked closely, you'd see that those driven to crime by desperation constitute mostly petty crime. However, the major crime problem in South Africa is murder, grand theft, assault, rape and organised crime. These kinds of crimes are not the poorest of the poor driven by desperation. And the new breed of robbers are not on a crusade of sharing what they steal with the poor. They are driven by pure greed. This is a morality crisis, not peoples' circumstances! I believe the "poverty and unemployment" routine is simply the political excuse for those who are ineffectively dealing with the problem. Cpwebmaster and htonl, please do not give their excuse validity by repeating it.

Zyxoas I am dissappointed to see you also writing as though people are helpless to their circumstances. Your debate centres around the notion that people were once in terribly unfortunate circumstances and are not going to get better soon. Well, thats fine - a bit pessimistic perhaps, considering the 1994 "democracy" that should empower poeple out of their current circumstances. But why are things dramatically worse is the real question? Why are corruption levels still steadily declining and why is crime and morality still at this demonic level? This is the real question! Your arguments would imply that we should see the 1994 levels of poverty, crime and social status at the very least staying constant - but we dont, so what is the cause?

Lastly, I would like to suggest to the www.crimeprotest.co.za guys to publish statistics on the number of South African politicians (and their immediate families) who have criminal records. Then people may finally see the link between corruption and crime. - Eltharian ^Talk 20 August 2006 UTC

Your last point is a very good idea; then we can debate whether being convicted of treason against a fascist, racist state makes one a "criminal". Btw, I'm not convinced that poverty and immorality have increased since Bliss Apartheid (be careful how you present your statistics, if any). "unnatural death figures exceeding those of Iraq"? What's the population of Iraq, again? I have a feeling that the answer is less than 4 billion, and that these "figures" of which you speak are raw numbers, not percentages. It's just a hunch I have; I could be wrong... Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 14:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Zyxoas I know the debate you want to make but I don't want to go there. Let me rather correct myself. I should have said, "publish statistics on South African politicians with criminal records (crimes without political motives or crimes committed after 1994)", to avoid any confusion.

Regarding Iraq, all crime statistics are usually measured per 100 000 people - it is a ratio and has nothing to do with the population size. I will try to dig up the figures I found a year or two ago. In the mean time you may look at [5] for the 2004 figures.

Not convinced of Poverty or Immorality not getting worse? Well, what can I say - at least you are not simply accepting my statements at face value. As I see it, there are generally 5 points of view to choose from when it comes to explaining crime:

• POVERTY: Either you think that poverty causes crime, in which case poverty MUST be getting worse if crime is getting worse.
• IMMORALITY: You take my view where poverty and crime are not linked, where morality is getting worse (and question where that stems from).
• INCOMPETANCE: You take the view that the police and/or the authorities above them can not do their job (though they have budgets higher than many countries which are able to contain such crime).
• SHIFTING BLAME: You blame other external factors (i.e. drug lords from Nigeria, 3rd force activities, legacy of Apartheid, etc. Or if you are really intellectual you may be able to put together a huge capitalist conspiracy like the USA being creators of HIV/AIDS for economic benefit, etc.)
• IGNORANCE: Lastly, (and we get back to the title of this discussion), you may choose to ignore the facts and pretend that high crime and corruption in South Africa are not real. (this is your only real option that doesn't reflect on government's mismanagement. bliss)

- Eltharian ^Talk 20 August 2006

I must jump in here and add that even though it is probably encouraged to pontificate about the causes of crime and analyse crime in general, the causes of crime are extremely complex, and similarly is its solution. A better approach would be to include a whole list of factors as being causes of crime, and similarly a whole list of approaches as a solution.
Therefore, I believe that poverty can be seen as a contributing factor to crime. As is a lack of discipline, as is a lack of law enforcement, as is an ineffective judicial system, as is silent diplomacy from a government, as are drugs and alcohol, as is corruption, as are dim streetlights, as is a lack of societal unity, as is a lack of community co-operation, etc. etc.
Any actual solution to crime -- I believe -- would come from an 'all angles' approach.
Please feel free to contribute ideas about solving crime, and if you really want to do something about it, I think the best course of action is to simply put pressure. Put pressure on your neighbourhood, on your household, on your community, on your police station, on your local politician, and most importantly, on government itself. Good luck, and gold bless Africa, and the rest of the world!
Rfwoolf 06:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Culture: Afrikaans Music

I'm a little concerned that the section detailing South African music - specifically the Afrikaans music part - has turned into a linkfest of sorts (sans the links, but there's a lot of band-names listed.) I have only heard of one of the listed bands there; are all these band names important enough to be listed on the article, or should they not rather be put into another, seperate article?

Your input on this appreciated. If no further discourse is met on the matter, then I am going to trim back these band names.

Stuart Steedman 06:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Fokofpolisiekar (?) does have it's own article, but this article does not link to it. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 07:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty then, trimming back the band names. The article is, after all, about South Africa, and not a billboard for aspiring South African musicians.

Culture: Sports

There is no mention of sporting activities in this article at all. Wouldn't it be prudent to include something under the Culture section in this regard? I suppose cricket, rubgy and soccer at least should get a mention. Parodygm 15:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Evolution

Can we remove the evolutionary content in the history section? As a studied scientist I cannot let the people who read this think that those theories are plausible. Evolution is merely a hypothesis, and is NOT a science, nor does it have sientific backing in any way! Thank you71.230.10.96Jinny

I wonder which Science you have studied. "No Scientific backing in any way"? :-/ And what does this have to do with Afrikaans bands? Punk rock is a very evolved music genre... Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 23:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No Zyxoas, you got it all wrong. It doesn't have any 'sientific' backing in any way. That's completely different from 'scientific' backing. Lionchow 15:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

True, evolution is a theory, however there are still lots of grey areas which are not completely backed by scientific facts, such as carbon dating and the thermodynamics of space. However, a big chunk of evolution can be considered as factual. There are lots of theories that have successfully proven evolution wrong, however they do not have the popularity to influence it. Evolution theory is accepted by most people - even though this does not prove its factuality or authority. For while being, we should accept most of evolution. Someday the grey areas might be clarified. However, evolution theory shall always be a theory. --Adriaan90 15:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is a discussion of evolution here on the South Africa page? Take it to the evolution articles! (Or rather, users like Jinny can take it to forums which believe in the Book of Genesis as infallible fact overruling all science). Rexparry sydney 22:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You have mistaken the meaning of scientific theory. "Theory" does not mean that it might be wrong. That is a common misconception. A "theory", in science at least, is simply an explanation for a set of observations that have been well-tested and are generally accepted by the scientific community.

By contrast, a scientific law is just a set of repeated observations. If "what comes up comes down" was a scientific law (just as an example), "what comes up comes down because of the gravitational pull of the earth" would be a theory. A scientific theory is not a lower-grade than a scientific law. 12.219.137.255 04:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a Wikipedia, not a Bible. Bennelliott • Talk • Contributions 09:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"You have mistaken the meaning of scientific theory. "Theory" does not mean that it might be wrong."

I'm afraid that's exactly what it means... 66.167.146.221 16:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, like the "theory" of gravity. Why do we even have an article about cosmology when it rests on such shaky ground? Go and check out "evolution as theory and fact" before trolling here again. --Slashme 07:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this is the last place to have a debate about evolution vs. creation. Let the article cite what scientists HAVE found here (whether they be right or wrong) and not about what you believe Jinny. Wynand.singels 13:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Jews

The article History of the Jews in South Africa is not linked in any way from this article, neither is Afrikaner-Jews, which I really think should be included somehow. I'm not sure where though, since I didn't even read this whole article but only searched the page, so I'll leave it to someone more involved to add the links. Thanks. --Jacob no. 9 13:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think should it be added? We can't add all articles that have something to do with South Africa or with history. That is what the Wikipedia search function is for. Just my2c. -- leuce 18:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Mahatma Gandhi

There need to be some information about Mahatma Gandhi and his contribution to the freedom movement in South Africa. Also information on the incident that made Gandhi the Mahatma. Chanakyathegreat 07:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a slightly debatable issue. I have seen several articles claim that Ghandi only fought for the liberation of the Indian people. Specifically by saying that they are not k****s like the Blacks. So he was not really part of the freedom movement as a whole. I am not discrediting Ghandhi in anyway, nor any of the great things he did, I just wonder if it's applicable here. Wynand.singels 13:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

HIV/AIDS and Citing Sources

I moved this section from the article because it cites no sources. If the author or others would like to improve it by citing sources, and hopefully improve it in general along the way, please do. Until then, please don't add info without properly researching it and citing your sources. Lionchow - Talk 09:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

===HIV/AIDS===

As in many African countries, the spread of AIDS (aquired immuno-deficiency syndrome) is a serious problem in South Africa. The link between HIV, a virus spread primarily by sexual contact, and AIDS has long been denied by the president and the health minister, who have insisted that the many deaths in the country are due to malnutrition, and hence poverty, and not the HIV virus.

AIDS is affecting mainly those who are sexually active, which means the deomographics of the country are slowing changing. Most deaths are people who are also economically active, resulting in many families losing their primary wage earners. This is resulting in many 'AIDS orphans' who in many cases depend on the state for care and financial support. Elderly people, traditionally supported by younger member of the family, are also becoming more and more dependant on the state for financial support.

The above information is correct, however I agree with you that is has to be referenced. --Adriaan90 10:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok I re-added the information with its required citations. --Adriaan90 12:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm new around here so I can't edit a protected article. However, I would like for somebody to do the following: First on the structure of the article. There are a two paragraphs on the AIDS situation under the Economics heading that should be moved to the HIV/AIDS section. Second, rewriting those paragraphs. The number of infected is given as 21% which is wrong and based on outdated projections from years ago. Fortunately the numbers in the main article on HIV/AIDS in South Africa are correct so please copypaste from there. It's also worth mentioning the Nelson Mandela HSRC Study of HIV/AIDS [6]. The prevalence rates of 11% in the 2002 Mandela study were also largely corroborated by Statistics South Africa in a survey from the same time (though with a somewhat lower percentage). However, I have difficulty finding that survey on the SSA website. If somebody finds it, please cite that one too. I think this is very important since newspapers, activists and people in general commonly cite outdated studies with flawed methodologies and fantastic projections ("one third of South Africans will have HIV in 2007!") when they talk about the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa. Therefore please mention the dichotomy between outdated estimates and projections with actual reliable statistics. I also strongly suspect many African countries have their HIV/AIDS rates overestimated in a similar manner, simply because their statistical bureaus are incapable of providing reliable data to counter the wilder claims. If South Africa's HIV infection rate is around 11%, then how can a country like Lesotho have 40% when it's completely enclosed by SA? Sorry, I shouldn't engage in advocacy like that but it disturbs me that many outside Africa view the situation as hopeless when they hear numbers like 40%. The situation is dire but by no means hopeless. Dell Day 21:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Concentration camps

Lgh, I've reverted your edit because the Boer war concentration camps can't be called a British invention. The term first came to be applied around then (see Concentration camp for more info) but the idea of rounding up and confining your enemies was hardly new (although the level of mistreatment of course differed from case to case). Greenman 12:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Correct, concentration camps were used in the American Civil War. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.65.7 (talk) 15:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Other Links

I would like to add an other links section onto the wiki, fro other general links like *South African Directory etc.

Article now has two AIDS sections

The article now has two AIDS sections. This is not good. Fix this. --Xyzzyplugh 00:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Link to my news site

I have put a link to the news website that I edit: South Africa The Good News under External Links>News on Wikipedia's South Africa page. It was removed and I received a message from an administrator saying that the link had been removed and that I was not to re-insert it. Why is the link to http://www.sagoodnews.co.za not relevant to the page on South Africa? Is it too biased? Fellla1 13:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't se any messages left on your talk page, but I would guess that the link was removed for any one of three reasons:

1. It is not considered a reliable source. As you said, it is a website that YOU edit. Does it for example have any sort of fact-checking or peer-review process to determine the accuracy of the info it contains? Does it provide a collection of stories that appear in other publications, with citations and references to all the info on it, or is it a primary source of information (i.e. is the information self-written)?
2. Just judging by the name of the site, I was guess that the news presented therein is not neutral in the Wikipedia sense.
3. "Utility" (a wishy-washy term but hey...). How useful (to the average Wikipedian reader, who would NOT be South African and would NOT be interested in reading news with any type of biased slant) is the addition of your site to the already extensive list of sites provided under the See also and External links sections?

I've left you a welcome message. feel free to message me if you have any further questions. Zunaid 15:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"it is a website that YOU edit" Is a source unreliable when someone edits it? That's absurd. Someone has to edit it, of course... Help me if I misunderstand. --Adriaan90 17:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

There are (well-intentioned) links added to South African (and other) pages all the time. We try to keep the links encyclopedic. One persons writing is non-encyclopedic, unless they are themselves encyclopedic (my opinion). Cape Town would be awash with accommodation links without regular pruning. People might be looking for accommodation, but we just point to official tourism websites. I am sure your site is great, but it has to be really good to survive as an external link on the (important) South Africa article. Check What Wikipedia is not. Wizzy…☎ 17:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

In response to Adriaan: the rest of the paragraph clarifies what I meant by my statement. Perhaps I should have written it out in one sentence i.e. "a news website that you edit that has no fact-checking or peer review mechanism". Obviously SOMEONE has to edit the site, but the distinction made here is the peer review process. Zunaid 09:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Most of the content on http://www.sagoodnews.co.za is sourced from other news websites or from press releases, etc. I'm basically a one-man show, so am not able to dig deep and verify every story that I post. Although I do think accuracy of the content of my site would stand up to scrutiny, I accept that it may be biased and lacking in a peer review mechanism. Sniff. Thanks again. Fellla1 13:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well in that case your website does not have to verify the stories it posts, so long as they are, in turn, obtained from reliable sources (in general press releases and newspapers would be considered reliable). However in this case you run into #2 and #3. If I were, say, an American reader, I'd be MUCH more confident being directed to a bona fide impartial news site such as IOL or News24 (which are backed by large media corporations), than being directed to an overly-partisan or overly-critical (did someone say Crime Expo?) website run by a small group or an individual. Zunaid 14:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Media in RSA

I dispute that the south African media is free . It’s largely controlled by government/ANC cronies in their fat cat AA positions

Just look at the following : http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=287413&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__national/

http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=287091&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__national/

The RSA seems to becoming just another banana republic controlled by a corrupt ruling elite supported by poor ignorant masses

And as evidence that ZA media are not free, you cite reports in the ZA media. OK. --Slashme 18:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Slowly the grip of a fascist regime is grabbing your country’s social liberties away from you.

Now the SABC , tomorrow the M&G ……….. and so it slowly goes on

Yes, "it's becoming another Zimbabwe", or something... Personally, I don't mind living in a country that tries to minimise and control the distribution of porn (like "late night" e.tv Emmanuel movies about women who enjoy being raped, and pictures of skiny topless strippers on the 3rd page of every edition of the daily "Die Son" Afrikaans tabloid), and is respectful enough and has enough Ubuntu not to allow the publishing of tasteless, disgusting pictures of Muhammad especially designed to anger Muslims, but that's just me... Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 18:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Zyxoas, have you read On Liberty by John Stuart Mill? Mikker ^(...) 20:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

According to Reporters Without Borders SA is 44th in the world wrt media freedom [7], ahead of numerous other liberal democracies (of which, incidentally, there are 89 on Freedom House's classification). Mikker ^(...) 20:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

TSHWANE is the Capital

The Capital city is no longer Pretoria, it is Tshwane. Regardless of the politics behind it (pro./anti apartheid) the Republic of South Africa has changed the name of its capital from Pretoria to Tshwane, Wikipedia should respect that.

I was under the impression that it was just the municipal area that was changed to Tshwane - not the actual city name i.e. if you were under the Pretoria municipal area you now fall under Tshwane?SparrowsWing 23:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Tshwane is only the municipality's name. The city is still Pretoria. Tshwane includes Pretoria, and loads of other little towns near it. --Adriaan90 04:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Pretoria is the capital. Tshwane, as above, is only the name of the municipality. Wikipedia is not in the wrong here, at this point in time. Look at OR Tambo International Airport - it has changed. Hopefully this makes sense. -- Chris Lester ^talk 06:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to make accusations, please research your facts and provide references. Find out what the legal requirements for a name change is, and find out whether they have been followed through. Just because some politicians (and policically motivated persons) incorrectly use a proposed new name, does not make it official. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.65.7 (talk) 15:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Whats missing?

Great page, but i just feel that there is not there enough to really capture the "essance" of South Africa. There is no mention of the 76 uprising, or much of the struggle at all.

And what about the fact that there is no mention of the World Heritage Sites.

Inequality is still a big part of South African life. This has to get in there somewhere. A small mention under Economy is not sufficiant for a country like SA.

Also a mention of BEE policies to address the past should be mentioned. And please, a non biased acount.

Tourism is a big earner for the South African economy. Its what non South Africans would look for on a page like this. Someone's got to put it in there.

I would suggest a section on corruption in South Africa. It seems to be the corruption capital of the world ! That would give you the essence of the country

Fire_

Corruption is everywhere and i don't believe a whole section would be needed. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

In that case south Africa is the alcoholic with the rest just being social drinkers

gay marriage

why aint there nothing about this —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:76.214.80.184 (talk • contribs)

→ Gay rights in South Africa. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

SA's prosperity

Shouldn't it be noted in bold here that the real main reason that SA is the most prosperous country in Africa is that it was ruled by whites? -The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.113.137.249 (talk) 06:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Shouldn't it then also be noted that the South African economy has grown leaps and bounds since it has become truly democratic? Jediwannabe 07:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually know it probbaly should not be noted. The economy has not grown becuase of anything the ANC or the new "democraticlly" elected governemt has done. The economy is the same, the recources are the same, the import exports are the same, and the businessess are the same. The economy has basicly just resumed, its a continuation that has been able to pick back up from before world sanctions were imposed in the 80's. As soon as the apartheid governemnt was gone, the sanctions were lifted and SA was re-admitted to the world economy. Thats why its has grown. As soon as the ANC is gone, we will re-join the civilized world, thats if we can make it through the crime wave brought on by the same 70% of disadvantaged blacks, the sames ones that were disadvantaged during apartheid, and the same ones that are disadvantaged with the ANC. The ANC actually only represents and benifits a small 30 someodd precent of blacks. Everyone was dupped. Its still a minority run country, I don't know why thats so hard for everyone to see.

I absolutely think it should. The basis was laid down by European colonialism, which benefits everybody in South Africa. The article just makes it seem that this development appeared suddenly. Let's keep in mind that the African Black never even developed a written language or the wheel.-The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.113.137.249 (talk) 07:31, December 8, 2006 (UTC).

If I may say, your views seem flawed from every perspective. Lets 1st start with the assertion that "the basis was laid down by European colonialism, which benefits everybody in South Africa. The article just makes it seem that this development appeared suddenly." So what you trying to say is that Colonialism actually did South Africa a favour. You seem to forget that over 300 years of oppresion, many people died needlessly. Not to mention that colonialism gave rise to apartheid, which is now considered a crime against humanity. Or do you choose to believe otherwise?

And what exactly did you mean by "Let's keep in mind that the African Black never even developed a written language or the wheel" Do you think that they deserved to be colonised because of this? Or that perhaps early colonisers were somehow genetically superior, and that is why they invented the wheel and the writen language? Maybe you should look into it further. Neither was invented by the colonisers either. What are probably the oldest writen records are actually found on African soil. Know what it is? Have a good think, look it up, and perhaps you'll lean a new respect for a people you clearly hold in contempt.

For anyone out there that is interested, look up Jared Diamond, and his works. -The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cape fox (talk * contribs) 19:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

So what you trying to say is that Colonialism actually did South Africa a favour. Yes, I absolutely think so. Colonialised countries are better off than they would be if they were never colonized.

You seem to forget that over 300 years of oppresion, many people died needlessly. Needlessly? Are you saying death is a needed thing? In any case, I disagree that a lot of people died needlessly. People always die.

Not to mention that colonialism gave rise to apartheid, which is now considered a crime against humanity. Or do you choose to believe otherwise? I don't think it's a crime against humanity all. Without apartheid, these negroes would still be living in mud huts (and after apartheid ended, a lot of them have been forced into just such dwellings).

Ever heard about the farm murders in S-A? Wild negroes mutilating farmers (that provide everybody food) in the most animalistic of ways (not that animals know other ways).

Do you think that they deserved to be colonised because of this? Absolutely, although you clearly think colonialism is bad, when in fact it isn't.

Finally, whites brought written language into the darkest Africa. That is fact. Your reference to oldest written records probabyl refers to some cave painting or some crap - that's not writing. Monkeys can draw if you give them a pen.88.113.137.249 00:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

As it stands, I think your arguments are poorly researched. How about a grace period before we pick this up again, so that you may edit/revise some of the above? I hope that we can keep it civil, and I hope that you are infact open to reason, and that I am not indeed wasting my time in any way. Thanks --nocturnal omnivorous canine 13:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't feed the troll, Cape Fox :) Greenman 08:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I LOL'd. Writing was invented in ancient Egypt, which is in Africa. 198.54.202.246 21:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't waste any time replying to the views of notorious racist 88.113.137.249 in this section. This user has a history of disrupting Wikipedia and has been blocked. The section ought to be deleted in line with stated policy at the top that discussion of apartheid will be deleted from this page; on the other hand I suppose it's an instructive example of the kind of racism most South Africans still have to face in the wider world. Rexparry sydney 23:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

On the HDI south Africa has been becoming poorer for 12 years strait now. Also on the global competitive rating South Africa has fallen 12 places.

Maybe you should also include a piece on the lack of infrastructure maintenance and the potential effect it will have on growth as the recent spate of power cuts have made a devastating impact on the economy.

Also should be noted the total collapse of the SA military and the impending collapse of the SA police force and the effect AA is playing on these institutions—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.128.35.243 (talk • contribs)

HDI does not equal wealth, it's a measure that depends on a variety of factors including health. As such, the decreasing HDI rating is a direct reflection primarily of the country's AIDS epidemic, not any slide in wealth. In reality, not even the most obtuse would be able to deny that South Africans are, on average, better off thanks to over a decade of solid and consistent economic growth. Indeed, it has been the longest period of sustained growth since the Smuts government and the most economically prosperous decade of the past fifty years. To those who claim that SA's development is due entirely to the whites, it might be worth asking themselves the question of just how much poorer the country was *because* of apartheid and colonialism, which prevented over 80% of the population from making a contribution to the economy as skilled workers or wealthy consumers. Had SA followed a less destructive path in 1948 and focused on freedom and education, the country may be as wealthy as South Korea today, if not wealthier.

The maintenance of infrastructure is not lacking to the extent you appear to claim, nor were the power cuts a result of it. Instead, they were due to short-sighted government policy which did not do enough to plan for the vastly increased demand that South Africa's added prosperity brought. This is being rectified with the construction of new power stations as we speak. It also contradicts your claim that SA has become poorer in recent years, since if that were true, where did the rapid increase in electricity demand come from?

Finally, it is absolute bollocks to claim that the SA military has collapsed, or that the SAPS is about to do so. It's true that the SANDF hit a low point in 2000/2001, at which point many people (including myself) were dismayed at its likely future, but this is no longer the case. Increased funding and the new manpower introduced through the Military Skills Development System (MSDS) has resulted in a great deal of positive change, nearly halving the average age of enlisted soldiers and rejuvenating units which had for too long been virtually inactive thanks to ranks of unfit and ill troops. The situation has changed so much that for the past three years the SANDF is once more able to rotate entire battalions on deployments, rather than forming ad-hoc formations comprising of men cherry-picked from existing units. I am in constant contact with many of those serving in the SANDF, both officers and enlisted soldiers. To a man, each has said how much better the SANDF is than it was a few years ago and also how much better it's still getting thanks to a number of farsighted reforms and better training. So I'm sorry, but your information is outdated.

The same is true, to a lesser extent, with the SAPS. Again, it too hit a low point around 2001/2002, at which the weight of trying to be a pseudo-paramilitary force with apartheid-era structures and insufficient personnel threatened to crush the organisation. Yet a series of reforms have gradually been implented, ranging from new structures which emphasise local policing, to increased pay and the hiring of more personnel, to the creation of more specialised units (such as the National Intervention Unit) to handle high-risk and difficult operations and policing in order to take the load off ordinary policemen who lacked the specialised training required. Things are not yet where they should be, but progress continues to be made and there's certainly no risk of an impending collapse. This is reflected by the fact that the majority of crimes are statistically decreasing.

Less angry ranting and more serious discussion might get you taken seriously around here. But keep up the ridiculous claims based on poor information, and pretty soon we're just going to regard you as a troll and ignore you. Your choice. — Impi 20:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It's all very well arguing that increased electricity consumption is a sign of economic growth, but that would depend on the electricity being used productively. It is one thing for electricity demand to increase due to increased use in say, gold mining or manufacturing, but surely much of the recent demand has been from the supply of subsidised electricity to 'informal settlements' etc. Booshank (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Giving the citizens of the country basic access to electricity is not productive? Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 08:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily, especially if it isn't paid for by the people consuming it. That would be more of a drain on the economy than a sign of growth, by taxing production in order to subsidise consumption. That would in fact discourage economic activity by draining off money that could be used for further investment. In fact it would be very similar to the situation there would be if large numbers of people were stealing electricity; the difference would only be legal, not economic, as both would involve consumption without payment by the consumer, the costs covered by business and other taxpayers. I'm not arguing it's not beneficial for people to have electricity, but that is not the same as it being economic growth as it is more of an economic burden. Rather I'd place it in the same category as aid to the unemployed, free healthcare to the poor etc. Booshank (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, surely providing electricity to those who did not have it before implies that such people will then spend some money on purchasing electrically-powered things, which would provide a boost to the economy. Even if it is only lightbulbs, if you have millions of households each buying one lightbulb a month (say) that is a boost to the lightbulb-manufacturing industry. There are also the less tangible and more long-term benefits, such as electric light at night making it easier for school pupils to study with a corresponding improvement in education. (Actually, that would make for quite an interesting long-term study.) Consider also the reduced expenditure on fire-fighting and emergency healthcare as dangerous paraffin- and wood-based cooking, lighting and heating is replaced by much safer electricity.

I would say that the whole question is moot, anyway. I don't have a cite available, but it is my understanding that the increased electricity demand is actually due to industrial and commercial expansion, and not to the electrification of informal settlements and rural areas. Consider that the majority of the "newly electrified" probably use only a few lightbulbs and a couple of small appliances, and compare that to the massive electricity demands of even one new gold mine or aluminium smelter. It seems quite possible that the influence of electrification is not really so significant. - htonl (talk) 00:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Flag on portal sign

That was not "vandalism", that was me (unsigned at the time). Geez, lighten up over a South African flag on a South African portal sign, that's all I'm asking. --Toussaint 23:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The anon-IP who made an edit with summary "rv" after you added the flag seems to have been a vandal. They replaced the article with a much older version (I have returned it to the version of your edit) and it was their only edit ever. So, essentially, it was a vandal accusing you of vandalising. - htonl 12:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Official second languages

South Africa has ten official second languages.. I cut this map from the article because it is garbage:

Map showing principal South African languages by municipality. Lighter shades indicate a non-majority plurality.

  Afrikaans

  Northern Sotho

  Southern Sotho

  Swati

  Tsonga

  Tswana

  Venda

  Xhosa

  Zulu

Gregorydavid 09:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

May I ask why you say it's garbage? Jediwannabe 09:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Erm. They're not ranked. We have eleven official languages - no one is primary and the others secondary. Also, regarding the name - I agree it should just be in English for the table, I was just re-ordering it because people inevitably add the other language names for SA and if there are going to be the others then Afrikaans shouldn't come first. It's third Joziboy 10:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If I was someone interested in reading up about South Africa I'd be interested in the map. I'm going to put the map back in. If somebody can give a good reason why it shouldn't be there then we can take it out, but lets first get a consensus here. The map doesn't try to rank one language over another, all it does is show the distribution of languages according to who speaks it as there first language. As far as I know all eleven official languages are primary languages. Jediwannabe 12:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, map looks good to me Joziboy 14:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is no official first language either, if yours happens to be Italian, then that is OK too. I see English is left out of the map, which I also happen to think looks cool, although it is treated as the universal language in South Africa. It reminds me of what the South Africa we may have landed up with if it were not for the 1994 elections. The caption of the map seems to create the impression that the local municipalities had something to do with its creation?Gregorydavid 14:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Umm, I get the impression you don't quite realise what the map is. It's not about "official" languages. It's just a depiction of the census information on language distribution, showing the language with the most speakers for each municipality. (The reason that English is left off is because there is no municipality with an English majority. Ndebele is left off for the same reason.) It's "by municipality" merely because Stats SA breaks down its data by municipality. - htonl 18:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I am quite surprised to hear that the map is apparently based on Stats SA or Census information. I would like to see the raw data. The end result is a map that gives the wrong impression. Maybe we can get some information on the design of the survey questionaire. Our electoral system is based on proportional representation but the language map depicts a type of constituency orientation. I suspect that English is a language that the majority of South Africans are able to use to a greater extent than they are able to use any other language..Gregorydavid 19:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

(resetting the indentation) I don't have access to the raw data myself - you'll have to ask Wayne for that - but you can look up the information for any municipality by going to http://www.demarcation.org.za/ and selecting a province and then the municipality from the drop-down boxes, clicking on "Go" and then on the municipality page that loads, clicking on "Statistics". Language is about halfway down. AFAIK the census asks for your predominant home language. I didn't do my household's census form last time so I don't know what it said; maybe some other SA wikipedian remembers. By the way, Stats SA itself publishes a very similar map here.

I don't understand your point about proportional representation - this has nothing to do with politics or government; it's a map showing demographic data. It so happens that the resolution of that data is to municipality level because that's the data that was available from Stats SA. I'd like to reiterate that this map isn't about "ranking" languages or saying that one language is more important or better than another. It's about saying which language is the home language of the most people in a given area. You're probably right that more South Africans can speak English than any other language - but this map is about primary/home language. English doesn't show up because of the way English-speakers are distributed throughout the country and because it's spoken by many as a second language but much fewer as a home language. I don't see how you could represent that on a map. We could actually do with a graph showing how many people nationally speak each language as (a) a home language (b) a second language. - htonl 23:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for this discussion.. Just like the map shows about 50% of South Africa is populated by Afrikaans speaking people, it shows that nobody speaks English as a home language. I do not expect any one Wikipedian to take responsibility for the Map. The discussion started off a bit tongue in cheek..Gregorydavid 06:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't show that 50% of South Africans speak Afrikaans - maybe 50% of the territory though. It's not weighted for population density (there are many more speakers of Zulu in KZN and Xhosa in the EC than there are of Afrikaans in the Western and Northern Cape.. but there's no way of showing that) Joziboy 07:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

That's why I think it would be a good idea to have some form of graph showing how many people speak each language as their home language and as a second language. Unfortunately the Census doesn't seem to collect second language data, so I don't know quite how we'd do it. - htonl 08:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Ja. Pity they don't. It would finally quiet the raging debate between English-speakers, Afrikaans-speakers and Zulu-speakers as to which is the most commonly [i]understood[/i] language (as opposed to most commonly spoken at home). Joziboy 10:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Link Spam

Here I mark the removal of the following domains "www.samusic.co.za", "www.traveldex.co.za", "www.bizniz.co.za" sited as "spam" adding no value to wikipedia. To the owners of these domains, please do not use wikipedia as an advertising platform. thank you. Removed 29 December 2006.

Repeat link spam offence by "www.samusic.co.za" using "www.getitat.co.za" as a redirect to their portal. (same reason as above) Removed 29 December 2006.

"Sorry Joziboy, Im an anonymous editor your name / account link was simply a copy and paste error in my date formatting".

LSD! When did you get to Johannesburg!?! What's up? Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 09:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Um. I didn't write that comment! How bizarre. I don't even know what removing domains means! Nah, I'm in KwaXhosa Tebello (I know how much you love that!) on vac. Still got six months left at inyunivesithi esiKotilandi :) How've you been? Joziboy 10:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I was okay (rather optimistic, actually), but now I am SO agitated and angry! I'll live, though, and I AM grossly over-skilled for that stupid job, anyway...

Yeah, dude, I'm fine. How are those isiXhosa lessons in the middle of England coming along? Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 10:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:South Africa/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I would love to see a comparison between the English Language South Africa, and the Afrikaans Language Suid Afrika pages, some really interesting and noticable differences in point of view, and interpretation of history, (notice that the Afrikaans page gives you the name for South Africa in all the official languages but the english page tell you how English and French is now used in South African passports) also in history or specifically military history why is there nothing about the Angolan and South West Africa/Namibia War from 1966-1989 and also no information about South Africa's Military History in Korea, as well as World War 2, specifically the campaigns of East Africa, and also North Africa. (Tobruk, El Alamein, Klopper, Pienaar) That would be interesting; something that I'd really like to see. Invmog (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 18:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 22:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)