Talk:List of renamed places in South Africa

Transformation, not Africanisation
Does "Africanization" apply to the African language of Afrikaans? If so, problematic, as Afrikaans is an African language, the only Indo-European language known to have developed in Africa & thus African. See languages of Africa. How can you apply Africanization to something that is already been through the process of Africanization? Bloemfontein or Pretoria is as African as Mangaung or Tshwane. Therefore, there should be made a clear distinction and a clarification otherwise Afrikaans it is interpret as European, which it is not and therefore misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roland Postma (talk • contribs) 04:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This is very true but you can't ignore the fact that 90-95% of Afrikaans is from Dutch, a European language. A lot of people will argue that those place names are in fact of European origin. The article should really be saying "Africanisation" instead of "transformation" because we are talking about settlements founded hundreds of years ago before Afrikaans was even officially declared a language in its own right. Bloemfontein was founded as its Dutch name, not Afrikaans and likewise Pretoria was named after someone of a Dutch-origin name. Try and reword the article, as the main argue which I tried to write was that new name changes target places of Afrikaans, and also recently, English origin. Bezuidenhout (talk) 08:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * May, I remind Bezuidenhout that we do not adopt this position of people will argue that those place names are in fact of European origin at Wikipedia because we want to reflect a neutral point of view. We ought to use this page of African languages as a reliable, credible and legitimate criteria: it clearly states Afrikaans is the only Indo-European language known to have developed in Africa and thus African. In relation, the term Africanization refers to the modification of place names and personal names of any European language which reinforces the notion unquestionably that this does not refer to an African languages being changed to suit the new order. & thus it's rather transformation, because it is only applied in the changing of geographic names that is of the Afrikaans language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roland Postma (talk • contribs) 08:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The question is do we write this page in reflection of when those of the European ilk making the transition from European to that of an African identity: Afrikaner or Boer? Or do we refer to Afrikaans as it is now, an African language unquestionably? My Oupa grootjie came from the Netherlands as an engineer, and from day one he only spoke Afrikaans and never spoke Dutch again, only when he drank too much. The point is, Afrikaans was a ticket to Africanisation.


 * And the debate goes on. Which era do we reflect? Contemporary or historical?


 * Ok, how about we claim that the name changes are both "Africanisations" and "transformations". Taking the Eastern Cape for example, "Umtata" to "Mthatha" is clearly a "transformation", but you cannot argue that the city of Uitenhage to [insert Xhosa name] is not an "Africanisation". Likewise changing Port Elizabeth or East London would, indeed, be Africanisations as they are renaming places with links to Europe. When I say name changes have "targeted places of Afrikaans origin in an effort of Africanisation" I am referring to changing the names of places which would be interpreted as "Afrikaans place names" when in fact they are of real European origin. Changing the names of Port Elizabeth, East London, Cape Town, Upington, Uitenhage, Messina, Bochum, Warmbad etc. etc. would clearly be "Africanisations". This has gone way out of proportion so all I can suggest is simply using "Africanisation" and "Transformation" in unison. I'm not blind and I am reading what you're saying that AFRIKAANS IS AFRICAN. I get it, my parents tell me that every day, but you cannot hide the fact that they are ultimately of European origin and that name changes such as Amsterdam, Mpumalanga and Ermelo, Mpumalanga are, in fact, Africanisations. Bezuidenhout (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * True, we need to distinguish between transformation & Africanisation, especially if it is that of British colonial origin. Hendrik Biebouw (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily, as long as we just use both together then we don't need to unleash this can of worms and differentiate whether it's "transformation" of "Africanisation". Just try and write as neutral as possible. The truth is in South Africa and Namibia they are renaming places of Afrikaans and English origin because they are deemed "European" by the vast majority of South Africans. I can't give a reference for this, hence why I won't write that name changes are "anti-white" as every living ANC member will reject this. Just stick with both and go with the flow :) Bezuidenhout (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * African National Congress, either it be the New National Party (within the African National Congress), or the Democratic Alliance, alas the Freedom Front Plus, or it's nemesis the Economic Freedom Fighters, if in power, 'it' will assert or propagate it's narrative of ahistoricism that threatens the neutrality of factualism. It is that, irrespective of the ire we write a neutral point of view. Either it is transformation in relation to altering Afrikaans, or it is Africanisation in relation to altering that of British origin, that is the narrative this Wikipedia page should reflect not a political philosophy nor manifesto that boils down in the maintenance of obsolete power through majoritarianism. Factualism will prevail, it did when the National Party were in power, and it will do now when the African National Congress is in power. Hendrik Biebouw  (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

"... Africanisation in relation to altering that of British origin" - renaming Dutch (Lichtenburg, Vanderbijlpark, Zeerust) and German (Heilbron, Kempton Park, Frankfort) cities in South Africa are "Africanisations", not just those of British origin. In fact, tell me why Pietersburg to Polokwane is not an Africanisation. Anyone could argue that the Voortrekker Petrus Jacobus Joubert was, in fact, a Dutch speaker and that the city if named after a Dutchman. Please can we stop this discussion because I feel you are trying trying to preach that Afrikaans is African but has been blown way out of proportion. Can we just leave it at "Africanisation + removing Afrikaans from the landscape"? That way we cover everything..? Bezuidenhout (talk) 13:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I concede to what you've just said that it is not only through the narrative of British colonialism, but also Dutch or German colonialism. My stress is how do we distinguish coherently between Afrikaans & that of German or Dutch? & if we state that it is indeed Africanization its ambiguity will open counter factual interpretation that Afrikaans is not African but European, which it is not. Therefore I accede to your proposal but only if we insert that any place that is named in Afrikaans can not be open to Africanization as my first comment states as Afrikaans is by definition African and therefore exempted from Africanization. Hendrik Biebouw (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This view of yours, that Afrikaans is definitively an African language, is not universally accepted. In any case, it is clear that the term "Africanisation" is clearly used in practise to describe renamings of Afrikaans names as well as those of English, Dutch or German origin. Wikipedia describes things as they are, not as your particular political viewpoint wants them to be. - htonl (talk) 13:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed/Official
I am considering separating the "settlements" list between those that are official (such as in most Limpopo towns) and those which are proposals (such as Free State towns). I don't want people on this page getting confused between the two. What do other people think? Bezuidenhout (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on List of placename renaming in South Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120313132518/http://www.info.gov.za/view/DownloadFileAction?id=59811 to http://www.info.gov.za/view/DownloadFileAction?id=59811

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

NPOV in introduction
I have no knowledge of South African history and merely stumbled across this page. But I am quite dumbfounded by this paragraph:

>Since 1994, many places in South Africa which have been renamed for political reasons by the ANC government. These name changes were intended to punish white South Africans as being white is no longer thought to be acceptable. Many places are now named after terrorists, money launderers and family and friends of the ANC government. This was a tactic for comrades of the ANC government to loot, exploit and steal more taxpayer money. After 1994 the once beautiful country have fallen to shambles as comrades only cater for their own gain.

This seems to be about as far from a neutral point of view as you can get, especially given the lack of citation. Simply saying "Since 1994, many places in South Africa which have been renamed for political reasons by the ANC government" would be sufficient; currently this article reads like nothing else I've seen on Wikipedia

Nqannakwe → Ngqamakhwe
Nqannakwe doesn't appear to have ever been a location in South Africa; could it be a typo for Nqamakwe? BilledMammal (talk) 12:44, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. You're right and I fixed the typo. Desertambition (talk) 15:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Potentially Split Article
What do you all think of potentially splitting this article? I think it would be much more navigable and sleek if we had a page for just renamed cities in South Africa and then a page for renamed everything else. Desertambition (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It is getting too long, but I think splitting by province would be better, as most of the content in the article is cities, and so splitting on that basis wouldn't help matters much. BilledMammal (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that is unnecessary. People are much more likely to look up population centers than random geographical features. Both can exist as well and I don't see that being a bad thing. But I believe it would be good to have a list of just renamed populated places. Desertambition (talk) 06:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

List is now updated
List is now current up to December 10th 2021. The list may have minor inaccuracies or mistakes but nothing major as far as I can tell. Desertambition (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikilinks
Please avoid changing the wikilinks until the name of the article has been changed. BilledMammal (talk) 03:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Addressing Edit Conflicts
Hello, I notice that you took issue with some of my recent edits. I was wondering why you changed what you did. I'm asking you to slow down and try to find consensus for what you are doing. My claims were cited and I feel like it is disheartening to have my edits reverted immediately after I made them without discussion.

You removed the point about name changes having widespread public support. But all sources I can find point to that being the case. Including the ones I cited. It seems like the article makes the issue appear more controversial than it is. Also your claim that names like "Lydenburg" are considered inoffensive is controversial and uncited.

I would appreciate if you would try to gain consensus before making edits that are going to be controversial. Desertambition (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I didn't see my edits as reverting yours, but instead building on them. I also didn't see them as controversial, as they match the provided sources better than the previous wording did.
 * The only source discussing public support is the Guardian, and it states there is broad public support to rename places with offensive names, but it doesn't make a statement about renaming locations that could be seen as inoffensive - I have been looking for more recent sources, but have not been able to identify any, so if you have any available that would be helpful. The claim that Lydenburg is seen as inoffensive (not "is inoffensive") is also sourced to the Guardian. BilledMammal (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * No worries, I appreciate the interest. All sources I have been able to find support an understanding that a relatively small group of Afrikaners are the only major group who really opposes these name changes. I also made sure to mention the small amount of non-white support. Like the black African that protested alongside Afrikaners. However, non-white opposition to these name changes has been minimal at best and many South Africans feel that the colonial names are offensive simply because they were imposed upon them rather than through public consultation. Every single name change has had a period for the public to voice opposition and some towns have even had to reverse a name change after a court said they didn't follow the correct procedure. This process was democratic and required public support to happen in the first place. South Africa is not like Kazakhstan (Nur-Sultan) where the names can be changed without consultation. The fact that opposition is a minority opinion should be conveyed in the lead for accuracy in my view. Desertambition (talk) 04:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The reason I started editing was to remove that mention; I felt the support mentioned by the sources was too small for its inclusion to be WP:DUE, and in correcting that I realized there were also issues with the text not accurately reflecting the sources.
 * As for everything else you say, if we are to include them in the article we need reliable sources that tell us that; could you link the ones that you have found? I've continued looking for these sources, but so far all I have been able to find is an article about the renaming of Louis Trichardt to Makhado, which discusses the lack of consultation and how the renaming of the city was overturned by the courts. BilledMammal (talk) 04:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah of course. Thanks for being receptive.


 * 1. The ANC and Nelson Mandela had name changes on their agenda since apartheid was abolished in 1994. The ANC have been reelected consistently in every election since 1994, indicating public support. This research paper explains it well. Relevant excerpt quoted below.

The break with the apartheid past in 1994 began a process of redefining national holidays, old memory sites and eventually the renaming of streets and buildings. Several towns and cities carrying the names of Afrikaner personalities were renamed during this period and many areas and cities reverted to their original names from before the apartheid/colonial era. For instance, Pietersburg, Pretoria and Warmbaths got back their original names: Polokwane, Tshwane and Bela-Bela, respectively. Throughout history renaming has been a central element of transformation processes worldwide. In South Africa renaming has been on the agenda since the very first day of democracy, but three elements made the changes of Durban street names special. First, the process was carried out in a highly imperative manner. Second, it was executed rapidly, and third, the aim was not to revert to original names. Street naming in the city happened in tandem with urbanisation and thus the creation of the city itself, and many of the names dated back to the 1850s. A central argument for name changing is the need to get rid of colonial geography. A Road Name Change Act was initiated by the South African Government in 2007 in order to rename streets ‘which have links to pre-1994 colonialism’, as many of the Durban streets had.


 * In fact, some White South Africans do not support keeping the old names.

The critical approach to colonial memories did not strictly follow racial lines in The Mercury readers’ letters: "Although I agree with some objections to the road renaming propos- als, there are two areas that perhaps objectors should think about. The first is the nostalgia for colonial names. English-speakers may forget, or maybe never learnt, just how violent and punitive colonial rule was. [ ... ] Just because we are white and of British descent, is this what we want to claim as our heritage?"


 * 2. The Integrity of Names and Name Changing (Renaming) In Post-Apartheid South Africa: A case of South African Universities also mentions widespread public support for renaming universities.

In South Africa, renaming has been on the agenda since the first era of democracy. Renaming universities and other facilities helps to embrace African culture, values and beliefs. African names go beyond identity construction as they communicate values, beliefs, experiences and other cultural practices. This paper aims to unfold the history behind the naming of the universities in South Africa from their inception to the current stage. This is because as years went, some of the universities were renamed, merged with others and formed a new university or were initially established due to a need of a university in the particular area. Qualitative research methodology was used in this study. Therefore, purposive sampling was used towards identifying data to be collected. Additionally, this study used university websites and the 2004 South African New Institutional Landscape for Higher Education as sample for the study. Which the researchers used content analysis to scrutinise the information towards the significance of the study. The study has revealed that the renaming of universities in South Africa aims at unifying the nation and showing recognition to various natural, political and socio-economic aspects that formed part in rebuilding South Africa after 1994. Renaming universities will remain an ongoing practice as long as there are political and social revolutions.


 * 3. This Guardian article that I linked is titled Whites protest at African name changes and emphasizes that the group is small and almost entirely composed of White South Africans.

Dozens of white residents in Lydenburg - and one black person - rallied to keep the name given to the town by Dutch settlers in the 19th century.


 * I'm having a hard time finding any evidence that opposition to these moves is significant. Seems to be the same small group of people who consistently oppose these changes. Sorry about the length, just trying to be thorough. Desertambition (talk) 05:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Regarding #1, I believe that is already reflected in the article; which ANC officials argue are necessary to address the legacy of colonialism and apartheid. We also can't use the re-election of the ANC to make a claim about the level of public support for one of their policies; that would be OR. Regarding street renaming in Durban, I found an article that discusses those, detailing widespread opposition supported equally by middle class white residents, Indian South Africans, and supporters of the Inkatha Freedom Party - see.
 * For #2, I don't have access to the full article; could you provide a quote where it states there widespread public support for renaming universities?
 * Regarding #3, the Guardian article also covers the objections over renaming Pretoria, as do the other two provided sources. BilledMammal (talk) 05:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * 1. I feel like we are perhaps talking past each other a bit so I want to make sure there's clarification and understanding between us.


 * The ANC are not the sole supporters of these name changes. It just so happens that they have have been in power since 1994. Other parties like the EFF also support name changes. While your claims about Indian South Africans and supporters of the Inkatha Freedom Party having problems with renaming in Durban are true, they are misleading when taken out of context. Both groups supported renaming broadly but disagreed about what to rename these places specifically. Relevant excerpt provided below.

A professor of the University of KwaZulu-Natal captured a recurrent theme of middle-class opinion by suggesting “if somebody wants to change a name, change it to something that makes sense. Name it after a person or something significant that happened in the area” (The Mercury 2008a). In this view, the relevance of a name change is determined by the extent to which the commemorated individual acted within and direct{ly influenced the locality concerned. Indeed, judgements about whether a commemorated individual had exemplified some form of local historical agency became a primary point of contestation. Occasionally this was framed in terms of the particularities of local identity (with whom do locals identify?). So, Brendon Pillay of the Bayview Tenants and Ratepayers Association objected to the proposed renaming of Higginson Highway, Chatsworth, in honour of Yasser Arafat, because the Palestinian figurehead “has no relevance to Chatsworth”. The local Indian community would “more readily identify with struggle stalwarts such as Fatima Meer, Ismail Meer, Yusuf Dadoo and Chris Hani” (Sunday Tribune 2007)


 * 2. I do not have full access either. I was using the abstract to show that this has been a politically popular idea since apartheid ended. South Africans are aware of these name changes and I can not find any evidence that non-white communities are opposed to changing the colonial-era names. There are a large number of instances where communities have debated on what to rename something to, but that does not mean they oppose the act of renaming places more broadly.


 * 3. Yes, it covers the white Afrikaner opposition to renaming Pretoria. The article is titled "Whites protest at African name changes".


 * It seems appropriate to revert your edits pending consensus given that your edits are clearly controversial. I have had to do the same so I hope that you will as well. Citing WP:STATUSQUO, I am going to revert your edit in good faith pending consensus for your changes. I don't think you're doing anything wrong, I just think you need a consensus. If you revert my revert, I will not engage in edit warring. Desertambition (talk) 06:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I believe your revert was inappropriate, as it restored uncited material. Specifically:
 * Name changes in South Africa have widespread public support - we don't have a source telling us there is widespread public support for name changes in general
 * and mainly face opposition from the Afrikaner minority - this is not supported by the sources, as the sources show that opposition is not limited to this minority, although the reasons for the opposition can differ between groups. It also implies that this minority opposes name changes in general, when the situation is more nuanced, with a key point being that the sources tell us they support changing offensive names, although there are other differences.
 * who feel white culture is being erased - a number of motives are presented in the cited sources, but this is not one of them.
 * A small amount of opposition from non-white individuals has also been documented. - Per #2.
 * Given these issues WP:OR issues I will reimplement my edit, though please note that I believe this reimplemented version needs additional sources and further work.
 * Regarding your #1, I believe you see it as misleading because you are assuming that white South Africans oppose name changes in general, while Indian South Africans and supporters of the IFP support them in general but oppose how they are implementing them. This isn't accurate; the professor mentioned in the section you quote, whose opinion is considered to capture the recurrent theme of middle class residents like them, is Michael Laing.
 * Regarding #2, to make an assertion on Wikipedia it is not sufficient for there to be no evidence against the assertion; there needs to be evidence for it.
 * Regarding #3, I see your point now - I was addressing the "small" aspect, rather than the "white" aspect. Thank you for clarifying. BilledMammal (talk) 08:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am confused about your revert . You certainly are making an argument but so am I. It feels inappropriate to implement your controversial edits for what is essentially "I am right and you are wrong" when I maintain the same position. Why do you believe it is not necessary to create a consensus for your changes? That does not feel very collaborative from my perspective. It feels like if I want to make an edit you disagree with I have to create a consensus, surely it should work the other way around. Desertambition (talk) 08:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not "I am right and you are wrong", it is that we don't have sources for the claims made in that version which introduces WP:OR and WP:V issues. BilledMammal (talk) 09:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand that is your position. I am saying that the claims are supported by the sources and are not an example of WP:OR. We just disagree about that. In which case it seems inappropriate for you to unilaterally make the changes you want because you feel like I am wrong. However, I understand this is going nowhere so I will seek consensus on the talk page. Desertambition (talk) 09:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If you have sources that support points one through three above, then please provide relevant quotes from them. It will quickly and easily settle this issue; and if you cannot, then I believe it is clear that we currently have a WP:V issue. BilledMammal (talk) 09:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry to interject, but I feel like the best solution here is probably to keep the stance as neutral and broad as possible, such as highlighting that renaming in South Africa has both supporters and objections, and I feel it's probably fair to say the latter is more likely among the white population. There's not really anything to gain from using objective terms like 'majority' without any real opinion polls. I'd also be careful about trying to target the Afrikaans population when English language cities like Port Elizabeth are changed (PE getting a lot of backlash itself). BenBezuidenhout (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for joining, additional opinions are welcome. I would agree with what you say, and I believe it is reflected in the current text, although we do need additional sources to allow us to clarify the supporters and objections. We do have some for the latter, but I don't want to expand the objections until we can expand the supporters, although I will consider how to reword how we present the objections to incorporate the new sources.
 * I'll also have a look into Port Elizabeth, as it seems likely that there will be news stories covering the renaming that might be helpful here. BilledMammal (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've looked into the renaming of Port Elizabeth, but I haven't been able to provide any surveys or articles indicating broad support, with most covering opposition from various groups. I've also looked for polls generally, but again with no success. BilledMammal (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring
Stop edit warring, this isn't a competition. Can you please quote where the citation says "while the Democratic Alliance, Inkatha Freedom Party and the Minority Front have expressed concerns that the process lacks participation from non-ANC parties. Desertambition (talk) 01:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Although Phase One was not met with significant public opposition, the ANC’s political opponents in the eThekwini council, in the form of the DA, IFP, and Minority Front (MF), were concerned from the outset that the process lacked (their) participation, and that it projected a highly partisan image of antiapartheid struggle history. BilledMammal (talk) 01:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That does not mean they feel that way about every name change. It just means they feel that way in the eThekwini council. The article should reflect that. I also don't think it warrants inclusion in the MOS:LEAD. Desertambition (talk) 01:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a good point; I'll move it to the KwaZulu-Natal section. BilledMammal (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. I've also moved the mention of the EFF to the Western Cape section, as I noticed it has the same issue. BilledMammal (talk) 02:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Too much WP:UNDUE focus on criticism in the MOS:LEAD
While it is more than clear many editors take issue with renamed South African places, reliable sources do not support the weight given to criticism in the lead. This should be moved to a "Controversies" section. Desertambition (talk) 02:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I would ask that you focus on the content, and not make assumptions about editors motivations. And I disagree about it being WP:UNDUE; when these locations are renamed, a significant amount of coverage is about the opposition to it, and that level should be reflected in the article. For example, Port Elizabeth was discussed in a previous section on this, and I found that the majority of coverage was about the opposition to the renaming. BilledMammal (talk) 02:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)