Talk:South Africa/Archive 8

black prisoners in british concentration camps /Second Boer war black victims memorial
I am currently writing an article on the British concentration camps in South Africa for Wikipédia in Fr. I am looking for RECENT references in English about the black /native concentration camps that were usually built alongside the boer concentration camps. Also for pictures figuring people of African black and or coloured ascent IN the boer camps or in the native / black camps. I know some dutch, so I think I could grasp information in afrikaans if needed. I wouldn't be interested in information about the boer concentration camp experience in afrikaans, as I already have a lot of documentation about it. However, as it seems there is so little information about the African experience of british concentration camps, I am willing to put the extra effort on this, should I have to look up word by word.

Also the memory of black/coloured victims has been much erased, I know that in some South African towns, memorials for the black victims of the Boer war and the black concentration camps have been erected since the end of apartheid. Any picture of such a memorial or a link to existing pictures on wikimedia commons would be much appreciated. I know this isn't the right place to ask for such information. I must say I have almost never contributed to the English version of Wikipedia and I am quite lost here. I am also unfamiliar to wikimedia commons. So if anyone would be kind enough to help me one way or another, I'd really appreciate.

Braveheidi (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Question about the pertinence of the stats "ethnic groups"
Hi! I don't feel very comfortable with the presence of "ethnic" stats in the column on the right of the page of this article. It sounds to me like a continuation of Apartheid classification of people. For example, what about people coming from a mix of origins and cultures? What is their place in these stats? I don't mean that the people who wrote the article were ill-minded, I supposed they just wanted to express the diversity of this country. Maybe there would be another way of doing it, for example by explaining the various geographical origins of the people and by developping the subject "culture", giving a wider view on the cultural diversity in South-Africa.

Actually, the whole article feels to me quite "racialised", with a focus on only two main groups, the "blacks" and the "whites" (see for example under the title "culture"). Would it be possible to speak about the people in another way than the colour of their skin? People whoses ancestors came from India or Malaysia (for example), have probably also a very rich culture, worth to be mentionned, and I am sure that the South-African melting-pot produces some unique and very interesting cultural products as consequence of bringing together ways and ideas from different cultures.

Thank you for having read this. All of the best to the writers. 2A02:1811:D35:5600:C8B9:DC85:22DD:89C2 (talk) 09:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Name of South Africa
Have changed the paragraph implying that the Dutch Republiek van Zuid-Afrika was the official name of South Africa until 1984. International codes such as .za (internet domain name) etc. retained and still retain the Dutch abbreviation to avoid confusion with Saudi Arabia (.sa), but since its formation in 1961 the Republic of South Africa has been nothing but die Republiek van Suid-Afrika in Afrikaans. See South African postage stamps of those times to begin with. It was never Republiek van Zuid-Afrika (which was the old name in the 1800s of the later colony of Transvaal and the province of Transvaal thereafter). I myself have been living in South Africa since 1939 and find the notion that we were living in the Dutch Republiek van Zuid-Afrika up to the nineteen-eighties laughable. Mieliestronk (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2020
South Africa isn't a country it is a region so I request you fix this ASAP for educational purposes. Thanks. 2600:1700:AF50:24A0:359E:D4B:9590:E989 (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It is a country. The region has its own article at Southern_Africa, as noted at the top of the page. RudolfRed (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Bantu peoples in South Africa#Name on whether a better name is needed
A discussion has begun at Talk:Bantu peoples in South Africa on whether the name is appropriate and if not, can a better name be found. --Red King (talk) 13:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

'Notes' tab should be removed
In my opinion, the 'Notes' tab should be removed from the article if there are no notes in it as in my opinion it is pointless to have an empty tab in the article. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 10:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Dimension error in surface area quoted in the main text
In the second sentence of the article, it is stated that South Africa "covers an area of 1,221,037 kilometres (758,717 mi)". Area is a dimensionful quantity, with dimension [Length]2 and hence cannot be measured in units of kilometres, which are used to measure quantities of dimension length. In other words, 1 221 037 kilometres (758 717 miles) is a distance or length, not an area. The standard metric units for country surface area is square kilometres, with square miles as an Imperial equivalent. The conversion factor to square miles is approximately 1.62=2.56 and not 1.6, so the approximate area in square miles is 471,445 sq mi. These correct quantities are stated in the sidebar and the Geography section, but urgently need to be corrected in the initial paragraph. Cnrwilste004 (talk) 10:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2020
Please change the clause "covers an area of 1,221,037 kilometres (758,717 mi)" to "covers an area of 1,221,037 km2 (471,445 sq mi)" or something equivalent. See my comments above for details on why. Thank you in advance. Cnrwilste004 (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅ –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 14:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Eurocentric bias
The article generally---and specifically the introduction---has a definite bias and focus on European perspectives and a disproportionate (relative to the demographic distribution outlined in the article) focus on matters of interest to or related to the South African population of European decent. As a white South African myself, I am not well-placed to address this problem, but a more representative description and discussion is required to ensure the article does not contribute to perpetuating existing misrepresentations of South Africa and South Africans or to continued inequality and marginalisation of the majority of South Africa's population. Cnrwilste004 (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you for bringing this up. You rise a very good point that people need to be mindful of. The only meaningful solution I can see for this problem is to encourage a more diverse range of people to edit the article and hammer out these issues. Not just in this article but on all Wikipedia articles. The issue of systemic bias is real on Wikipedia and the only meaningful way to address it is a greater diversity of voices and perspectives. Only through that can we hope to achieve something approaching a meaningful Neutral Point of View (NPOV). However one can not force people to volunteer their time to edit Wikipedia, one can only encourage and try to support.--Discott (talk) 10:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Dispute over sentence in lead
Me and have been involved in a dispute over the sentence About 80% of South Africans are of Bantu ancestry, divided among a variety of ethnic groups speaking different African languages. User Tumi Rad feels the term Bantu should be substituted with "African". My opinion, About 80% of South Africans are of Bantu ancestry... is accurate because the Khoisan are indigenous to Africa, yet today they are classed under the term "Coloured". Also, the lead of Khoisan reads Khoisan...is a catch-all term for the "non-Bantu" indigenous peoples of Southern Africa.... Maybe can help? Lefcentreright Discuss   21:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I thought about it and changed it to Black African ancestry since it was the term used in the 2011 census. Lefcentreright Discuss   23:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, I think the change to Black African ancestry is most likely the best alternative unless you can find something more specific to Black African ancestry in Southern Africa generally. The term "African" to refer to black South Africans specifically is problematic as it implicitly excludes other South Africans from the identity of being from, or connected deeply to, Africa. Similar, for example, to describing only white people in a European country as "Europeans" thereby excluding non-white Europeans from being considered "Europeans".--Discott (talk) 09:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I actually agree to Black African as the best alternative, but must point out, I as a Black African man, born and bred in South Africa, do not think Caucasian or even Asian descents in Africa, have any moral legitimacy, to determine which Africans are native or indigenous to what region of Africa.
 * Just like no African man determines which region of Europe English and Scottish are native and indigenous to. Thank you--Tumi Rad (talk) 01:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. That is why it is important that more people from a diversity of backgrounds edit Wikipedia and participate in these discussions so as to best reach a meaningful consensus. Although it is important to point out that Wikipedia has a policy of radical inclusion which means that, to use your example, a black African has as much 'right' to edit any page on Wikipedia (including ones about European ethnic groups or add information on their origins within Europe) as anyone else on Wikipedia. There is also a practical aspect to this as it is impossible to know the ethnic or any other personal details of most Wikipedia editors unless they choose to share it with others. Wikipedia is no place for the "determination" of things as that could fall under origitional research, that is rather done through the citation of reliable references.--Discott (talk) 10:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Bloemfontein as judicial capital
the dispute about Bloemfontein's status as the judicial capital has been playing itself out over various different pages and I think it's time we had a discussion. If I may summarise, the question appears to be: given the changed structure of the courts post-1994, and particularly given the changes of the Seventeenth Amendment of the Constitution, is it still right to call Bloemfontein the judicial capital of South Africa?

My view is: it is not. The Seventeenth Amendment declares that, "The Chief Justice is the head of the judiciary," and the Chief Justice has his seat at the Constitutional Court in Johannesburg. Therefore Johannesburg is the judicial capital of the country. If Parliament were moved from Cape Town to some other city, we would not still call Cape Town the legislative capital. There is not, in fact, any law that defines the capital(s) of the country; you can search the text of the Constitution and the only mention of capitals is in section 42(6): "The seat of Parliament is Cape Town...". The claims for Bloemfontein as judicial capital are based on a historical situation that no longer applies. - htonl (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Then what about this from the official government website (South Africa at a glance): Capitals Pretoria (administrative) Cape Town (legislative) Bloemfontein (judicial) The Constitutional Court is located in Johannesburg.?
 * This from BusinessTech article South Africa only needs one capital: Zuma South Africa currently has three main capital cities – Pretoria as the administrative capital, and Cape Town as the legislative capital. Bloemfontein acts as the judicial capital of the country.
 * And lastly this Explained: How Andhra’s concept of three capitals is inspired by South Africa Three cities serve as capitals of the country– Pretoria (executive), Cape Town (legislative), and Bloemfontein (judicial).
 * There are hundreds of reliable sources that say SA has three capitals. Regarding this matter, it is not about how you feel, it is what the sources say. The government one still says SA has three capitals. An Indian state is proposing three capitals based on our system. Also, thanks for mediating. Lefcentreright  Discuss   16:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to mediate @htonl - but just as a legal aside not all cases can be taken to the Constitutional Court on appeal; therefore the SCA is still the highest law in the land for cases where no constitutional arguments can be made. In this case the Government's own official website should be taken into account - https://www.gov.za/about-sa/south-africas-provinces.--Elinor.Dashwood (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for starting this much needed discussion. I think that we should resolve this by factual information and not by opinion. The South African government says that Bloemfontein is the judicial capital of South Africa, as you can see here: https://www.gov.za/about-sa/south-africa-glance, so, as the government of South Africa says that Bloemfontein is the judicial capital, my view of this matter is that we should use that factual information to determine that Bloemfontein is the judicial capital of South Africa. I appreciate that others may have different views than mine, so please feel free to say if you disagree with mine. Thank you. Cool gamer24 (talk) 16:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * For various reasons, I wouldn't regard the gov.za site as the final word on the issue, or even representative of the "official position" of the South African Government. It is not unlikely that the author of that page copied the factoid about the judicial capital from an encyclopedia, quite possibly Wikipedia itself. Park3r (talk) 01:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * in reference to your legal aside, the Constitutional Court's jurisdiction has changed since the Seventeenth Amendment. As amended, section 167 of the constitution now explicitly says that the ConCourt "is the highest court of the Republic" and that it may decide "any other [non-constitutional] matter, if the Constitutional Court grants leave to appeal on the grounds that the matter raises an arguable point of law of general public importance which ought to be considered by that Court". - htonl (talk) 20:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * @htonl Thank you for that technical point, however it still means that not all cases will be heard by the Con Court, as per my point above and most matters will end at the SCA.--Elinor.Dashwood (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the Seventeenth Amendment is relevant here. I have checked a broad swathe of SA government and foreign government sources (some of which are cited above) and found they all describe Bloemfontein as the judicial capital. I suspect that this is a purely symbolic designation, and that the designation is not affected by the Supreme Court of Appeals or its status at all. Since it appears in all the official sources it does not strike me as an informal designation (such as Johannesburg being the financial capital city). It is probably a symbolic designation assigned to it in a law at some point, possibly a very old one. It is not unusual for capital cities to be symbolic - the capital of the Netherlands is Amsterdam even though every single function of a capital city is actually based in another city, The Hague. It is an entirely symbolic designation. I suspect that the same goes for Bloemfontein, and that it would probably count as judicial capital even if the Supreme Court of Appeal were to be moved!

What is interesting though is that I could not find a single reference as to why it is the judicial capital. I don't mean the history behind the decision, which is well-known, but the actual legislation designating the capital cities of South Africa. Surely there must be some law on the books somewhere? I spent a good hour looking and NONE of the sources, including the government sources and an academic article, cited any such law. Could it be that ‎ is right? I feel not because of the abundance of government documents calling Bloemfontein a capital, but could it be that the government just sort of...forgot? It would be nice to have the actual law to cite. If somebody could find this that would be very useful! Francoisdjvr (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Referring to what Francoisdjvr, there is even an article about the capital city situation in the Netherlands. The Union of South Africa had four capitals Cape Town (legislative), Pretoria (administrative), Bloemfontein (judicial) and Pietermaritzburg (archival). From 1994 to 2004, KwaZulu-Natal legally had two capitals (Pietermaritzburg and Ulundi). Ulundi was just a ceremonial capital with no real power (legislature, premier's seat and the high court has always been in Pietermaritzburg). The KZN provincial government later dropped the dual-capital status due to Uundi's lack of proper infrastructure. The government says we have three capitals, then so be it. It has been said so on the government website (which has been cited), so it shouldn't be disputed. Johannesburg has been referred to as the provincial capital city of Gauteng and NOT a capital of South Africa, despite it being the seat of the Constitutional Court of South Africa, the highest national court. The source that Park3r is not reliable because it is written like an opinion piece. For instance, Apartheid policies stigmatised the Appeal Court and, as we argue in this paper, the stigma rubbed off on Bloemfontein. How is that academic? Also, the paper does not even correctly say how many capitals the Union of South Africa had. It says it only had three, which is incorrect because it had four. Best, Lefcentreright  Discuss   19:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I feel reasonably confident in saying that there is no law now in force that actually officially designates the capitals of South Africa. I have searched Juta's Statutes of South Africa and can't find any act that designates capital cities (the only references to "capital" are in the financial sense of the word).


 * If you look over the past constitutions of SA, the South Africa Act, 1909 provided:

18. Save as in section twenty-three excepted, Pretoria shall be the seat of Government of the Union.

23. Capetown shall be the seat of the Legislature of the Union.

109. The Appellate Division shall sit in Bloemfontein, but may from time to time for the convenience of suitors hold its sittings at other places within the Union.
 * and the 1961 and 1983 republican constitutions contained almost identical provisions. It seems to me that "seat of Government" is just another way of saying "executive capital", and "seat of the Legislature" is another way of saying "legislative capital". It's a little bit more of a stretch, but I think it's fair to say that as long as the Appellate Division was the highest court in the land and led by the Chief Justice, "seat of the Appellate Division" meant "judicial capital".


 * However, the 1983 constitution was repealed by the 1993 Interim Constitution, which made no mention of Pretoria but provided:

46. (1) The National Assembly shall sit at the Houses of Parliament in Cape Town, unless [...]

53. (1) The Senate shall sit at the Houses of Parliament in Cape Town, unless [...]

106. (1) The seat of the Constitutional Court shall be Johannesburg.

(2) The seat of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court shall be Bloemfontein.
 * and of course as I mentioned above the current (1996/7) constitution only mentions that Cape Town is the seat of parliament.


 * So to sum up, any legal basis (that I can find at least) for Bloemfontein as judicial capital was by virtue of the Appellate Division being the apex court. Now that the SCA is not the apex court any more—since the Seventeenth Amendment, s. 166(3) of the Constitution states that "The Constitutional Court is the highest court of the Republic"—there is no legal basis for Bloemfontein's "capitality". It is based only on tradition/history. - htonl (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In the Superior Courts Act of 2013 no change has been made - s4(1)(b) allows for the Constitutional Court to sit in Johannesburg or elsewhere; while s5(1)(b) does the same for the SCA. As you can see from this meeting of the Justice and Correctional Services Committee discussing the then bill -
 * ''"Mr Jeffery (ANC) thought that at the moment there was no time to get into a debate on the seat of the court. A lot of money had been spent upgrading the SCA premises, and the fact that the Constitutional Court was in Johannesburg meant that the judicial capital was no longer Bloemfontein.
 * Ms Smuts (DA) said that the matter of the judicial capital had been discussed between the Committee and the SCA judges. She agreed that whilst this may be something for the future, it was not appropriate to propose a move now. Other matters of far more substance needed attention, and it did not make financial sense in view of the recent extension of the SCA building."
 * There has been no change, as per the government website and therefore should remain in the article. Elinor.Dashwood (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Final remarks from Lefcentreright. I'm sounding like a broken record. If Bloemfontein was not a capital city, then it would not have been classified as one on the government website. There would've been an official announcement of Bloemfontein's demotion as a capital city. Think about this, if we, the editors on the English Wikipedia, decide to no longer classify Bloemfontein as a capital city of South Africa (I really do hope this doesn't happen), we have to inform the editors on the other Wikipedias that Bloemfontein is no longer considered a capital. Those editors will dispute this. Wikipedia and that "academic source" will be the only places on the internet and in the world where Bloemfontein is not considered a capital city.


 * That Bloemfontein is the judicial capital city, has been written into the national education curriculum. South Africa is internationally known for having three capital cities. Andhra Pradesh based their proposed new three capital system on South Africa. Also, IP editors and other editors will add Bloemfontein back. Lefcentreright  Discuss   23:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking at excerpts in Google Books, the term "judicial capital" seems to have always been informal. However, the factoid is cemented-on, and has taken on a life of its own. There is also the distinct possibility that the person who wrote the gov.za article used Wikipedia or some other encyclopedia as a source (WP:Circular). This abstract for this article (which would qualify as WP:RS) clearly states that Bloemfontein was "stripped" of its status: . Vandalism and anon editors shouldn't be an issue on the page, since it has numerous watchers, and regardless, it's no excuse for inaccurate information. Park3r (talk) 01:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Just noticed this. This whole situation with Bloomfontein is part of a consistent pattern of destructive edits to the encyclopedia by User:Park3r, who turned Community property into an incoherent train wreck full of original research in violation of WP:NOR. The point is to waste other editors' time by forcing them to state the obvious (as User:Lefcentreright has repeatedly done above and on other talk pages for other articles on which User:Park3r has pushed what is clearly a minority view) and thereby distract them from making constructive contributions to Wikipedia.  At some point, an administrator will have to make appropriate adjustments to User:Park3r's editing privileges. --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The community property article has nothing to do with this issue, and was reorganised in January 2019 because it was a US-centric mess full of original research. As for the Bloemfontein issue, there isn't consensus on the issue, as can be seen from this discussion. Also be mindful of WP:HOUND. Park3r (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

"Saffa" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Saffa. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 25 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 15:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2020
Please change the 32th to 32nd on the GDP part of the statistics table.Metalphnx (talk) 11:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , Yes check.svg Done - Timbaaa -> ping me 13:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

ordentlikheid
I was very surprised to not find the words ordentlikheid and ordentlik in the English or even the Afrikaans Wiktionary since they are or were used very often and in very multifaceted ways in South Africa. Here and here are detailed discussions of the very important social situations they describe and that are determined by them. These terms are or were apparently often used in English too, very similar to the use of apartheid in English.

It's just as surprising that there is not even a single paragraph on ordentlikheid in either the Afrikaans or English Wikipedias.

The main reason i looked for these terms in Wiktionary and Wikipedia is because i heard that they don't or no longer exist in Dutch, but then they should be mentioned as older forms of Dutch. --Espoo (talk) 07:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

"South Africaà" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect South Africaà. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 22 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Talk 17:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Having read the full article,
As I am going through the article as a whole in order to {lang} tag as much as I can, I've noticed some things. I'm not great at dedicated effort to improve the actual content of articles, so I'm listing them here in order for these not to disappear into the recesses of my brain. I need to go do something else now. I'll update this post when I return to lang tagging the article. --Xurizuri (talk) 08:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 5th paragraph in the lead is about the current global status of RSA, but is based on sources from between 2000 and 2011. A full decade has based since the most recent, it is highly unlikely that they still reflect reality. (Except for the very last statement in the paragraph which is based on a source form 2018.)
 * The last paragraph of the History section talks about The Prevention and Combating of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Bill - is this still pending? The sources on it are from 2004 and 2014.
 * Under #Conservation issues, information regarding rhinos and climate change are both severely outdated.
 * The last paragraph before the Law section - the first part of that paragraph is based on statistics from 2008. That is 13 years old.
 * I'm back!
 * First paragraph of Economy describes its status relative to other countries, these sources are from between 2010 and 2015 - at least some would be inaccurate by now. -> I've finished reading the economy section, it's actually pretty much all like this.
 * Just realised that Ramaphosa hasn't been mentioned thus far, in favour of Zuma (from what I can tell, most of the article was written in the middle of his presidency). Ramaphosa has been president for 3 years.
 * The first paragraph of the science and technology section is currently a list of white men. Sandile Ngcobo designed the first digital laser (not the judge, this Ngcobo doesn't have a WP article; World’s First Digital Laser Designed and Built in Africa). The CSIR's Gene Expression and Biophysics group (Stem cells technology: a powerful tool behind new brain treatments) designed the first induced pluripotent stem cells. Tikvah Alper's discoveries were instrumental for our current understanding of prions. There's a bunch more but I'm lazy.
 * It would be useful to describe an ongoing consequence of the Bantu Education Act.
 * Health section is based on very outdated sources.
 * Arts needs more non-white and women artists.
 * Under Sports, there's an invisible comment saying that soccer is the preferred word over football, but football is used in the section. Either they need to be changed back or the comment needs to be removed.\
 * I'm done! See yous. --Xurizuri (talk) 07:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * BRICS leaders family photo, 2018 (2).jpg

Separate article for 1961-1994 South Africa
Anyone think there should be separate article for 1961-1994 South Africa? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theasiancowboy (talk • contribs) 15:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a reasonable scope for it, along the lines of Union of South Africa. CMD (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with this, I don't know why they're both on the same page if they're completely different governments with different constitutions and such. Spiritual Sausage (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm trying to make the article draft

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2021
2607:9880:2068:A9:F8E7:B97D:DD86:FD01 (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC) Ijnvbv
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Pupsterlove02  talk • contribs 19:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2021
Please change the driving side to right. South Africans do not drive on the left. Giggleknacks (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Please fix Giggleknacks (talk) 12:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Not done unless you have a reliable source this has changed recently. MilborneOne (talk) 12:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I must be driving on the wrong side of the road😂, Left is correct. TapticInfo (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Economy ranking change
Change second-largest economy in Africa to third-largest. Egypt is now the second-largest economy. Also now the 41st largest economy in place of 32nd. source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1120999/gdp-of-african-countries-by-country/ Suffy69 (talk) 09:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Done. Updated with 2021 World Bank data. --Luminoxius (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect provinces map
the map of the provinces of South Africa still says Swaziland on it, where it should say Eswatini. DirkJandeGeer (talk) 12:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Many Maps haven't adapted to the new name. Maybe later in the future. PASTOR11 (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

81.105.95.101 (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC) constitution says two thirds majority and we can change a name. We have that and changed it.

Corona Virus
When is everyone getting injections West Africa (talk) 10:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I mean like why can't children get injections as well West Africa (talk) 10:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The talk pages are to improve the page, not general discussions ShivanshPlays1 (talk) 23:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

The young generation,is taking the right path to the future
I don't think so Moeketsi Nkhahle (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to something the article says? Because if you are, I can't see it, and if you aren't, read WP:NOTFORUM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Flag
Nothing about the iconography of the flag? Why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.157.18 (talk) 13:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Information about the flag can be found at Flag of South Africa. CMD (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Membership
South Africa is also part of the African Union (AU) where it's also part of AfCFTA, Southern African Customs Union (SACU), Common Monetary Area (CMA), and the Southern African Development Community (SADC). Editor8601 (talk) 13:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

South Africa Population
The current population of South Africa is about 55 million, or (according to the Wikipedia page) 51.7 million (2011 census) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matievisthekat (talk • contribs) 10:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The current number is based on the cited source (StatSA's estimate) MoHaG (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2018 and 22 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Arthurlaw21.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2018 and 22 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lenapd.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Article needs updating
Literacy rate uses data from 2007, when there is more recent data from the World Bank. Into references a book saying quality of life has improved significantly after apartheid - this should be caveated with the fact that since 2010 progress has stalled/reversed (see poverty rates, literacy rates, etc), and this should be added to relevant sections too. This information is widely available but doesn't make it into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.26.32.154 (talk) 12:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Port Elizabeth has a new name
Port Elizabeth's new name is Gqeberha and should be changed on this page. NCLUE (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Geography
Different types of droughts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:2880:32FF:76:0:0:FACE:B00C (talk) 10:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Why does SA have counties
PL answer my question 41.114.47.115 (talk) 06:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

History
Explain the change were made in this public holidays 24September 41.113.198.213 (talk) 07:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2022
change eastern cape population 2020 from 6,734.000 to 6,734,000 195.249.78.90 (talk) 10:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * South Africa uses decimal commas, so spaces (or NBSPs) might make more sense for thousand grouping... MoHaG (talk) 13:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

A indigenous poem about south Africa
For my school project 197.184.179.21 (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I want to reach a consensus
Hello, I have decided to not get into bigger problems I have decided to take the right way, before making an edit I want to reach a consensus. As you saw in the history of the page I wanted to put the official languages ​​in order of native speakers, Zulu is the most widely spoken language in South Africa, so I wanted to put it like this. But the problem arose when a user named told me that I don't have to link the dialect just as the language English, more information is in this reply, I obeyed those policies just as seen here, but then the user  reverted my edit, and then on my discussion page he told me everything to the contrary that I should put the languages ​​of a country like this: English when he did not see on my discussion page that they told me not to do that, there is another way to do it and apply it, the worst thing is that he reported me when I was only following a policy and now at this moment I am too, too confused. So please tell me how I have to put the languages ​​in the official languages ​​section: like this English ? Or just like this English ? How is it then? Do I put the dialect as just the language or do I just put the language and that's it? TheEncyclopediaReader Contact me! :) 18:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Neither. Leave editing articles on subjects you don't understand to people who do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * But yes, I understand. TheEncyclopediaReader Contact me! :) 18:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll reword that. Leave editing online encyclopaedias in languages you cannot communicate intelligibly in to people who can. Your initial post in this thread is almost gibberish, and nobody would be able to figure out what you are asking about without looking through your editing history. You lack the necessary skill in the English language to be able to usefully contribute here, which is why you keep getting reverted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Is not gibberish, I'm just saying what I intend to edit so as not to get into big trouble, but I also asked how he edited it and also told an anecdote, I hope you already understand. TheEncyclopediaReader Contact me! :) 19:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Federal vs. unitary vs. regional
How about describing South Africa as a regional state (or regionalised unitary state) in the infobox? It splits the difference quite nicely between federal and unitary, neither of which entirely fits South Africa. - htonl (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I disagree with doing that. Scholarship is pretty clear about South Africa being a unitary state with federal elements (like many unitary states). Western Cape, for example, is not a co-sovereign political entity with broad legislative authority in the same way a US state like California or New York is.
 * "After careful research and analysis of various sources and the constitution, it can be confirmed that the government system in the Republic of South Africa is a unitary system. Observance of the government in action as well as analysis of the constitution has contributed to this confirmation. Despite the delocalisation enjoyed within the republic, the federal principle is not evident enough and it failed Wheare's very simple federal test right in the beginning" - The type of government in the Republic of South Africa - Examining the presence of federal and unitary state elements in the republic Desertambition (talk) 21:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that "regional state" is a term that means exactly that, "unitary state with federal elements". Incidentally that article you linked is not a reliable source; it appears to be an essay written by a first-year student - see his author page. It gets a number of points completely wrong about the South African system. htonl (talk) 06:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Other sources also call it a unitary state. Including the OECD here: https://www.oecd.org/regional/regional-policy/profile-South-Africa.pdf
 * The entire regional state article has one reference and I have not seen South Africa referred to as a regional state. Desertambition (talk) 06:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm, yes, the regional state article is very badly sourced. htonl (talk) 07:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a better term would be "quasi-federal"? That's what the OECD source calls it, and it seems to have quite a lot of use in academia, e.g., , , . htonl (talk) 08:17, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Hlonl, thanks for the above. Let me prepare my response in favour of SA being more of federation vs it being a unitary state. Let's not forget that 8 provinces are run by the ANC, who believe in a command structure as a form of governance. And feel like the WC has no political will to run itself as a federal unit. EuKoketsolion (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

In terms of section 1 of the constitution it is "one state". The provinces. Section 104 clearly limits the authority of the provinces. (The relevant schedules) MoHaG (talk) 09:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Is South Africa a federation or unitary state
South Africa is a federation made of 9 provinces with their own prime ministers (premiers), and legislators. And have a great deal of powers that are independent, the constitution states that national, provincial and local are unique. If the provinces (which are all governed by the ANC) pushes really hard you'd find that they have policing powers, power to set up their own education systems, and in a limited form, raise their own taxes. SA is more of a stunted federation then a devolved unitary state in the sense that the existance, powers of provinces are enshrined in the consitituon and can't be taken away without a two thirds majority vs the UK where the powers of England and other countries can be taken away with changes to the constitution.

Here's some reading materials.

https://www.oecd.org/regional/regional-policy/profile-South-Africa.pdf

https://www.gov.za/about-government/government-system/structure-and-functions-south-african-government

https://www.gov.za/documents/constitution/chapter-3-co-operative-government EuKoketsolion (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Provincial taxes are limited (e.g no income, sales/VAT or property taxes). MoHaG (talk) 09:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Life Orientation
I want to do an assignment of Life Orientation for grade 12 41.114.176.173 (talk) 02:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Krugerand
No mention of this? Jokem (talk) 22:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Time to revisit Bloemfontein as “judicial capital”? 2022 edition
I’ve raised this before, but there was no consensus a few years ago and some editors felt very strongly about this issue, so I deferred to the then lack of appetite for change. The lede currently states: *executive, judicial and legislative branches of government based in Pretoria, Bloemfontein and Cape Town respectively.”

The problem is that the evidence of Bloemfontein being the “judicial capital”, which was always surprisingly scant, is now wholly dubious. Is the judicial branch “based” in Bloemfontein? In what sense? The Supreme Court of Appeal is not the highest court in any respect and hasn’t been for some years. The Constitutional Court is based in Johannesburg, and is the highest court in all matters. The Chief Justice is the head of the Constitutional Court, and is based in Johannesburg. If anything Johannesburg is the “judicial capital” (although it would be WP:SYNTH to put that in the article, and I wouldn’t).

There was little objection, however, to the location of the new Constitutional Court in Johannesburg, a move which stripped Bloemfontein of its judicial capital status

If we were to find more reliable sources that disprove the idea that Bloemfontein is the “judicial capital”, would editors be amenable to changing it? To me it feels like a rusted-on factoid, that partly exists because of WP:CIRCULAR references, including possibly from South African “offical” government sites that may not qualify as WP:RS. Park3r (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2022
An additional colloquial demonym for South Africans in Saffa 41.13.129.142 (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Independence from the United Kingdom box includes transfer to black majority rule
I think that the transfer to black majority rule should not be in the box labeled 'independence from the United Kingdom'. South Africa became completely independent of the United Kingdom de jure  and de facto in 1961. The transfer to black majority rule had nothing to do with independence from the Kingdom. RegrettingMistakes777 (talk) 20:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see where the term "black majority rule" is used in the article? Greenman (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * sovereignty_type      = Independence
 * sovereignty_note      = from the United Kingdom
 * established_event1    = Union
 * established_date1     = 31 May 1910
 * established_event2    = Self-governance
 * established_date2     = 11 December 1931
 * established_event3    = Republic
 * established_date3     = 31 May 1961
 * established_event4    = Apartheid legislation repealed
 * established_date4     = 17 June 1991
 * established_event5    = Democratisation
 * established_date5     = 27 April 1994
 * established_event6    = Current constitution
 * established_date6     = 4 February 1997
 * I'm talking about this box, not the main text of the article RegrettingMistakes777 (talk) 21:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The 1994 and 1997 dates, though not stated this way in the box, are about the transition from white minority to black majority rule. Anyway, the point is that South Africa became completely and officially independent in 1961. Even though it was governed by a white minority, it was still a completely independent country, it was not even nominally a British colony after that date, and the British sovereign had no legal connection to South Africa as of that date. So I don't see how those are dates of greater independence. RegrettingMistakes777 (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Even prior to '61, it was independent as a dominion. Independence had nothing to do with becoming a republic. That said, I'm apprehensive about the repeal of apartheid legislation being included when its implementation isn't. Regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 06:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

"Apartheid legislation repealed" as establishment event in inbox
I'm unsure of the inclusion of this for the dual reasons that the implementation of apartheid isn't mentioned and that it could perhaps be combined with "democratisation". Any thoughts? Regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 03:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with your edit, and I’d go one step further and remove “current constitution” too. The current constitution is important, but it didn’t mark any change in South Africa’s level of independence or democracy. We were just as independent and democratic under the interim constitution as under the current constitution. htonl (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, neither affected sovereignty or independence, which is what the fields are for. CMD (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I hadn't thought of it before but removing it makes the most sense. Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed also. I'll go ahead and remove it based on the immediate consensus here. thorpewilliam (talk) 03:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I was the user who first added 'Democratisation' onto the page. I'm unsure who added the apartheid legislation repealed section but I always wanted to remove it due to redundancy, but I guess I forgot, so thank you. Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 14:33, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Iamawesomeautomatic You're quite welcome. It bewildered me too, and I even considered adding the date of the first apartheid legislation to balance it out. thorpewilliam (talk) 03:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2021
Semi protected means I can’t edit, and the article needs fixing. for example official languages of the Republic are Sepedi, Sesotho, Setswana, siSwati, Tshivenda, Xitsonga, Afrikaans, English, isiNdebele, isiXhosa and isiZulu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.95.101 (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Military
Why there no military information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.114.64.150 (talk) 10:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2022
both this wiki and tanzania's state they are the most populous country located entirely south of the equator. my guess is this wiki is wrong, since South Africa's population is 60 million, whereas Tanzania's is 63 million. 2A02:8109:ABBF:B1E8:7C1A:82C:F138:C1EB (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: The situation seems to be a little more complicated than that, as according to List of countries and dependencies by population, Tanzania actually has 59,441,988, but its page seems to use the 2022 projection, so not sure which one here is worth changing. Aidan9382 (talk) 09:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Using official sources comparing 2022 figures, Tanzania now has a larger population than South Africa. I've updated the table mentioned above, and will edit this page as well. Greenman (talk) 10:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Closing the edit request as ✅ I guess. Aidan9382 (talk) 10:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2018: Electricity Overview
South Africa currently has an electrical generating total of 51,309 megawatts (MW). This electricity is comprised of 46,776 MW from thermal sources including coal, petroleum, natural gas, and nuclear 661 MW generated by hydroelectric, and 3,872 MW from other renewable sources including solar and wind. Around 86% of South Africans currently have access to electricity, 66% from rural and 93% of urban households. This accounts to nearly 2.2 million households without power.

Coal
Coal is the most used source of generating electricity in South Africa accounting for around 77% of the current electricity production. Coal in South Africa has 5 companies that account for 85% of the production of saleable coal and these companies include Ingwe Collieries Limited, Anglo Coal, Sasol, Eyesizwe, and Kumba Resources Limited. Coal is an abundant resource in South Africa and the reason why coal has a such a low cost of production for energy per MW. South Africa is also the the worlds 7th largest exporter of coal most of which is exported to other African countries. Within South Africa’s 2030 Energy Plan there is the goal of only increasing production of electricity from coal by 1000 MW and decreasing the countries usage of coal for energy down to 46% of total energy consumption.

Nuclear
South Africa first began using nuclear energy in the 1980s when it constructed a nuclear power station. Within South Africa there are a considerable amount of uranium deposits and therefore has the capability to use nuclear energy more than the current consumption of around 6% of the country’s energy needs. Minister Jeff Radebe has come out in support of no increase in nuclear generating electricity within the country until the year 2030 when it will be reevaluated against current needs. This is a change in action as the former President Jacob Zuma had been pushing for the construction of eight new nuclear power generating stations. For South Africa’s 2030 Energy Plan Nuclear is projected to only represent 2% of energy production.

Solar/Wind
South Africa is currently under-utilizing it's solar capacity. South Africa has an estimated 220 W/m2 capability compared to 150 W/m2 in US and 100 W/m2 in Europe. South Africa is an ideal candidate for the wide spread use of photovoltaic cells as a form of generating the electrical needs of the country. A new contract for $4.7 billion dollars allocated to 27 different projects consisting of mainly solar and wind projects that hope to increase current production of electricity through renewable sources. With the increase in spending to renewable sources South Africa's 2030 Energy Plan is projected to increase solar production to 11% of the countries energy needs and increase wind production to 15% of the countries energy needs. South Africa has over 30 installed wind energy projects and the most dominant reason comes from the Renewable Energy Independent Power Producers Procurement Programme. With these Programmes of wind energy they have created an estimated 30,000 jobs total in construction and operation of the onshore wind farms.

Future Goals
South Africa has made changes to future goals for energy sources and has committed itself to 36% of energy production coming from fully renewable sources of solar, wind, and electric power. In the goal is to lower the reliance upon coal as a source of energy for the country from producing 77% to producing 46% of the countries electrical needs.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurlaw21 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Inccorrect reference
The source for South Africa's National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (149), links to Cameroon's Biodiversity Status Strategy and Action Plan. 78.158.238.239 (talk) 15:11, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

"SouthAfrica" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect SouthAfrica and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 4 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:53, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Cape town stadium aerial view 1.jpg

"End of Apartheid" NPOV issue
I feel that recent additions to the article give undue weight to opinion pieces that are not backed up by fact and are not made by particularly noteworthy people. BazingaMan455 (talk) 02:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You'll need to be more specific as to the additions to which you're referring.  General Ization Talk  02:40, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Irrelevant and baseless opinion
Some input on this would be highly appreciated. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Coastline that stretches
Shouldn't it be "coastline that stretches" instead of "coastline that stretch" in the opening paragraph? Allonb77 (talk) 06:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks. Rasnaboy (talk) 09:50, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Great. Thanks! Allonb77 (talk) 11:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2023
I saw some missing things such us Pretoria, the seat of the executive. Someone forgot the branch in the sentence. Latteoctober (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 08:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2023
102.157.222.109 (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC) Languages with specific status : Spanish
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Callme mirela &#127809; 18:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Splitting this article into South Africa and Republic of South Africa (1961 - 1994)
This is undoubtedly going to be a very notable and potentially controversial change, but I feel as if it is improper for there to not be a separate article on Apartheid-era South Africa and modern day South Africa. By not having a separate article, crucial details about Apartheid-era South Africa lack a central place for them to be explored, such as foreign policy, economic policy, and the differing demographic makeup of the nation at the time. I am aware that the article Apartheid exists, however, Apartheid refers only to the racial policy and segregated nature of the regime. It's like not having an article on Nazi Germany because Racial policy of Nazi Germany and Nuremberg Laws exist.

Although they are both the same geographic country and have the same official name (which doesn't disqualify a separate article, South Korea has a separate article for each government between 1948 and 1987 and it was always called the "Republic of Korea"), they are entirely and completely different in many aspects, such as:


 * Most importantly, the constitution of the Republic was completely different, as the current Constitution of South Africa was adopted after the end of Apartheid in 1996, and after an interim constitution in 1993.
 * A different flag, the lack of the African languages being co-official, completely different government structure and legislature.
 * Completely different foreign policy built around anti-Communism, with close ties to America and Israel contrasted to the more multi-polar relations of modern South Africa.
 * The entire Bantustan system, which although is explored in its own article, could have information integrated to the rest of the page.
 * Vastly different international perception, often depicted as a bastion of civilization and development in positive foreign depictions and a hive of racism and white supremacy in negative.
 * Different functional borders- as South West Africa was under the mandate of South Africa
 * The South African Defence Force and the military having been reorganized to sustain the Apartheid system.

Ultimately, I propose that by creating a new article for the defunct state of Apartheid South Africa would be entirely warranted in encyclopedic terms and also be immensely helpful for anyone who wants to understand the differences of modern South Africa and that of the previous era. I would argue that Wikipedia already has separate "former state" articles already for much more minor changes in governance- e.g. Second Czechoslovak Republic- and that its wrong to not have one for what is arguably one of the most distinct entities of the Cold War contrasted to now. My proposed title for this new article would be Republic of South Africa (1961 - 1994), but of course this could be changed. I am eager to hear everyone's opinions on this matter. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 17:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. I support this proposal 100%.   Lefcentreright     Discuss    19:25, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I would think the title Apartheid South Africa would qualify as the WP:COMMON name similarly to e.g. Nazi Germany, although this might create a conflict with Union of South Africa for the 1948–1961 period. I do feel quite strongly that it must be very clear that this article is about a particular era of government in South Africa, and that the article South Africa still covers the country in all periods. For example, people born pre-1994 must not have their country of birth in the infobox or on Wikidata changed to point to the new article. (Just as the birth country of e.g. Jacques Chirac is "France" and not "French Third Republic".) - htonl (talk) 21:23, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose, the request is for a split, but the arguments say nothing about a split. What part of this article would be split? The argument also doesn't mention many of the already existing articles. Constitutions under apartheid are discussed in South African Constitution of 1961, South African Constitution of 1983, and perhaps Interim Constitution (South Africa), which also discuss the relevant government structures. The flag has an article at Flag of South Africa (1928–1994). Bantustan as mentioned has an existing article, Foreign relations of South Africa during apartheid covers that aspect. Could a new article provide a useful place to pull this together? Perhaps, but the above does not explain how it would be a split, or grasp the many existing articles that are in need of much attention. CMD (talk) 03:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. As a disclaimer, I'm not a huge fan of the current structure of splitting off the Union of South Africa as if 1961 was the breaking point date (rather than 1933 when the National Party took power despite getting a minority of the votes, then passed voting laws ensuring that they'd never stop having power).  But IMO, making a bunch of separate country articles is the wrong way to go.  I'd suggest expanding a History of South Africa summary-style spin-off first, perhaps something like History of apartheid-era South Africa (if including the 30s, 40s, and 50s) or History of South Africa, 1961–1994.  We can re-assess later based off what that article looks like.  Honestly my more radical preference would be to merge the Union of South Africa article back into the South Africa article and the History of South Africa articles - it really was not that different between 1960 and 1962, and we don't need separate articles for each change in governance.  SnowFire (talk) 05:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Further comment. Also, since the proposer mentioned the Second Czechoslovak Republic, I don't think this case is that comparable.  That state had different borders and was nearly a puppet state of a foreign power.  IMO, the closer comparison is to something like South Korea before the 1987 democratization or the lifting of martial law in Taiwan, two countries that became much more democratic around the same time.  Or perhaps Antebellum United States vs. Reconstruction United States for an earlier example.  Important changes, to be sure, but not "separate country" changes. SnowFire (talk) 06:35, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I apologize for taking a lot of time to respond to this, but I think you are glossing over a lot of the important reasons why I suggested Apartheid South Africa's article to be separate. Due to the integration of South West Africa as a constituent part of the country with a similar Bantustan system, South Africa did have different borders than that of today, not only internally but externally. In addition, there's the fact that both the constitution of Apartheid South Africa and the entire government structure was completely different. Martial Law Taiwan, on the other hand, has the same constitution as the modern day Republic of China, and Antebellum United States also has the exact same government structure as it during Reconstruction, except with slavery as an institution. Apartheid was the racial system of segregation, yes- but it was just one part of many ways South Africa was, in many ways, a completely different nation than it is today in all but name, which I consider to be the only "separate country" change that wasn't present in the transition from Apartheid to a multiracial democracy. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 22:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the slow reply here as well. My understanding is that South West Africa was never annexed by South Africa - they just kept the mandate even after the UN terminated.  Taking the internal perspective of South Africa that this was a mandate (rather than an occupation), we don't normally consider mandates as part of the core territory - e.g. Lebanon/Syria weren't part of France, Transjordan/Iraq wasn't part of Britain, etc.
 * I disagree about the changes in Reconstruction not being significant - 3 major Constitutional Amendments, military governments in Southern States, federal control of colonization of the American West. There's a bit of a Ship of Theseus problem here where obviously the Articles of Confederation government in 1783 is unrecognizable to 2023 and vice versa, but it changed over time and not in one sudden revolution.  I still think Taiwan / South Korea are good examples: they both went from being de jure democracies to de facto democracies, which is the exact thing that happened in South Africa, too.
 * Per above, I don't think a draft article would be wasted work or anything, I'd just prefer to title it "History of South Africa 19xx-1944" or whatever. SnowFire (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Support. A while back, I was interested in having an article just about Apartheid South Africa from 1948-1994, similar to the articles about Fascist Italy (1922-1943), Nazi Germany, and Ba'athist Iraq on this website, while using similar reasoning as you. However, I noticed how adamant editors were in rejecting it. I do support your proposal though. I just feel that if you want to focus on the apartheid aspect of South African history from 1961-1994, you might as well focus on its entire history beginning from 1948. Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 05:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This is fair, though it kinda gets tricky considering how we already have Union of South Africa with overlaps with the starting period of Apartheid back when it was a monarchy under the British crown. I guess we can have both a Union article for 1910 - 1961 and an Apartheid article from 1948 - 1994, considering how we have both Kingdom of Italy and Fascist Italy covering mostly overlapping periods, though there could be some redundant information. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 23:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you make a great point there on redundancy. But whatever you decide I'll still support it. If you decide on making a page for the entirety of Apartheid South Africa another commenter mentioned that there's already a draft article for it. I've been planning to work on it whenever I have time, but it looks promising and could be approved with some touching up. Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 03:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is an overall brief history of the origin of South Africa. Other pages can be expanded to explain different points in its history with links from this page. Conlinp (talk) 11:10, 27 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong Support It is functionally an entirely different country, it would be hugely beneficial to cover the apartheid regime in its own format. It would be much more informative and give a deeper understanding and explanations into the former state. The differences are even more defined than Zimbabwe vs Rhodesia. 100% this should be done. I think splitting it up into 1961-1994 is an excellent idea, and something I've wanted done for a while now. SailingOn (talk) 05:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What would you split from this page? As for trying to build a page, Draft:Apartheid South Africa is available if anyone here wants to put it into actual good shape. CMD (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I would want to include things such as the state of the military at the time, the vastly different legal structure and societal norms, the influence of religion on the state with regards to things such as abortion, gambling, etc, and its importance in gaining soicetal status. Going on about the economy and what differed about it versus modern South Africa. I would also go in detail regarding policing etc at the time, the influence of mining on the economy, white only education systems, what education was for other racial groups at the time, etc. Even things like its transport network and rail system were really run in a fundamentally different way. I did my Honours Thesis for my history degree on how South Africa strived to be systematically independent of outside countries for fuel and other materials. This is something that really isn't as much of a goal of modern South Africa as it was for the apartheid era. It's really quite extensive, what I think it would be great for is acting as a centralized beginning page to give a strong overview of what the nation was like during this period. SailingOn (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I am asking not what would be included on a new page, but what would be split from this page, given this is a splitting proposal. CMD (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose It might make sense for History of South Africa, but this is not the history article. (And it was a gradual transition - many of the problematic laws were repealed in the ~1990 - 1994 period - the transition was due to an election result after the election laws was changed - it was not an a revolution-type transition - it was normal legislative changes to dismantle the apartheid system and then the next election giving much fairer results. MoHaG (talk) 08:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support It's often struck me as odd that such a page doesn't already exist, considering various examples of other past regimes, like Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy (1922–1943), getting their own articles – as well as the long-running article on the Union of South Africa. There is no need for an article specifically on "Apartheid South Africa" though, since there is already one on Apartheid in South Africa, and there were also significant differences between the apartheid state as a Commonwealth dominion and the apartheid state as a republic. But the Republic of South Africa between 1961 and 1994 was a completely different country to its successor state today, despite their shared name, and basically I think a lot of detail is lost when coverage of this period is restricted to brief summaries in the history section of this article and History of South Africa. In the sidebar template on historical states in South Africa, two completely different states are conflated right at the end, as the "Republic of South Africa (1961–present)": a split would better reflect the reality of the situation. ENEvery (talk) 14:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I would be interested in sources that discuss that today's South Africa is a successor state of a pre-1994 entity. CMD (talk) 01:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * In international law, a successor state is a state that inherits the international obligations, armed forces, state structures and territory of a preceding state or states. Post-1994 South Africa inherited the obligations, armed forces, state structures and territories of pre-1994 (post-Namibian independence) SA as well as the internationally unrecognised 'independent' homelands. The state structures were subsequently re-organised on a new basis, and the armed forces were integrated. While one of the first acts of the post-94 government was to hand over Walvis Bay and some associated islands (which had originally been part of the Cape Colony before the Germans ever established their colony there) to Namibia, but otherwise the territory inherited has remained unchanged.


 * In the absence of sources, obviously none of this can be stated in any articles, with or without the proposed split; but I don't think the debate here hinges on whether or not that one statement about state succession is properly encyclopaedic or not. I'll see if I can find reliable sources for it though; I'm sure they exist. ENEvery (talk) 12:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support 200% Von bismarck (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I just generally support this idea because it splits the racist state from the modern day South Africa. Patriciogetsongettingridofhiswiki (talk) 04:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC) Disagree, I would rather us have a page speaking about the apartheid South Africa, and indicate in the article that there is a separate page concerning apartheid South Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mthunzi Mapatwana (talk • contribs) 17:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC) By way of analogy; there is one main article about the United States of America. It is not split into seperate articles for pre-civil war and post-civil war, or split every time a constitutional amendment was enacted. There are of course a variety of articles about all these historic topics, but nobody has suggested entirely seperate "main root articles" for the different eras of the US's history. We must have an all-encompassing "main root" summary/overview article about South Africa, and this one is it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Apartheid was a political policy instituted under the Union of South Africa (which does have a separate page) and was retained after the establishment of the republic in 1961. Between 1948 and 1991 South Africa was an illiberal democracy with an unfair franchise and entrenched legal discrimination on the grounds of race. 1994 was when the ANC won the first one-man one-vote elections, but Apartheid had already ended in 1991 when the last laws supporting it were repealed. I don't believe a party winning an election changes the nature of a polity enough to warrant a separate article, otherwise one might as well split every country's main article based on past elections. Valethske (talk) 08:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article is about the place known as "South Africa", it is not about any particular political entity or structure. Apartheid was an ideology and a system of government, not a place. The Apartheid article already exists, as do many other articles about various aspects of Apartheid.
 * Support because we have articles like French Fourth Republic and West Germany. The French Fourth Republic replaced its constitution and became the French Fifth Republic, while the constitution of West Germany is the same as the constitution of Germany. --Spekkios (talk) 03:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The splits would make sense for a history article, but not the main article on South Africa. 1961 is an arbitrary cut-off point anyway, and 1994 to a lesser extent. The only practical change in 1961 is that the Governor-General became the State President and the "Union" became a "Republic". 1948 was a turning point because of the National Party getting into power with ideological racism as its guiding policy. And 1984 was far more impactful constitutionally than 1961, with the introduction of the Tricameral parliament and executive State President. Apartheid laws were repealed in 1990, although the pass laws went in 1986. Namibia gained its independence in 1990, not 1994. The post-1994 state was legislatively created by the apartheid parliament via the 1993 Constitution. It never repudiated the debts or international obligations of the apartheid regime, and the civil service remained in place, albeit augmented by bantustan administrations. The coat of arms was changed some time after 1994. The education system took a while to consolidate, and single matric exams per province only happened in 1997. The country remains as race-obsessed as ever, and it remains quite culturally segregated. The addition of the official African languages was (IIRC) a compromise so that Afrikaans could retain its official status, the reality is that very little changed, and most "good" schools still only teach English with Afrikaans as a second language. 2007, with the introduction of load-shedding may one day prove to be the turning point. Or the election of Jacob Zuma as ANC president in 2007. Maybe this is a Ship of Theseus type problem, but the fact is no clear line for when South Africa became the "modern" state. Park3r (talk) 03:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose a split for reasons similar to but strongly support a separate Apartheid South Africa article as suggested by  and others, so following something like the France model with its republics. This removes the need for strict chronological or other divisions, which some people have rightly pointed out are not feasible, but still accounts for the fact that apartheid SA was massively different qualitatively (though not numerically) from present-day SA, in terms of citizenship, borders, foreign relations, political and legal institutions, etcetera. In other words, we are in the same country, and that is what South Africa is about, but the political system or regime is different. 's point about the homelands illustrates that well: it is a significant feature of the apartheid-era political system that, in terms of that system, the TBVC states left the republic, but separate development was nonsense precisely because it was obvious that the TBVC states never ceased to be part of South Africa, the country. Jlalbion (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Support It would help provide a lot of clarity when referencing Apartheid South Africa in other articles, alongside preventing this article from unnecessary length. I hold similar views to @Iamawesomeautomatic in that 1948-1994 would be more useful. I would however support either. Regardless I think the distinction is useful. (to be clear that's not to say segregation isn't still massive a problem in the country, it is.) LoomCreek (talk) 06:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I haven't seen a strong argument that 1961 is particularly significant, and much of the discussion here seems to be under the illusion that this split would effectively give a separate focus on apartheid. Apartheid was already in place in 1961, and there's little argument that 1960 was vastly different to 1961 in any fundamental way. The governing party remained the same, the direction of the country remained the same. Greenman (talk) 07:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to potential consequences. Creating a dedicated page might inadvertently support divisive arguments and historical misuse. It could also lead to misinformation and lack of balance in content monitoring. Let's avoid providing opportunities for distortion and manipulation of historical facts. The main page allows for broader perspectives and scrutiny, promoting accuracy and fairness. Also, there is no good basis for making 1961 a split year. nickjacksonza (talk) 07:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

"Life in South Africa has significantly improved since the end of apartheid" and "South Africa has become a failed state, with massive unemployment and crime"
There are two conflicting sentences, where it describes life in South Africa having been significantly improved in the opening paragraph, while in the most recent History section, South Africa is mentioned as being a failed state. There ought to be a mention about failed state status in the opening paragraph. 2601:647:4000:12E0:C5FE:7A13:71B3:969E (talk) 07:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Neither of the quotes you provide exist in that form. The article makes mention of warnings of becoming a failed state. It is not contradictory to say life has improved for most people, but the state is at risk of failing. Greenman (talk) 13:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * To say that the lives of most people improved, while the country is becoming a failed state, doesn't make sense. 2601:647:4000:12E0:F15E:227:CA3B:2CA4 (talk) 01:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2023
The population density is noted as "169th", yet the reference link lists South Africa as 137th, I believe that 137th is the correct number. Paul Mad Stephenson (talk) 09:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting question.svg Question: @Paul Mad Stephenson Any reliable source to support 137th? While 169th is linked to List of countries and dependencies by population density however the table at there doesn't tally with what is stated in this article's infobox, the infobox here stated the density is 42.4/km2 however the table at List of countries and dependencies by population density stated 49/km2.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  13:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: Marked the request as on hold. NotAGenious (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

South African date format is dd/mm/yyyySemi-protected edit request on 19 August 2023
The South African date format is dd/mm/yyyy and not reversed as stated 2607:FB91:966:CDCD:89F3:4A7C:6BAE:6B52 (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lightoil (talk) 04:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Mfecane
The Mfecane period was a key point in South African history. Shouldn't there be a subsection summarising what happened? EuKoketsolion (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

British colonialism
British colonial authorities held significant racial biases against the indiginous population of South Africa as the colonizers took further control of economic resources (Cunynghame 1879). Source: Cunynghame, Arthur Thurlon. 1879. My Command in South Africa. 1874-1878. Comprising Experiences of Travel in the Colonies of South Africa and the Independent States. Macmillan and Co. Sunday morning121 (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)