Talk:South Africa

{{Edit semi-protected|South Africa|answered=yes}}

civilization state 41.113.184.51 (talk) 05:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

:File: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. FifthFive (talk) 06:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|South Africa|answered=yes}}

Please insert an internal link on "hominid species" in the first line of the second paragraph to the Wikipedia article "hominidae" for better understanding. Hvris (talk) 11:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

:{{done}} Myrealnamm (💬pros · 📜cons) 23:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article :Mokhonoana has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced and unimproved 15 years. No reliable sources on Google. Run of the mill last name. Not enough information to merge.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 19:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

:Sounds good GreatCmsrNgubane (talk) 05:16, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I think it is necessary to have a separate apartheid era South Africa country page due to the many differences between the modern day government of South Africa and the apartheid era government. It’s like this for Rhodesia and I find it it surprising that this isn’t the case here. I wasn’t sure to to put this, but I think here was good. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:South_Africa/Archive_8#Splitting_this_article_into_South_Africa_and_Republic_of_South_Africa_(1961_-_1994) See this] 192.145.141.214 (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

::I still feel strongly that it would be beneficial to split the pages. Another discussion could possibly be useful ErickTheMerrick (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:::You haven't stated which text you would want to split from this article. CMD (talk) 02:36, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Adding a government page on the republic of south africa (1961-1994) with details of how the govwrnment functioned, apartheid, etc. I was actually quite surprised it didn't already have its own page. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 08:24, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::I don't think there is much to split from this article on that. It may be better to look at Apartheid. CMD (talk) 09:15, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::I would suggest developing an article on History of South Africa (1948–1994) - at the moment that is a redirect to apartheid but I can see the argument for an article which covers that period of history more broadly as well as talking about apartheid. 1961 is not very useful as a dividing year; SA went from a dominion to a republic, by substituting a figurehead president in place of a figurehead monarch, but practically nothing else changed about the government. The constitution of 1983 actually made much bigger changes to the government, with the tricameral parliament and the executive presidency, but I think we all recognise that SA was the same country before and after 1983. htonl (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::I think that would actaully work well. Kinda like how Rhodesia’s wiki page is. The redirect to apartheid on my many pages when referring to apartheid era South Africa just doesn't sit well with me at all. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I would like this discussion to continue into an actual result and would like to hear other opinions on this matter. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:I agree, apartheid has a lot of potential content, it should be a separate page of it's own. GreatCmsrNgubane (talk) 05:17, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::I also agree, while having a History of Apartheid South Africa article would be good, a benefit of having a former country article at Apartheid South Africa would be that it can have all the other conventional sections. We have separate articles for Zaire, Derg, and Rhodesia (although on the contrary we have History of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi and don’t have separate articles for many dictatorships). As has been said, the comparison with Rhodesia seems the most apt, the only difference is it got a name change while South Africa didn’t. Kowal2701 (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

In viewing towns in South Africa I noticed that the "Demographics" are bent. For example... White South Africans and Coloured South Africans are labelled as "White" and "Coloured", but Black South Africans are labelled as "Black Africans". Are there any other Black demographic categories? Taking into consideration that many "White" people came into South Africa before many of the "Black Africans" and the majority do not have another passport; I suggest that "Coloured" be labelled as "Coloured Africans" or "Black Africans" be labelled as "Black". Insinuating otherwise would be as bad a labeling Whites in North America as "White Americans", at the same time labeling Blacks in North America as "Blacks" without adding "American".

Although I would wish otherwise, I see the statement "Since the end of apartheid, government accountability and quality of life have substantially improved for non-white citizens." as inaccurate with the the inclusion of "quality of life" phrase. This "quality of life" should be deleted for a more factual article. Quality of life is highly influenced by crime, unemployment, education, and government services. Sadly, these things are have degraded significantly for non-white citizens and the true picture should be included in this article. WellToKnow (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:So you're saying that just because you were born in Africa and lived there your entire life and so did your ancestors stretching back hundreds of years, that means you're African? 129.130.19.197 (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::No, I'm not saying that. No, I'm not South African. South Africans are those that migrated from other places and settled in nearly vacate land traded and bought land from the real two South African tribes that were in the area (collectively called "bushman"). Does it matter if the immigrant comes from Africa, if they greatly improved the land and lifted the quality of living for even those that invaded from the north?

::If the people born in South Africa with black skin moved to the United States should they be called "Black Africans" or "Black Americans"? How long would it take to be recognized as Americans? Let's go beyond the emotional knee jerk reactions.

::People should examine my two points on the basis of their merit to whether it makes this media more accurate. 199.172.241.57 (talk) 01:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:The terms used are the official terms used in the Census questionnaires, since the census is the source of that information. See [https://census.statssa.gov.za/assets/documents/2022/Census_2022_CAPI_CATI_Household_questionnaire.pdf], question P07a. - htonl (talk) 08:24, 16 May 2025 (UTC)