Talk:South Africa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is supported by the Africa-related regional notice board project, for collaborating on and improving Africa-related articles on Wikipedia. Please participate by improving this article, or visit the project page for details.

South Africa is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

This article is supported by the WikiProject on Countries, which collaborates on nations and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article South Africa, or visit the project page for more details. FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on its quality.

WikiProject Featured articles in other languages has identified South Africa as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the German language Wikipedia.

South Africa is either included in the Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

This page has been selected for Version 0.5 and the release version of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category Geography.

South Africa appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 28, 2005.

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1 (Start - 6 April 2005)

Largest_City, Cannabis, Info_crossover, BEE Official_name_up_top, Former_Symbols, Race.3F, Copyvio Economy, Nuclear_Weapons, Danger_sign, Infobox Largest_Indian_population_outside_of_Asia.3F, Crime Crime_Draft, Official_Languages_Not_listed_correctly

• Archive 2 (6 April 2005 - 4 Jan 2006)

Media Bordering_countries First_Line Whistling_Tongue Highest_Indian_population_outside_of_Asia? Regular_elections Crime National_Assembly_Electoral_System External_links Advance Anon_editor_reverts Trivialities? Remember_Jet_Jungle? History_section:__Slavery_end_date AIDS South_African_Military Cape_Argus South_African_genocide Demographics Farm_murders Biased_police Agriculture_in_South_Africa Pretoria History_of_Apartheid_resistance This_is_a_fake_Carnival_right? History Big_pro-racist_bias Use_of_the_word_"many"

• Archive 3 (4 Jan 2006 - 28 May 2006)

Post-Apartheid_South_Africa Post-Apartheid_South_Africa Animal_Life Agricultural_Employment Janitorial_changes Drugs Category_System_needs_cleanup Languages Judicial_capital TfD_nomination_of_Template:South_Africa_infobox Apartheid_death_squads Headings_in_history_section Proper_capitalisation_of_racist_terms_in_apartheid_era Demographics South_African_Corruption_Levels Image_choice Proper_use_of_this_talk_page Parliamentary_democracy Official_Name

• Archive 4 (29 May 2006 - 07 August 2006)

Missing_Information NP_sympathy_for_NAZI_Germany_debate Coloured Racism_in_SA_under_the_ANC Similarities_between_the_Nazi_regime_compared_to_the_ANC_government_in_SA Crime_Expo_SA_URL_Added URL_DELETED

• Archive 5 (to start)

Contents 1 Crime citations please 2 Archived 3 Scouting in South Africa 4 Religion 5 Crime Expo - a plug? 6 Crime is a reality - why do you choose to ignore the facts? 7 Culture: Afrikaans Music 8 Evolution 9 Jews 10 Mahatma Gandhi 11 HIV/AIDS and Citing Sources 12 Concentration camps 13 Other Links 14 Article now has two AIDS sections 15 Link to my news site 16 Media in RSA 17 TSHWANE is the Capital

[edit] Crime citations please

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

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

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

[edit] Archived

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

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

[edit] Scouting in South Africa

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Religion

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

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

True. One place to start looking for info might be [1]. - htonl 19:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Crime Expo - a plug?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This whole discussion is similar to the one I had a few months ago about how relevant South Africa's worsening corruption levels were [[2]] to the main South African page. It seems to boil down to what some consider a typical encyclopædia entry might contain. Traditionally, encyclopædia did not cover things like crime and corruption, so they have a point. However, Wikipedia is different and also in today's world we have better ways of analysing these things (especially corruption) so who says it should not be included?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding Iraq, all crime statistics are usually measured per 100 000 people - it is a ratio and has nothing to do with the population size. I will try to dig up the figures I found a year or two ago. In the mean time you may look at [3] for the 2004 figures.

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

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

- Eltharian ^Talk 20 August 2006

[edit] Culture: Afrikaans Music

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Evolution

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

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

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

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

[edit] Jews

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

[edit] Mahatma Gandhi

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

[edit] HIV/AIDS and Citing Sources

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

===HIV/AIDS===

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

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

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

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

[edit] Concentration camps

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

[edit] Other Links

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

[edit] Article now has two AIDS sections

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

[edit] Link to my news site

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Media in RSA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] TSHWANE is the Capital

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

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

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