This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

South Africa: Politics This page is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa This page is supported by the South African politics task force.

Main

Assessment

Requests

Participants

Style Guide

Resources

Discussion

I've created a participants list page at Wikipedia:WikiProject South Africa/Politics task force/Participants. - htonl (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for only getting back to you all after so long, but I have been inactive on Wikipedia due to my studies. I think that their is a serious lack of work in relation to articles on the various acts by the parliament of South Africa. While I do feel that we need to try and produce information on every act passed. I do not believe that it would be best to have separate articles for each and every act as in many cases it would just result in a stub article that will never progress past that phase.

I would like to suggest that we perhaps look at making an article for each year which contains a bit of information on each act passed. Separate articles should only exist for acts that are notable enough that they a) warrant their own articles, and b) can contain more than just basic information. I would say that this would mainly be in the case of acts that make large changes to the law or obtained significant press coverage to warrant expanding information on the act beyond what would be given in the year article. We can then link the separate articles to the year article for extended reading on the act in the same way that articles link to more in-depth coverage of historical events in the History of South Africa article.

I will work on an example of this idea in a sandbox in due course so that it can be determined if you all feel that it is a workable solution to getting the information covered without cluttering Wikipedia with a hundred stumps containing a handful of sentences each.

I am looking forward to comment, input or suggestions.

Regards, --DSBennie (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply DSBennie. I think htonl's input would be valuable here. I personally agree with that strategy, to a point. It comes down to determining a means test for the Acts. Ideally, I'd like Wikipedia to give a comprehensive guide to the decision behind each law (especially all the current ones). That's the dream anyway. - That Video Shop Guy (talk) 10:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All hands on deck please for processing the results as they are released. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Love to help, but I have my hands full processing the results as they arrive here at DA central office. :) Won't have final certified results until Saturday, probably. - htonl (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is developing well but nobody seems to be watching the talk page where I've raised a few issues/questions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a lot of work on this article already, and I'm starting to feel a bit burned out. I'd appreciate help with it, especially for the Politics and Advocacy sections. Two glaring improvements that are necessary: the Dagga Couple section needs expanding, and a section on the Prince case needs to be included. AWildAppeared (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we really need to work on improving the articles on Bathabile Dlamini, the Department of Social Development, Minister of Social Development and the South African Social Security Agency. I've fleshed them out some, especially SASSA, and I'll keep adding more, but someone else should help me make them read more like encyclopaedia entries rather than news dumps. AWildAppeared (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should the DSD and SASSA articles be merged? I can see a lot of DSD info being duplicated on the SASSA page. AWildAppeared (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly - The SASSA appears to be an agency of the DSD as are two others on the weblink supplied: http://www.dsd.gov.za/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=56&Itemid=101 . Would have to read into their web page a bit more. DSD would be the main article with possible agencies like the SASSA as agency headers within the article. What do you think? Conlinp (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to merge all three organisations under the DSD article, with redirects pointing to the relevant DSD section. What to do with the SASSA infobox? Presumably all three agencies (NDA, SASSA, CDA) could have an infobox but I don't think I've ever seen a Wikipedia article organised like that. Is there "proper" way to handle that? Should I just transcribe the infobox data into plain text sentences? AWildAppeared (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll dump the infobox in my sandbox until somebody figures out what to do with them. AWildAppeared (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey folks. The Nquthu Local Municipality was dissolved a few months ago and new elections are about to be held there, but there's no mention of it in the article. I don't want to edit the article myself because of my well-known conflict of interest in the topic of SA politics. But perhaps someone else could take a look at my edit request on the talk page? - htonl (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@htonl (talk) - Added further info as to why the new election has being held and the date. Regards. Conlinp (talk) 11:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all

Could these two pages not be merged as they cover the some thing and are closely related, with one very out of date?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minister_of_Home_Affairs_(South_Africa)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Home_Affairs_(South_Africa) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizcallers (talk • contribs) 10:15, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Discott, Greenman, Htonl, and Conlinp: Hi, all - I hope that you are all doing well. I have recently expanded some of the South African premier-related articles. While doing so, I thought to myself, "Why has nobody added images to some of the South African premier articles? All of the United States Governors have images here on Wikipedia."

So I went onto Flickr and contacted the Government Communication and Information System (GCIS) for images. I got images for David Makhura and Sihle Zikalala on Flickr. I got permission from GCIS for a picture of Sisi Ntombela, but it is seen as inadequate by OTRS people. The GCIS person, who I contacted, is now frankly ignoring my requests for clarity.

I have also attempted to contact the regional ANC offices, but either I get an e-mail stating that their e-mail services are down or they are just blatantly ignoring my e-mails.

Now, getting down to business, I have decided to ask all of you for help in acquiring images of the premiers.

The following premier articles are in desperate need of images:

• Oscar Mabuyane
• Sisi Ntombela (I honestly doubt that the person from GCIS will come back to me. I have uploaded images of Mrs Ntombela to Wikimedia Commons, but the licenses are not accepted. I need to ask an admin to delete those images.)
• Stanley Mathabatha
• Refilwe Mtsweni
• Job Mokgoro
• Zamani Saul

I hope that you all can find the time to please help me. Your help will greatly be appreciated. Thanks, in advance. Lefcentreright (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lefcentreright, very productive of you! Looks like you have done a great deal of homework on this which is great. Sorry to hear about ORTS, I know from experience how frustrating that process is. However I must warn you that that biggest, and most frustrating, reason why characters are not showing up is because the SA government's default copyright licence is CC-BY-NC which is not allowed on Commons as I am sure you already know by now. It sounds like you are onto the right track. Your experience trying to contact government people sounds normal to me unfortunately. I would however encourage you to continue trying. If nothing else its puts pressure on them to do something and you might just strike it lucky and come accross someone who cares. Until we can get the govt to change its default CC licence I think our best option is to do a Wiki Loves Parliament style event like the German Wikimedia chapter did a few years ago. That will however require us to find someone in our national or local parliament to champion that for us. That is why I would encourage you to continue trying in hopes you come across a champion so we can just take everyone's photograph in one go.--Discott (talk) 00:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lefcentreright and Discott: Firstly Lefcentreright, thanks for all the work and time you are putting into the project, especially SA politics, its thankless job but appreciated. I apologies in advance, but I cannot always help out, but will try when I can. To throw-out a silly idea, how about a Wiki Loves SA Politician photo competition. You can stop rolling on the floor, I know its wide-ball but I thought I would throw it out there as I don't know much about copyright law in SA etc. Regards Paul. Conlinp (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Conlinp and Discott: Great news! A friend supplied me with an image of Limpopo Premier Stanley Mathabatha. I took into consideration both of your ideas. I believe Conlinp's idea of a "Loves SA Politician photo competition" is the most practical. Discott's idea wouldn't be practical, because we need a willing Wikipedian in each province that lives quite close to their respective provincial legislature to take the pictures. It just wouldn't work out. P.S. Thank you, Conlinp, for your contribution to Minister Khumbudzo Ntshavheni's Wikipedia article. Lefcentreright (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to start a chapter / section for this task force with focus on political corruption, state capture etc..

I propose a list of articles to give attention to or create, along with researched referenceable material and suggested updates for each.

Ive always lone edited so not sure of the best way to go about this with a task force, and too much to undertake alone.

Assistance, guidance, support and help requested

Quadtripplea (talk) 13:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Quadtripplea, thanks for taking the initative here. Tracking people who are publicly known to have engaged in corrupt activities is, I feel, in the public interest. So long as reliable references are used both convicted and alleged corrupt activities by notable people not only can be covered on Wikipedia but should be. I encourage people to edit on this subject. I have created a list with a few suggestions to help get everyone started here, also see Main page link above for same page. Please edit the articles and add/modify the list as you all see fit.--Discott (talk) 15:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The ConCourt judgment yesterday (New Nation Movement NPC and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others), which held that citizens have the right to stand for the National Assembly and provincial legislatures without having to be nominated by a party, is a pretty big deal in what it means for South African politics and elections, and it should have an article. (Notability is certainly established by the number of news articles published about it yesterday and today alone.) I'm willing to write up an article this weekend, but I have what might be perceived to be a conflict of interest so I'd prefer to have someone else review it before putting it into article space. Anyone up for that, or to work with me on writing the article? - htonl (talk) 12:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC) I've started a draft at Draft:New Nation Movement v President. - htonl (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new here but I've assigned myself already a task overhauling the List of SA Parties. The parties listed there, especially those outside the one in Parliament, is clustered at best and this list is incomplete. So I think we should sort them in tables by their level of electoral performance and the relative time period they operated. I already stated in the Talk page the main headings, and I'm gonna elaborate them here further since this is the most appropriate place to discuss them. Headings are Parliamentary Parties, Former Parliamentary Parties, Extra-Parliamentary Parties, Defunct Parties and Pre-1910 South African Parties. Headings 1 under Former Parliamentary Parties are Registered Extra-Parliamentary Parties, Defunct Parliamentary Parties, and Bantustan and Representative Councils Parties. Headings 2 under Defunct Parliamentary Parties are 1994-Present, 1961-1994, 1910-1961. If you so wish I will also state the column headings of each table. My main concerned are those parties that have dead links. When I tabulate a party I am gonna remove it from the list, but seeing that there was a discussion on keeping deadlinked parties and I'm too scared to touch them. But I'll still tabulate a party even if it doesn't have a page. Jordan Solo (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am re-posting a request made by another editor and left on the South Africa portal page. Hemiauchenia has pointed out that there is a lack of adequate inline citations for the National Party article page and has requested that such citations be added. Below is the original message:

The National Party (South Africa) article, despite being 60,000 bytes in size, has an almost total lack of inline citations, making it impossible to know what is reliably sourced and what is original research. It's an immense cleanup job and I simply don't really have the interest or expertise in the topic to make a dent in it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--Discott (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The stub for Minister of Economic Development should be merged into Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition but I don't know how to do that while preserving the information in the sidebar of the stub (which differs from that in the bigger article).

Will someone please take care of this? It's a very quick job but someone more knowledgeable on Wikipedia layouts / mergers needs to do it. Thanks.

AWildAppeared (talk) 11:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks - and especially User:Greenman and User:Number 57, whom I have seen working on LGE2021 election results. I have written a script which generates the complete results table for a local election for a municipality. You can see the result of my script in my recent edit to City of Cape Town elections#November 2021 election. I hope tomorrow to be able to put the script online so that you can use it to generate the election tables. This should make updating all the municipal articles with the new election results much easier. Will update here once I get it online. - htonl (talk) 21:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging User:Lefcentreright who is working in this area. - htonl (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Htonl: Hi, there. Yesterday I updated the City of Cape Town's election results table and it took me more than two hours to do it. I hope that the script will make it easier for me. Can you please make maps for the 2021 South African municipal elections article? Best, LefcentrerightDiscuss 10:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Greenman, Number 57, and Lefcentreright: the table script is now live on the web at https://wikitable.frith.dev/ and you are welcome to use it. The site should be fairly self-explanatory; choose an LGE; choose a municipality; then you will see the wiki-markup for the table. There is a "Copy to clipboard" button that makes it easy to copy the markup so you can paste it into a wiki editing window. You can choose between a full table that lists all parties contesting the election, and a shortened version that condenses the parties that won no seats into a single "other parties" row. I have checked quite a few examples to make sure it is working correctly, but please do let me know if you come across any issues. - htonl (talk) 12:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lefcentreright: yes, maps are next on my agenda. 😁 - htonl (talk) 12:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, nice work! htonl, what about adding the reference automatically? Greenman (talk) 12:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed it was missing the "%" signs in the percentage columns. I have added those now. Greenman, thanks, automatic refs are a good idea definitely. I will see what I can do about that. - htonl (talk) 13:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My recent edits were converting the existing tables to use {{Election results}}, which automatically calculates percentages and totals. This also helps you spot user input errors (as you can see the vote or seat totals aren't what you are expecting) – about half the articles I've converted resulted in errors being picked up and corrected. I've just converted City of Cape Town elections to show how it can work, and in the process picked up a couple of errors in the tables in the article – an incorrect list vote figure for Peace and Justice Congress in 2006 and incorrect percentages for the 2011 mayoral election. Cheers, Number 57 14:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57 and Htonl: The format User:Number 57 uses contains a number of advantages. Besides being able to detect errors (which isn't helpful for those generated by the script), it is also sortable, which is a nice feature. As far as presentation differences go, it doesn't contain the %, which I think is a minor negative. It would be good not to duplicate work - User:Number 57 I hope you have at least a semi-automated way of changing the tables! Personally as far as adding new tables goes, I'll always use the script, as its far quicker. User:Htonl, would it make sense to automatically generate this format? Greenman (talk) 21:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have an Excel file with formula that I use to convert existing table formats, so can do a table in a few minutes (depending on how many party names need to be disambiguated). Happy to share this with anyone who is interested. Cheers, Number 57 21:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Greenman: I'm happy to switch my script over to use {{Election results}}; the only change compared to the ones that Number 57 has done is that I would put the ward ballot as the first round and the PR list ballot as the second round, because the allocation of seats on the list depends on the ward seats won. Will let you know once the site is updated. - htonl (talk) 06:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Greenman, Number 57, and Lefcentreright: my site has been switched over to the {{Election results}} form. - htonl (talk) 08:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've tended to put list votes first as that's how tables with dual vote figures are sorted in most cases, and readers may wonder why the first column is out of order if the non-proportional votes are not listed first. Not a massive issue anyway. Cheers, Number 57 14:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Greenman, Number 57, and Lefcentreright: It seems the IEC has still been quietly correcting disrepancies even after the results announcement. The changes affect City of Cape Town, City of Tshwane, eThekwini, Breede Valley, Stellenbosch, and Cape Winelands. My site has been updated now, and tables for those municipalities will need to be updated in the articles. - htonl (talk) 07:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be more specific, in Cape Town the changes affect only the DA and the DLP. In Tshwane they affect six parties. In the other municipalities they affect all parties. Seat calculation results have changed in Cape Town, Tshwane and eThekwini. - htonl (talk) 07:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK I think I have made all the necessary corrections. - htonl (talk) 08:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There appear to be yet more changes. I notice the City of Cape Town figures at least have changed again.^[1][2] Greenman (talk) 07:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Greenman: indeed. Besides the recount in Cape Town there have also been small changes in Cape Agulhas, Mamusa and Moses Kotane. - htonl (talk) 19:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The table generates a couple of links to either the wrong party, or disambig pages. Incorrect links I've picked up so far: Solidarity Party, United People's Party, Socialist Revolutionary Workers Party. Greenman (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Greenman: I've fixed those three on my site, if you pick up any others just let me know. - htonl (talk) 06:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Htonl: one more - Independent Alliance. Greenman (talk) 09:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thank you. - htonl (talk) 09:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Htonl:, also came across The Independents. Greenman (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Htonl: one more. The People's Progressive Party - see https://wikitable.frith.dev/lge2006/NW375 and Moses Kotane Local Municipality elections. Greenman (talk) 12:12, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Htonl: Also came across the National Independent Party - see https://wikitable.frith.dev/lge2021/LIM334 and Ba-Phalaborwa Local Municipality elections. Greenman (talk) 12:09, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - thank you! htonl (talk) 23:02, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks, I've been authorized to upload the following photos of DA mayors/mayors-elect to Commons.

• File:Annelie Rabie.jpg (Overstrand)
• File:Christopher Pappas.jpg (uMngeni - Christopher Pappas (South African politician))
• File:Conrad Poole.jpg (Drakenstein - Conrad Poole)
• File:Dirk Kotzé.jpg (Mossel Bay)
• File:Francois du Rand.jpg (Swellendam)
• File:Geordin Hill-Lewis.jpg (Cape Town - Geordin Hill-Lewis)
• File:Gesie van Deventer.jpg (Stellenbosch)
• File:Grant Riddles.jpg (Hessequa)
• File:Harold Cleophas.jpg (Swartland)
• File:Horatio Hendricks.jpg (Kouga)
• File:Peter Teixeira.jpg (Midvaal - Peter Teixeira)
• File:Ray van Rooy.jpg (Bergrivier)

I've sent all the necessary documentation to OTRS to release the photos under a CC license. Given my conflict of interest I'm not going to edit/create the articles myself. Pinging Lefcentreright since you've asked me for DA politician photos before. - htonl (talk) 09:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Htonl:. I've been meaning to ask you for photos for the longest time, I just haven't had the time. Also, thanks so much for creating that election result table generator site. It really makes it easier and faster to do update the election results sections. Best, LefcentrerightDiscuss 21:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lefcentreright: I have uploaded the following:

• File:Tania Campbell.jpg
• File:Mpho Phalatse.jpg
• File:Randall Williams (politician).jpg

and am waiting for photos for some of the other newly-elected DA mayors. - htonl (talk) 09:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, htonl. LefcentrerightDiscuss 16:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Htonl:. I don't know how to say this (or write this), because I am no expert on the VTRS team and/or license/permission verification, but apparently the messages/e-mails sent to the VTRS team concerning the photographs of Campbell, Phalatse and Williams were not sufficient enough to confirm permission for the use of the photographs and the photographs will now be deleted in less than a month. Please take a look at the permission sections of the photographs and try to "fix it" (if that is even the correct terminology to use in this situation). LefcentrerightDiscuss 11:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lefcentreright: I know, I got a message from VRTS, I replied back with further permission documentation and information and have not heard back from them since. I have asked for help at commons:COM:VRTN. - htonl (talk) 15:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lefcentreright: It's sorted. - htonl (talk) 06:15, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello South African Wikipedia Community,

I have had a difficult time understanding how to approach name changes across South Africa. I initially saw List of renamed places in South Africa and found it to be a fascinating list of changes that were, in many cases, not reflected in the individual city articles themselves. When I tried to update these articles to reflect the current name, I was met with backlash from many South African Wikipedians who claim that these name changes are not legitimate and are rejected by the people who live in the country. However, from my understanding of South African history, many of these names were colonial names that were implemented during apartheid and did not reflect the names that the people who lived in these areas used. In fact, I have read that during apartheid many black Africans did not actually use these names because they were imposed and differed heavily from the native place names that were already in use. Because many of these page moves are opposed for the same reason, I decided to post this here in order to have a larger discussion on this topic.

I have not seen a large amount of backlash to these name changes from black South Africans. The backlash is seemingly based on politics rather than the actual WP:COMMONNAME. With more and more black South Africans speaking English it seems hard to argue that these name changes are not being embraced by the vast majority of South Africa's population, especially considering many never used these names in the first place.

Democratic Legitimacy

One objection that pops up repeatedly states that South Africa did not implement these rules democratically, and that they were imposed without due process and consultation. However, non-governmental organizations such as Freedom House^[1] rate South Africa's elections as free and fair.

This article outlines the process for name changes: https://businesstech.co.za/news/trending/511554/another-name-change-announced-for-south-africa/

“There was a need for the name changes as this is part of a government programme to transform South Africa’s heritage landscape. The names of places we live in reflect the identity and cultural heritage of the people of South Africa,” he said.

Mthetwa said that prior to the changes, the Provincial Geographical Names Committee conducted public consultations on all the names that were changed.

“The South African Geographical Names Act provides for objections within 30 days from members of the public in instances that they are not happy with the gazette name changes,” he said.

This appears to be sufficiently democratic, especially considering they were already elected officials who also allowed time for objections and discussion to occur. All the facts point to these decisions happening democratically, with the consent of the people in South Africa.

Almost all of my edits relating to South African cities have been reverted due to causing too much controversy. However, I struggle to see how places like Kala, Eastern Cape are a subject of controversy when the change was a grammatical correction of a corrupted name Cala->Kala. Even when the changes are meant to address decolonization, it appears that proper procedure was followed, the names are in use by government, on street signs, in the media, and in use by, at the very least, South Africa's black population.

Credibility of News Sources

One issue that frequently pops up are claims that South African media sources are not credible citations. However, I have not found a rule on Wikipedia stating this and it appears to create a lack of accuracy and Western bias. There is nothing in WP:RS that implies South African media and sources would not be accepted. I have cited news sites such as news24, Daily Maverick, The South African, and Herald Live. If these sources are illegitimate please tell me why. I do not see large amounts of disinformation and inaccuracies in their reporting.

Access to Internet

Another issue that frequently comes up is that search results are often used to justify WP:COMMONNAME; but from my understanding, many South Africans do not have access to internet and if they do it is not always reliable. This appears to create a 'digital divide' amongst many in South Africa. Evidence supports an understanding that there exists a modern day segregation between South Africa's Afrikaaner population and black South Africans due to, in large part, the legacy of apartheid.^[2] In fact, the World Bank named South Africa the most unequal country in the world. ^[3] This creates a divide of not only wealth but internet access as well. Which in turn means that black communities in South Africa have a much more difficult time engaging with Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desertambition (talk • contribs) 22:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Bias

This section by an anonymous Wikipedian on the talk page of List of renamed places in South Africa reflects some of the concerns I have with these name changes and why there may be bias involved:

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

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

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

Looking at the logs, this issue has been ongoing since Wikipedia first launched with seemingly no resolution in sight. I have seen examples of users changing city articles that already existed to reflect the pre-apartheid names years after the city was officially renamed. I struggle to understand why that is necessary. The highly controversial Democratic Alliance party that used to be in charge during apartheid also seems to have a large presence on Wikipedia while I have not heard any voices from the minor political parties or the ruling African National Congress. Given how political these name changes are, I believe there may be some correlation.

Rather than reflecting a neutral point of view, it seems like many of these articles are written from the perspective of a white Afrikaaner. That does not mean bias is present of course but it does present a one-sided view of many topics. I have yet to speak to a black South African who wishes more places were named after Queen Elizabeth/Afrikaaners and wants to defend these old place names. From what I understand, some black people may not have positive views of apartheid and the names that were forced upon them. This article provides a good example of what this looks like on the ground in South Africa: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/jul/28/southafrica.rorycarroll

"Dozens of white residents in Lydenburg - and one black person - rallied to keep the name given to the town by Dutch settlers in the 19th century. The black mayor, Clara Ndlovu, recently announced that it would change to Mashishing, the name of a nearby black township which means "wind blowing through the grass".

Critics accuse the African National Congress government of stirring racial tension by pushing through such changes with little or no consultation."

So we have multiple sources, both inside and outside of South Africa that report widespread agreement with minor opposition from a small segment of the Afrikaaner population. Yet, it still seems like the supposed common name is just what some Afrikaaners would like it to be called.

Where Do We Go From Here

So my question to you, the South African Wikipedia community, is how do we approach these name changes going forward? They will seemingly always be unpopular amongst certain people in South Africa. But from my perspective, these changes should be implemented because the government has been voted in democratically and the changes were made without widespread disagreement amongst the large majority of South Africa's population. I believe List of renamed places in South Africa should be consistent across the board. Desertambition (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not a member of this community however I do have experience with naming procedures on Wikipedia. Much of what you have discussesd is irrelevent to how Wikipedia deals with article titles.

• WP:COMMONNAME must be showed when deciding article titles. Note WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and WP:OFFICIALNAME.
• The process that a country uses to change the name of a place is irrelevent to the article title on Wikipedia. The changes may have been implemented democratically or not, but it doesn't matter.
• Whether a name is a grammatical corruption of the "original" is also irrelevent. If the "corruption" is the common name, that is the name used in the article title.
• The lack of internet access or likewise is also irrelevent, as the common name has to be proven. If it can not be proven that the proposed name is the common name, then it is not what the article title should be at.
• The list of place names is a list, not a policy or guideline. It may be that the list of places should be edited to remove material that shouldn't be there, but that does not affect the names of article titles.
• The support or lack of support amoung parties towards an official name change is also not relevent to the article title used on Wikipedia. The name must be shown to be the common name regardless of how much support the name has on the ground.
• Names are chosen for titles independently of any other. If an official name can be shown to be the common namne in one case, that does not mean that another article should be at it's official name unless it too is the common name.

--Spekkios (talk) 02:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the response Spekkios but I feel like you're misunderstanding what I am saying or we disagree on what a WP:COMMONNAME is. From my understanding a "Common Name" in Wikipedia's terms are:

"In Wikipedia, an article title is a natural-language word or expression that indicates the subject of the article; as such, the article title is usually the name of the person, or of the place, or of whatever else the topic of the article is. However, some topics have multiple names, and some names have multiple topics; this can lead to disagreement about which name should be used for a given article's title. Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above.[5] When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly."

So from my understanding of this section, the WP:COMMONNAME is the commonly used name, determined by a sufficient number of English language sources. Given that these are the names used by the largest English language media in the country of South Africa, it seems to me like the new names are the ones that should be used. I do not understand how determining what name is most used is somehow irrelevant to determining a WP:COMMONNAME. The overwhelming majority of current sources use the new names.

• WP:CRYSTALBALL is not relevant here given that I am not trying to predict what will happen in the future. These are the names currently in use by both government and English language media in the country of South Africa.

• WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS says:

"You might think that it is a great place to set the record straight and right great wrongs, but that's not the case. We can record the righting of great wrongs, but we can't ride the crest of the wave because we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion: even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. So, if you want to:

Expose a popular artist as a child molester, or

Vindicate a convicted murderer you believe to be innocent, or

Explain (what you perceive to be) the truth or reality of a current or historical political, religious, or moral issue, or

Spread the word about a theory/hypothesis/belief/cure-all herb that has been unfairly neglected or suppressed by the scholarly community...

on Wikipedia, you'll have to wait until it's been reported in mainstream media or published in books from reputable publishing houses. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research. Wikipedia doesn't lead; we follow. Let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements. What we do is find neutral ways of presenting them."

Given that there are multiple reputable sources backing up the fact that these names were changed and are now in use, I do not see WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS applying here in any capacity. Apartheid, decolonization and the controversy around name changing specifically have been written about extensively in mainstream media, published in books from reputable publishing houses, and has been covered in many academic papers.

• WP:OFFICIALNAME is not relevant here either:

Practicality: These names are unambiguously the official names of South African places. Used on signs, maps, and media.

The article also notes:

"Official names are generally represented in primary sources, such as official websites, album covers, annual reports, press releases by involved parties, and so on, but Wikipedia consistently prefers secondary sources, which tend to favour common names instead."

Again, given the existence of multiple secondary sources using these place names I do not see how this applies here.

• The grammatical corruption argument was brought up because the name was changed to reflect the name actually used by the people who live there. I do not see how that is irrelevant to determining WP:COMMONNAME

• Lack of internet access is actually very relevant and I encourage you to read WP:BIAS.

"The Wikipedia project strives for a neutral point of view in its coverage of subjects, both in terms of the articles that are created and the content, perspective and sources within these articles. However, this goal is inhibited by systemic bias created by the shared social and cultural characteristics of most editors, and it results in an imbalanced coverage of subjects and perspectives on the encyclopedia.

"As a result of this systemic bias, some cultures, topics and perspectives tend to be underrepresented on Wikipedia. Wikipedia tends to underrepresent the perspectives of people who lack access to the Internet, use mobile devices to access Wikipedia, or do not have free time to edit the encyclopedia. Topics for which reliable sources are not easily available (i.e. online) or available in English are systematically underrepresented, and Wikipedia tends to show an American or European perspective on issues due to the prominence of English-speaking editors from Anglophone countries."

• I was using List of renamed places in South Africa in order to illustrate the large difference and lack of consistency between similar articles for no discernible reason. WP:CONSISTENCY is also one of the five criteria to consider when deciding on an article title.

• I do not understand your point about how usage of the name does not reflect that name being the WP:COMMONNAME. The first two points from WP:CRITERIA are most relevant here.

"Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.

Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English."

• It is unnecessary to have to debate the common name every time when these name changes are being dealt with similarly across South Africa. Especially when these arguments almost always deal with the same set of facts and disagreements. Desertambition (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you've misunderstood my overall point in my comment. I'm not arguing what name should be used, I'm pointing out that the new names aren't used by default as they all have to meet WP:CRITERIA. Indeed, using new names vs using old names is a false dichotomy. As to your points, again keep in mind that I was not arguing what the article titles should be, but clarifying the process used to determine article names.

• WP:COMMONNAME is indeed the name used by a sufficient number of English language sources. That has to be shown for each article if it is to be moved, and it is the responsibility of the article mover to show that is the case. It might be true that the overwhelming number of English sources use certain names or it might not: that is beside the point when determining policy or guidelines on name usage.
• WP:CRYSTALBALL is relevant here, as it might be the case that certain names could be the WP:COMMONNAME in the future, but we cannot move an article to a name based on what WP:COMMONNAME it might be at in the future. If it can be showed that a certain name is the WP:COMMONNAME, than obviously WP:CRYSTALBALL wouldn't apply.
• WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is indeed relevant, as the name of an article shouldn't be placed at a name someone thinks it should be contrary to what evidence shows. WP:CRITERIA always applies. Apartheid, decolonisation, and changing might have been extensively written about, but that is irrelevant when determining the name of an article as WP:COMMONNAME is based on current usage, not what usage should be, has been, or will be.
• WP:OFFICIALNAME is absolutely relevant as this discussion deals with official name changes. The WP:OFFICIALNAME might have changed, but that does not mean that the WP:COMMONNAME has. You've said again that "the existence of multiple secondary sources using these place names" means that WP:OFFICIALNAME isn't relevant, but that isn't true when determining guidelines or procedure. Those secondary sources need to be used to show that an article should be moved to a new name, not that certain names should be used by default. If those secondary sources do in fact show a certain name being used contrary to the Wikipedia article name, you should start WP:REQMOVE using those sources as evidence.
• In terms of grammatical corruption, it may indeed be true that the locals use a different name. That has to be shown when moving or starting a WP:REQMOVE.
• My point around lack of internet access was in terms of proving WP:COMMONNAME. We can't assume that WP:COMMONNAME is different based upon what people may or may not use, it still has to be proven. Maybe those without internet access indeed use a different name, but unless that can actually be shown using evidence, then it is irrelevant.
• I'm not sure what you mean by describing any of my points as "how usage of the name does not reflect that name being the WP:COMMONNAME" as usage of a name can in fact show WP:COMMONNAME, but one group using a certain name does not mean that name is the WP:COMMONNAME, as there may be far more evidence that the WP:COMMONNAME is not what that group uses.
• It is absolutely necessary to debate WP:COMMONNAME every time an WP:OFFICIALNAME changes, basically due to WP:CRYSTALBALL. The WP:OFFICIALNAME may change, but that does not mean the WP:COMMONNAME does too. It might be true that in one case the WP:COMMONNAME has changed, but the WP:COMMONNAME for another case does not. In such cases, the title of the first article might change, but not the second.

--Spekkios (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This whole exchange is frustrating because you seem to be listing these objections while ignoring what I am saying. You are not addressing South African place names more generally. You just keep repeating we need sources, and I keep telling you there are sources. Of course all guidelines apply all the time, I should have said that what I am suggesting is not in violation of these guidelines. These "suggestions" are unnecessary and imply that the rules are being misinterpreted. I am aware of how names should be used on Wikipedia, which is why I made this long post and if you browse through my edit history, I have cited many many sources in support of these arguments. If you would like, I can post those sources here.

I encourage you to re-read my entire entry but replace "not relevant" to "not in violation of" because it feels slightly disingenuous to imply that I am ignoring rules.

• These names are already being used. They are currently in use by all major English-language publications in South Africa.

• Your insistence on WP:CRYSTALBALL is just irrelevant. I have not said these names will be the WP:COMMONNAME, I am saying they are the WP:COMMONNAME.

• Again, your insistence on WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is inaccurate. I have not said that these place names should be changed because it hurts people's feelings. I again encourage you to show me how I am working against current sources, including all major English-language South African publications and academic journals.

• Again, these are the names currently in use by South African media, government, and the majority of the population. that is always relevant to WP:CRITERIA. Never did I say the name should not reflect the WP:COMMONNAME.

• Proving that locals use the language is part of determining WP:COMMONNAME. My edits were not malicious in intent nor were they harmful or inaccurate. Making good faith edits with the support of reliable sources should be met with equally strong evidence against it rather than a full dismissal of any name changes.

In terms of internet access I encourage you to re-read what I wrote on the subject as you did not address systemic bias at all. That must be taken into consideration for things like this. Again, never did I say that this doesn't have to be proven.

• Your point about only not only listening to certain groups is absolutely relevant here as evidence suggests that Wikipedia's names reflect an Afrikaner view of South African place names rather than reflecting WP:COMMONNAME.

• Given the overwhelming evidence indicating that these names are currently in use by the black majority population, all major English-language publications in South Africa, and no sign that this will change, it seems useful to avoid these fights by having a discussion with the larger South African Wikipedia community.

• I want to highlight the fact that at no point did you address WP:BIAS in your post. Which is absolutely relevant here. Not everything that is done with good intentions is an example of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Sometimes an article, or series of articles like in this case, are inaccurate and controversial for more reasons than just pedantry. It would be dishonest of us to ignore the reality of current day South Africa and why adoption of these place names is actively discouraged by some, particularly those aligned with the Democratic Alliance party of South Africa. As someone with no relation to South Africa, I find these articles frequently lack NPOV's and do not reflect the reality of the situation as shown in reputable media sources and academic articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desertambition (talk • contribs)

• I think you need to reread my original post and reply, as I'm not making the point you think I'm making.

• I'm not addressing South African names more generally because each name needs to be proven to be the common name. If one name can be proven then it is the common name, but that doesn't mean another name is also the common name in another article.
• I don't know what you think I'm objecting to, as I'm not objecting or supporting anything. Unless you mean I'm objecting to using the new names by default, which of course I would object to, because there may be name changes which go against Wikipedia policy.
• I'm not interested in seeing sources for specific pages. Those should be posted on their relevant talk page when discussing moves.

In regards to your bullet points:

• These names are already being used. They are currently in use by all major English-language publications in South Africa.: Great. Then start an RM on the relevant talk pages using the relevant sources. If that is indeed the case, then you should find consensus for an article move.
• I have not said these names will be the WP:COMMONNAME, I am saying they are the WP:COMMONNAME.: In that case, again go and start an RM on the relevant talk page. My use of WP:CRYSTALBALL is in relation to applying new names by default.
• I have not said that these place names should be changed because it hurts people's feelings.: This was mostly in regards to apartheid and decolonisation being potentially used as reasons for changing article title names when neither actually matter to Wikipedia.
• I again encourage you to show me how I am working against current sources, including all major English-language South African publications and academic journals.: I'm not sure why you want me to show that you aren't using sources properly as this isn't a discussion about specific article moves, and I'm haven't said you aren't using sources correctly. If you want that discussion, I encourage you to start a RM on the specific talk pages.
• Again, these are the names currently in use by South African media, government, and the majority of the population. that is always relevant to WP:CRITERIA. Never did I say the name should not reflect the WP:COMMONNAME.: Then start a RM. I'm not sure what the issue is. If you have the proper source material then you shouldn't have any trouble with move requests.
• Proving that locals use the language is part of determining WP:COMMONNAME.: If you have that proof provide that in the relevant talk page.
• My edits were not malicious in intent nor were they harmful or inaccurate. Making good faith edits with the support of reliable sources should be met with equally strong evidence against it rather than a full dismissal of any name changes.: I don't know anything about your edits but they don't really matter to your original proposal. Besides, what you are describing is actually against Wikipedia WP:PAGEMOVE policy as they are WP:RMUM. If you want a page moved the onus is on you to provide the proper evidence for why that should happen. If you have made an undiscussed move and it was reverted the proper procedure is to start a RM and provide your reasons for making the move.
• In terms of internet access I encourage you to re-read what I wrote on the subject as you did not address systemic bias at all. That must be taken into consideration for things like this. Again, never did I say that this doesn't have to be proven.: Then I'm not sure what your point is. If you can prove that the name is used then there shouldn't be any issue.
• Your point about only not only listening to certain groups is absolutely relevant here as evidence suggests that Wikipedia's names reflect an Afrikaner view of South African place names rather than reflecting WP:COMMONNAME.:If you can show that the proposed name is the common name then please do so on the relevant talk pages.
• Given the overwhelming evidence indicating that these names are currently in use by the black majority population, all major English-language publications in South Africa, and no sign that this will change, it seems useful to avoid these fights by having a discussion with the larger South African Wikipedia community.:Sure, but my point was that every move has to be within policy and guidelines.
• I want to highlight the fact that at no point did you address WP:BIAS in your post. Which is absolutely relevant here. Not everything that is done with good intentions is an example of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.:Because like everything else, you need to show bias when making the RM. It's all very well and good to say there is bias present, but unless you can prove it, then it doesn't matter in this context.
• Sometimes an article, or series of articles like in this case, are inaccurate and controversial for more reasons than just pedantry. It would be dishonest of us to ignore the reality of current day South Africa and why adoption of these place names is actively discouraged by some, particularly those aligned with the Democratic Alliance party of South Africa.:If you do think that the names being used are incorrect then start an RM on the relevant pages.

--Spekkios (talk) 04:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation is going nowhere, and clearly you are just misunderstanding what I am saying. You are clearly uninformed on what is happening in regards to South African renaming on Wikipedia. This is not a productive discussion and I think we should just end it here. We keep repeating our points and I am frustrated by your constant assertions that I am ignoring rules. We need more others to give their opinions. Again, this discussion is intended to be about South African renaming and you have not talked about that at all. I am incredibly frustrated with this pointless argument when you are not even engaging with the topic at hand and, by your own admission, are not informed on this topic. Desertambition (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't accused you of anything. I'm honestly completely baffled at this conversation, as much of what you are discussing is already covered by relevant policy and guidelines. If you have relevant information and can show that the current name is not where the article should be at, I encourage you to start a move request at the relevant talk page. --Spekkios (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, I have just created the article on the recent Farmgate scandal. I am finding it difficult to keep track of the event and making sense of it so I would like to know if others could please help with expanding, ordering, fact checking, and clarifying the article please.--Discott (talk) 14:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all, I started a discussion a while back on what to include and how in the infobox for the 1989 election, but it's lost traction with no clear consensus. Would appreciate your input, the discussion can be found here. Thanks! CipherRephic (talk) 09:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks, I've been authorized to upload the DA's portrait photos of its newly-appointed ministers and deputy ministers. In most cases these are newer and better than the photos currently on the articles. Pinging User:Lefcentreright especially. :)

• File:Andrew Whitfield 2024.jpg
• File:Ashor Sarupen 2024.jpg
• File:Dean Macpherson 2024.jpg
• File:Dion George 2024.jpg
• File:Jane Sithole 2024.jpg
• File:John Steenhuisen 2024.jpg
• File:Leon Schreiber 2024.jpg
• File:Mimmy Gondwe 2024.jpg
• File:Samantha Graham 2024.jpg
• File:Siviwe Gwarube 2024.jpg
• File:Sello Seitlholo 2024.jpg
• File:Solly Malatsi 2024.jpg

- htonl (talk) 11:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]