Talk:Namibia/Archive 1

Archive 1

April 2005

A controversy has erupted over the choice of map for this article. The two candidates are shown here, along with any others that other Wikipedians may choose to enter. Feel free to make any comments. The lower map may also appear in the corresponding Geography article for this country. Kelisi 03:33, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Map of Namibia

Both maps please

Both maps please

Tabletop 7 July 2005 06:38 (UTC)

Controversy?

There isn't any past conversation / controversy that I can see on the discussion page (I'm still new, so I might be missing something), so I'm wondering what the controversy is about? The first map, obviously from CIA Factbook, is the map used for about 90% of country pages that I've noticed so far (probably because it's from a US Government source, it's not copyrighted and a Godsend for Wikipedians) so why should the Namibia map be different?

The only difference I can see (other than quality) is that the larger map shows administrative areas (apparently) and some more towns. If that's the reason people want the second map included, then I saw include both. If there's an inaccuracy to the (currently-shown) Factbook map, just use the second one.

Simple, n'est-ce pas? --Canuckguy 07:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

The contoversy was about the resolution of the lower map, but I think I have a way to banish any arguments as to that. I'll think about putting both maps in the article. Kelisi 21:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

== I'm curious about the "Secondary Languages" section of the profile. Is the information about Portuguese correct? Why are no other languages mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.195.228.9 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 3 January 2006‎

December 2005

The demographics section could be much more comprehensive and straightforward. Though pictured, the Herero and Himba are never mentioned in the article itself. Neither are the Kavango, Caprivians or Tswana even mentioned at all.

The following are statistics posted on the CIA factbook website (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/wa.html):

black 87.5%, white 6%, mixed 6.5% note: about 50% of the population belong to the Ovambo tribe and 9% to the Kavangos tribe; other ethnic groups are: Herero 7%, Damara 7%, Nama 5%, Caprivian 4%, Bushmen 3%, Baster 2%, Tswana 0.5%

Wouldn't it make sense to incorporate this information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.183.161 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 13 December 2005‎ (UTC)

Readability/layout

I'm still something of a noob, so I'm not sure how to proceed with this article. I flagged it for wp:cleanup last week because the graphics are haphazardly placed, and in the case of the geography section, they overlay text. Then, I joined WP, and while I was fooling around with preferences, I noticed that with the "Cologne Blue" skin, the page is beautifully laid out, but it still looks goofy with the default skin. So, the question is, is the default skin privileged? Should I edit the page to make it look better in that, possibly wrecking the formatting of the "Cologne Blue" version? Woden325 16:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks to some advice from the IRC people, along with the other handy-dandy help pages I went ahead and reformatted the page. I rearranged the images in the politics and geography sections to make them look better in the default skin. I also removed the cleanup tag. Woden325 00:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed "List of German Speaking Countries"

I changed it since Namibia speak both German and they speak English. So it lists both now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 04:52, 17 April 2006‎ (UTC) (talk • contribs) 70.28.192.181

Ideally this article will show more data of regional linguistic usage.01:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.248.130 (talk)

Border Region Zambia/Zimbabwe/Botswana/Namibia

I deleted the part where was stated that Namibia borders Zimbabwe. There is indeed a border dispute, but since Namibia and Zimbabwe do not object the plans of a bridge between Botswana and Zambia, and don't have a single border post between their countries. One can assume that a direct border between Namibia and Zimbabwe is nothing but a claim.

I dissagree with you, cause the border is in the middle of the river. Just cause we don't have a border post with Namibia, I still like the fact that we have a rare phenominon in four countries converging in a single place. Please put it back. 193.130.182.67 10:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Total Area and Population Density Errors

The article says:

"At 318,674 mi² (825,418 km²[1]), Namibia is the world's thirty-fourth largest country (after Venezuela). It is comparable in size to Pakistan, and is about half the size of the US state of Alaska. After Mongolia, Namibia is the least densely populated country in the world (1.5 persons per km²)."

That paragraph has serious errors. The link to the CIA's world fact book (CITED IN THE PARAGRAPH) puts Namibia at rank 42 for area. Then if you calculate the population density, 2,044,147/825,418 = 2.476 people / square kilometer, which contradicts the 1.5 people / square kilometer it states.

Also, http://www.photius.com/wfb1999/rankings/population_density_0.html shows that there are lots of countries less densely populated than Namibia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 07:07, 14 December 2006‎129.116.50.45 (talk • contribs)

Have you actually read those rakings properly? In the population density ranking, none of those listed below Namibia are independent countries except Mongolia. As for the area ranking, that also includes the world, oceans and the EU for comparison (in fairness, I believe the decision to give them ranking numbers is rather confusing). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ygoloxelfer (talk • contribs) 15:42, 30 January 2007‎

Proposed WikiProject

In my ongoing efforts to try to include every country on the planet included in the scope of a WikiProject, I have proposed a new project on Southern Africa at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Southern Africa whose scope would include Namibia. Any interested parties are more than welcome to add their names there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start such a project. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Worldwide Press Freedom Index

The Reporters Without Borders' Worldwide Press Freedom Index 2003 ranks Namibia as fifty-sixth out of 166 countries, as compared with thirty-first out of 139 countries in 2002.

This statement can be read to imply that Namibia's press freedom has diminished substantially and doesn't take into account the growth in numbers of countries ranked. Is there any further clarification that can be applied?

Realnamib 20:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge

Would you please take a look at Regions of Namibia and tell me what you think of my proposal to add the information there to the administrative regions section of this article. Ygoloxelfer 21:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree that it should be added here (but the origional pages shouldnt be deleted). However, I dont think it should be added with the box, the map with the lift to the right (or the left) would just do fine.

Good idea!

--Screensaver 08:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. We have articles for political subdivisions for almost every country; why should Namibia's be merged? It does need improval, but that shouldn't be too hard to do. Nyttend 16:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

To answerScreensaver's point, what I meant was to just add the map infobox to the article, not the rest, and I suppose we could just keep the originl article there, but perhaps remove the link until it becomes an article worth looking at. Ygoloxelfer 10:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to add the infobox and map in without it messing up the formatting? If anyone could do that it would be much appreciated. Ygoloxelfer 15:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Heroes' Acre Namibia

I would like to add an external link to <http://namibia-1on1.com/Namibia-Central/Heroes'-Acre-1.html> The Heroes' Acre is a National Heritage Council Memorial Site. Are there any objections? Keith Irwin 15:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That is a better approach Keith. Perhaps one of the regular editors of the page will add an ext link - but, as discussed, adding links to your own sites is spam. That applies also to your requests on various other Namibia related pages. Cheers, Vsmith 10:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Digital Maps Of Namibia

Would Editors please look at the digital maps of Namibia available from <http://www.namibia-1on1.com/Namibia-Map/Namibia-Map-Key.html> If any of these are thought to be of use to the Namibia section of Wikipedia you are welcome to place external links to them. Keith Irwin 15:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

See meta:Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Herero Wikipedia

If anyone here has any Herero proficiency, please take a look at this proposal and at the small Herero encyclopedia itself to see what should be done with this wikipedia (keep it or delete it.) Keeping it implies more than a sentimental commitment ("it would be nice to have a wikipedia in every language ...") but also that it can be something more than a 10 or 20-article spam and vandalism trap and not just "someday" but in the here and now.

Please do not respond here but rather at that discussion (meta:Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Herero Wikipedia). --A. B. ^(talk) 12:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Additional edits coming

I am in the process of working with three other people to create a page on Namibian wildlife conservancies. In the process we have some historical, geographical, and political data that seems more appropriate for the main Namibia page. This information will be edited in over the next few days.

In addition we have some original photographs of some typical Namibian landscapes, as well as some wildlife photos taken by one of our group members while on a trip to Namibia.

We are Wiki noobs, but we are looking forward to comments on what we add to the page.

Cheers, Christopher A. Scott

Blessent mon coeur d'une languer monotone. 23:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I will be working on some of the edits with Christopher. I will stay limited to the more minor material - mostly adding information here and there in the sections mentioned above. Thanks in advance for going easy on us. --curugil 22:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Additional photographs

Photographs added

Blessent mon coeur d'une languer monotone. 07:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Geography section

I have added the new text - which essentially replaces the old - and will work on the refs and pictures as quickly as I can or with the help of Chris. --curugil 06:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

History

So when exactly was Namibia a German colony? Could you please improve your history section. Thank you. Jurgen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.25.174 (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I followed an external link to historyofnations.net and found extremely biased information. It makes the article much less reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.98 (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

languages

can anyone provide any reliable data about the distribution and the real amount of portuguese-speaking people overall within the country? There seems not to be any trustworthy sources on this subject anywhere. antónio --91.117.77.73 (talk) 02:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Choosing English as sole Official language, bias, unsourced

There is no source as to the irenic presentation that the government chose English so as not to privilege Afrikaans or German speaking groups (including some non-white groups such as the Basterds). One may easily see this gesture to impose English as a spiteful one giving an advantage to the English-Speaking immigrés returning to Namibia (cf. Rwanda imposing English after Kagame seized power, Kagame not speaking French). This whole sentence is very biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.143.217.180 (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it is the way you suggest, and at the very best your claim is equally unsourced and biased. These are things hard to validate but I believe German was never even considered as official language. The main question was likely whether to make local languages official or to take an independent, international language like English. I believe the PhD Thesis of Hage Geingob should provide an answer but I do not have access to this document. --Pgallert (talk) 07:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

As a side, German was official 1984-1990. I agree that replacing one unsourced claim by an equally unsourced claim won't help here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 08:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes I know. What I meant is German was likely never considered by independent Namibia, after 1990. --Pgallert (talk) 08:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Found a source. Took me 10 minutes.

@IP. Next time, before you complain, find a source, it's not that difficult. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 08:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

New section on HIV/AIDS

I just added a short section on HIV/AIDS in Namibia. This section could use some more research.

Blessent mon coeur d'une languer monotone. 08:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The following sentence is imprecise:

<<The nation has suffered heavily from the effects of HIV and AIDS; One in seven are estimated to be living with AIDS, and the number affected by HIV is feared to be even higher.>>

It is in fact clear that AIDS patients are also HIV positive, there is necessary that the number of HIV positive patients is much larger than patients living with AIDS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simone Severini (talk • contribs) 20:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Coat of arms

What happened to the old pic of the coat of arms (the one in .svg format)? Josh (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Was probably deleted from wikicommons. If someone just uploads an image and doesn't give a license-tag (like the .jpeg has [1]) AND gives a justification for *each* article the image is used for -- it gets kicked out. Seb az86556 (talk) 00:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, makes sense. Thank you for clarifying. :) Josh (talk) 06:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

again with the languages

Is English really spoken by only 7% of the population? If it is indeed the official language, and is taught in schools, shouldn't it be higher? Are these "facts" cited from the same time periods? I could understand the % being so low if it was measured right after English became the offical language, but not ~20 years later. I wonder if it means 7% spoke English as their primary language instead of speaking it at all. Lime in the Coconut 17:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The source, the CIA World Factbook, is not clear, and is clearly incorrect when listing only 1% speaking indigenous languages. I don't know of another source, but suggest one be found to clarify the matter. Greenman (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Having lived in Namibia, yes, I'd say around 7% of people speak English as their primary language. I would even guess that is too high of a number. There are very few speakers of English as a first language in the country. The vast majority of people of European descent speak Afrikaans, German or even Portuguese as a first language. The vast majority of people of mixed/African descent speak Oshivambo, Nama, Herero, Damara, etc as their first language.--TM 12:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

7% of white Namibians speak English as their sole language (as compared to 60% for Afrikaans and 32% for German). Whites make up between 7-10% of Namibia. So the white percentage must be tiny seeing that very few Black people would speak English! And yes very few people speak English. I haven't lived in Namibia, but just because it's supposed to be taught in schools doesn't mean that people are fluent in it. I doubt English has replaced Afrikaans as the lingua france, even after 20 odd years, and some schools probably still don't teach it. Furthermore, Namibia only has about 80% Literacy rate. This is only in their home language, let alone a second or third language. Bezuidenhout (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Wait a moment, you want to say that although English is taught at school (at every school, unlike where you come from) for 20 consecutive years, most (black) people are not fluid in it?! That's a long shot. It is certainly not the lingua franca in Namibia, but most people can speak it (illiteracy refers to reading and writing, not to talking and oral comprehension). --Pgallert (talk) 09:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You are right Pgallert, I didn't think that through. But have we actually reached an aggrement on this? I think that >1% using English as a primary language is a good statistics (or we can remove the '<') because there might be some coloureds or maybe black people speaking it as a first language. Concerning second/third languages, that's always tricky. Just out of curiosity, when does Namibia hold it's cencusus? And if they are holding one soon, do they question mother tongue/second lang.. etc.? Bezuidenhout (talk) 09:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The next census is early 2011, may we'll just wait for that one. <1% English is probably right if you refer to "mother tongue". The Census usually questions "language spoken at home", that's more than 1% due to interracial and inter-tribal relationships where English is just the language that all family members can speak, no matter how well. --Pgallert (talk) 12:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

If somone took the the trouble to post a sign saying Kein Pinkeln, there must be a significant number of German speakers -- surprising, after almost of century has passed. Sca (talk) 14:17, 15 April 2011‎ (UTC)

Striated landscape

I was browsing in Google Earth and was surprised to see that much of northeastern Namibia and northwestern Botswana are covered in a remarkably regular pattern of east-west stripes, which are even more consistently spaced than ridges of the Appalachian Mountains here in the U.S. I'd love to see some information about them - their geological origin, and especially their impact on the distribution of living things. Wnt (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Cost of living

Don't like this section in its current shape:

• "The cost of living is high" ... compared to what, neighboring countries, Africa, on a world-wide scale? There is also no reference for this.
• The tax table is not too informative, could be condensed into one sentence.
• Rental price (12,000N$) is exaggerated and by no means typical. A family home in a good area in Windhoek is more in the region of 7000N$. Outside the two expensive towns of Windhoek and Swakopmund, 3000 or 4000N$ would be a realistic rent. The ref for this is a joke, too.
• The detailed electricity price with levy is of no particular interest.

I'll be bold and rewrite if no one objects. --Pgallert (talk) 09:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

This is now obsolete, see GA-drive below. But I conclude there is no opposition towards my suggested changes in this section. --Pgallert (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Namibia-Zimbabwe Border?

There is no border between Namibia and Zimbabwe since there is a border between Botswana and Zambia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.78.69.171 (talk) 12:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This is debatable since there is arguably a 4-point border with Namibia, Zambia, Zim and Botswana. For example google maps says they touch Kazangulu ferry. The four point border is actually over the Zambezi river. Bezuidenhout (talk) 13:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

If we believe Lonely Planet, a highly respected travel guide (but still a fishy source for Wikipedia), there is indeed a four-country point. Direct travel between Botswana and Zambia is possible because this point is in the middle of river Zambezi. I'll take the freedom to revert the unsourced edit by 80.78.69.171. --Pgallert (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Restructuring to get to GA

I will now take on the task of bringing Namibia to FA status. It is a long way to go, the current "B" is more than what it deserves IMHO, seeing tags, a broken template, and an unlogical structure. The first step would be a Good Article (GA), but before we can have it reviewed a few things need to be sorted out. I have compared the current article with other country articles, particularly those that already are FA. See here for a list of FA, A, and GA country articles.

I believe some things are uncontroversial, and I will start right away changing them:

• lead should not be referenced but contain only facts that are covered in the article  Done - well, partly, as the lead still does not adequately summarise the article
• history section lacks post-independence coverage  Done
• landscape formations should not be under "climate"  Done
• biodiversity, wildlife, national parks and tourism all underrepresented - this is what Namibia is known for!
• many smaller issues where the heading does not fit the content  Done in part

Some things will be controversial, I will start doing this after a few days if no comments trickle in. Please discuss:

• shorten the section on landscape formations
• remove the section on towns  Done Pgallert (talk) 11:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
• remove cost of living, taxation, child labour  Done Pgallert (talk) 11:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
• remove some of the pictures, re-sort to match the headline
• remove many of the entries under "See also"
• remove gallery

With "remove" of course I do not mean "delete". The suggestion is to convert the content into one paragraph, fork the rest out into separate articles and link either via {{main}} template or under "See also".

I would really appreciate comments. --Pgallert (talk) 10:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Update Some of the minor changes are done, I will now gradually move on towards the major issues. In the mean time, I would say the following topics require urgent expansion:

• pre-colonial history - does not only consist of San and Whites  Done 21:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• Government and politics
  • Government of Namibia is still a red link... shocking.  Done Not anymore. Also improved the section a bit.13:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC) The appropriate section of Namibia should be expanded once the government article exists.
  • Law enforcement in Namibia is a redirect to South West African Police... even more shocking
• Health - does not only consist of HIV/AIDS

Things that should go are in my opinion (additional to the list above)

• Electricity -- should come somewhere under "Infrastructure" (to be created as well)  Done 21:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• International disputes -- they are really too minor to feature in the country article  Done 21:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

As usual, comments are very welcome. --Pgallert (talk) 10:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Update: After my first and only experience with WP:FAC (here) I retract my statement that I will bring this article to FA. GA is still on. Luckily there is no deadline... --Pgallert (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Notice Re: Dr.Dierks

The web archive of Klaus Dierks always looks a bit fishy when referenced because the url starts with http://www.family-hipp.co.nz/site/klausdierks/... The reason is that his web presence uses frames, such that referencing anything with his "official" url, http://www.klausdierks.com/... leads to the start page.

Any advice on how to reference him properly? Pgallert (talk) 00:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh. So I didn't know who that was. I have no idea how to work around that problem; however, it would have helped to state whose webpage it is/whose claim it was. Even an expert on Namibia can have a certain POV, esp. when said expert was a member of SWAPO. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries, and yes, of course he could have had COI. Unfortunately there is no second expert on the topic (unless for the particular undo we're talking about, that can be found in the UN resolutions that Dierks cites), so for many of his claims I'm just inclined to believe him.

One trivial way to get around the referencing problem would be to cite the print versions; most of what he wrote has been published locally. That doesn't help the critical reader though, as I doubt you'll find his books at many places outside Namibia. --Pgallert (talk) 01:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

i am still not convinced of the unqualified use of the word "occupation" for the time-frame lasting up until the 90s. Most people would understand military occupation and get the picture of armed forces patrolling the streets. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

What would be a "qualified" use? I mean, they get their mandate removed by the UN, such stuff doesn't happen without a reason. They impose their draconic laws that are not backed by the majority of the population, not even at home, they restrict just about every human right there is, they put people in jail for next to no reason. If you have a better word than occupation just suggest it, but it was certainly more than just "administration" of the terrain. In the 90s it wasn't occupation anymore, it was war. BTW, armed forces did patrol the streets. --Pgallert (talk) 12:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

By "qualifying" I mean "annotating" in the sense of stating who said it/where that term is coming from. I am not at all opposed to stating that XYZ (perhaps even "the majority of XYZ") regarded the status in question as "occupation" -- does that make sense? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

If there is a controversy we should spell it out, rather than covering it in some mysterial cloud. I'm not 100% sure what you want to get at, but if it is that South African Government (plus the Whites in Namibia, possibly plus some other parties) did not see it as an occupation, and others did, then we should find a source for both, and say there was disagreement. Does that make sense? --Pgallert (talk) 12:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Surely an Occupation is more of a political thing? Was India under occupation by the UK untill the 1940/50s? Was Mozambique under occupation untill 1975? South Africa was ASSIGNED SW-Africa by the League of Nations, so surely there wasn't really an 'occupation' if it was rightfully theirs in the first place? Bezuidenhout (talk) 13:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Then you also know that the mandate was revoked later. From that time on it was an occupation. --Pgallert (talk) 18:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I still think administration is a better way to put it, I think it was more under occupation when it was assigned a mandate then when it was revoked. Surely many other places in Africa were pressed to give independence, then Mayotte at the time was under occupation? Bezuidenhout (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

As much as I hate to say that: This paragraph is going to be rewritten many, many times; I'm serious with the FA drive (see above). At some point one needs to consider that it was an administration, a control, a governance, and also an occupation. All that should be mentioned. Which word comes into which sentence is more a matter of style than anything else. In the mean time I would really prefer the description of the controversy, that SA didn't think it was an occupation. But for that claim we need a source. --Pgallert (talk) 19:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to note that the original question is now moot because http://www.family-hipp.co.nz/site/klausdierks/ went offline a few months ago. There are still several dozen references to it, I'll repair them one by one. --Pgallert (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Occupation?

I was wondering if I should bring up the topic over whether this was actually an occupation? I prefer the more neutral term administration. During World War I, yes I understand but surely after it was less of an occupied territory and more of an administrated part of South Africa. Bezuidenhout (talk) 11:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Namibia or the world agrees with you. Consider this or this this UN resolution or the BBC or this journal article.--TM 15:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Definition of occupation: the occupation of a country is the act of invading it and taking control of it. Yes, South Africa did invade SW-Africa in WW1 but was later assigned it, no harm done. Even if it was revoked that still wouldn't be an 'invasion' because it already controlled it. It would be like claiming Scotland is under occupation of England. Bezuidenhout (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

careful, there are people who'd actually agree with that Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Haha, I knew it! :) Bezuidenhout (talk) 18:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's see what Wikipedia says under military occupation: "Belligerent military occupation occurs when the control and authority over a territory passes to a hostile army.". Control? Yes. Authority? Yes. Passes? Yes. Hostile army? Yes. Anything else I may show you?

SWA wasn't really under 'military occupation' when compared to places such as Western Sahara or Tibet. There was probably tighter security and military work in South Africa at the time against riots! Bezuidenhout (talk) 08:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

And on a more general note -- We have now given some 6 or 7 reliable sources (previous paragraph and article included) stating that is was, indeed, an occupation. Don't you think it is your turn now to show that it is not? Backed up by a reliable source, not just your belief? --Pgallert (talk) 18:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Look, this isn't an argument or me trying to rule the world, I simply thought it important to bring up the argument since all my family (incl. my dad who served in Namibia) that it was funny when I said it was under 'occupation'. And please I am not going to 'back down' or kiss your feet your highness because you 'won' the argument, want a biscuit? Still.. Control? Yes. Authority? Yes. Passes? Yes. Hostile army? .... I don't personally think so, dictionary says 'hostile' means relating to or involving the enimies of a country. South Africa wasn't exactly the 'enemy' of South-West Africa? And yes I see you have backed up reliable quotes, I didn't ignore them, and will definitley read through them later when I have a tad bit more time. But also surely SWA was only 'under occupation' from when the mandate was revoked onwards? Before then it was simply 'administrated'? We don't claim that Transvaal was an 'occupied' territory even though the British releaved its occupation later in time. Bezuidenhout (talk) 22:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I have read through some of the sources.

• BBC - nothing in that article states it was an occupation. It shows that between 1920-1946 South Africa was allowed to govern it. Therafter the UN demands South Africa to give up the mandate. Now that is not directly treated as occupation.
• nhcdelhi - shows alot of personal opinion and very strong language (RACIST MINORITY REGIME OF PRETORIA.. or just apartheid?).
• http://www.noeasyvictories.org/select/10_kjeseth.php - Finally! The word occupation springs up, but only after 1977!
• http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=61C35135462EA7EF32BDF8B80A02526D.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=2506704 - Surely that is personal opinion?
• http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/spec/aress14-1.htm - Now this is a good source, and official but the date was in 1986, so when is it under occupation untill?

I would prefer to not use occupation and if you're really that sensative about 'administration' then I would propose the word 'control', under South African 'control', that is neutral. But I understand in some ways you would probably want to express the fact that SWA was under illegal OCCUPATION in the 1970s/early and mid 80s. I understand this, but it seems that between 1988 and 1990 that it was no longer under occupation but rather in the 'transition' stage. Therefore if we refered to the country by its last stage, it wouldn't be under occupation. However this is unpracticle. Bezuidenhout (talk) 08:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The Namibian office in Delhi demonstrates the Namibian government considers it an occupation. Look closer at the BBC. It says "1966 - Swapo launches armed struggle against South African occupation. " The Journal article is a book review about the occupation. Frankly, it seems like you are trying to "white-wash" the Namibian occupation. South Africa began occupying the country in 1915 and did not stop occupying it until South Africa's military withdrew and Namibia achieved independence in 1990. You want more sources? Working Under South African Occupation: Labour in Namibia or perhaps this or this UN resolution from 1982 or this UN resolution from 1969. Maybe some White South Africans didn't consider it occupation, but the rest of the world and the Namibians themselves did and continue to. Please provide legitimate sources which can counteract the claim of occupation or lets end this discussion.--TM 08:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you have given some good points and excuse my ignorance as after revisiting the BBC page it even has a title South African occupation. I understand that politically it was an occupation but socially it wasn't. But Wikipedia would rather excuse the later. I would still prefer the word govern or administration as they sound less aggresive, and especially would prefer govern from 1915-1945. Bezuidenhout (talk) 10:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Calling the time period anything but an occupation is actually extremely POV, given the number of sources calling it otherwise. I am not sure what a "social occupation" is, but the spreading of apartheid from SA to Namibia would probably include "social occupation".--TM 10:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Calling it an occupation is also POV. Better to describe it factually rather than throwing around words like occupation ie saying that the mandate was terminated by the UN, but South Africa refused to end its rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.72.129 (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Apartheid existed in every African country just like South Africa way before 1948. It never "spread" to Namibia, it was always there, South Africa was the only country to ever call the segregation a name. I get annoyed at people that are too ignorant to realise that Apartheid isn't a South African thing, but was practiced in America way before South Africa. Bezuidenhout (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you want to look slightly to the right; this is what spread from South Africa to Namibia, and this did not exist anywhere else on the African continent. You might be right that there was a precursor in America but this is the article on Namibia. Apartheid itself was a "South African thing", and a South African thing only. For instance, inter-racial marriages were allowed, sometimes even encouraged, before those laws set in. --Pgallert (talk) 07:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

May I also remind you that this talk page is for discussing the article Namibia. For advertising whom you hate and who you believe is ignorant, please open a blog, or keep it to yourself. --Pgallert (talk) 07:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It just feels slightly too uncomfortable to use occupation and that is about the Namibia. The discussion here is about wether it was an occupation or not. I give up argueing as it is at the end of the day down to the world's media or the UN to make a decision. I'm ending this to say you're right, whatever, I give up.. Bezuidenhout (talk) 08:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Least Densely Populated

I put a {fact} tag in the fourth paragraph sentence: "It is the second least densely populated country in the world, after Mongolia.". I placed second {fact} tag in the Section three paragraph one: "After Mongolia, Namibia is the least densely populated country in the world (2.5 inhabitants per square kilometre (6.5 /sq mi))." I placed a third {fact} tag in section 5.1, paragraph 1 :"Namibia has the second-lowest population density of any sovereign country, after Mongolia." Problem # 1 is why that statement is made three times. Problem # 2 is that Greenland is an autonomous country within the Kingdom of Denmark. Problem # 3 is that the different statements are structured in a confusing manner. My rewrite would delete that statement all three times. p (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

If you count semi-autonomous countries there are a number of other candidates, IIRC. Nevertheless the statement needs a ref, of course. The statement should maybe occur once in the lead, once in the body. I would certainly not remove it altogether. Will work on it on Monday. I'll remove the tag from the lead as it is only a summary of the rest of the article and has otherwise no refs. Cheers, --Pgallert (talk) 06:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Pgallert (talk) 06:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

WRONG NUMBERS It is not possible 94% black and 7% white, as the result would be 101%. And it doesn´t take into account the mixed population (Coloureds) So, the right percentages would be: 86% black, 7.5% white and 6.5% coloured.--83.54.106.17 (talk) 20:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Why is Morocco gray in the map?

The map of Africa in theinfobox has a gray Morocco ... it's an error (only Namibia should be gray, since it's a locator map) but I don't know how to fix it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The map shows the AU. It's a rather bad map to be using as an infobox locator, but that's why Morocco isn't coloured. CMD (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

strange production "tree map"

There is: 16% Radioactive chemical elements and 13% Uranium & thorium. However, uranium & thorium are also "radioactive chemical elements". As if there would be 16% fish and then 13% tuna fish. 82.141.95.242 (talk) 10:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It's from a source, apparently, but I've shifted it to the main Economy article. CMD (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

CIA Factbook and languages

Where in the CIA factbook is there a distinction between languages spoken by the "white" population and others? CIA WF entry:
Languages:
English (official) 7%, Afrikaans (common language of most of the population and about 60% of the white population), German 32%, indigenous languages (includes Oshivambo, Herero, Nama) 1%
According to the WP article, these percentages apply to the white population, but the citation given makes no mention of ethnicity (except for English). (The distinction of the white population is carried over to the Languages of Namibia article, with a citation that doesn't mention language distribution at all!) -- megA (talk) 10:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, but it appears that the CIA factbook only considers the white population----how else could it be that 87.5% of the population are indigenous, yet only 1% can speak indigenous languages? That's of course utter b***s***, every indigenous Namibian can speak their native language, and most can in fact speak more than one. We need a better source. --Pgallert (talk) 11:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This is indeed weird. Though I could imagine a scenario (compare Northern Africa), where the majority of a population is indigenous, yet most speak a non-indigenous language (Arabic), with a small percentage speaking indigenous languages (Berber, Tamaseq, etc.) Yes, a good source woud be lovely! -- megA (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

German colonial rule as inspiration to Nazi genocide theory

In Section 1.2 (History: German Rule), the theory that German colonial rule was an inspiration to Nazi genocide is repeated, w/ footnote 14 given as documentation. That theory shows a profound ignorance of history. First of all, if anything, the Ottoman Turkish ethnic cleansing and genocide of the Armenians was the inspiration. (E.g. Hitler infamously said, "Who after all speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?" August 22, 1939.) Second of all, the Nazis originally planned to just deport the Jews (to Palestine and Madagascar), not exterminate them, but the British wouldn't let them (inconvenient truth for the British). Third of all, the inspiration for concentration camps was in neighboring South Africa, where the British invented them to intern the Dutch civilian colonists in the Boer War (another inconvenient truth for the British). 188.110.163.107 (talk) 13:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Very well, I also think it is a long shot. But it has a reference, and it is IMO correctly qualified as fringe view within the article. What is your suggestion? --Pgallert (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Excellent points, pgallert - why is this paragraph still being used? The current article still has a very biased view - it seems the whole premise is based on the fact that Hermann Goering's father was in Namibia. Heinrich Goering was imperial commissioner BEFORE the genocide, and left Namibia in 1890. Hermann Goering never set foot in Namibia, born in Rosenheim Germany, in 1893. Footnote 16 in this section admit to the "connection" of Namibia to Nazi Germany being dismissed by scholars. Footnote 15 has the source as the Daily Mail - can we not cite reliable sources?! It seems many of the "sources" used are newspaper articles, not journals or historical records.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Etimm (talk • contribs) 17:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I removed the sentence connecting H Goering to Namibia. I would also want to reword the last sentence in the "German rule" paragraph, but this is a sensitive issue, and needs some thought. Otherwise we replace one bad wording with another.

As for the paragraph itself, the behaviour of Imperial Germany in South-West Africa is important; it influences society and politics until today. And the sources give us the problem that none of them are in any way objective, they are either pro-colonialism or pro-independence, or today pro-reparations or against. Henning Melber is not a reliable source either, he writes opinion pieces, not scientific articles. Pgallert (talk) 07:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Culture - where is it?

The Sections under culture inlcude stuff like media (in various subsections!), sport, etc, - which are NOT culture but NOTHING about actual culture, such as festivals, traditions, customs, music, the arts, etc. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The section on culture hasn't been written yet. It is not quite easy to summarise with so many distinct groups, particularly as there is almost nothing to summarise from articles like Nama people, Ovambo people, Herero people, Whites in Namibia, and so on, most of which likewise have no section on Culture. Reliable sources are there, but the ones treating "Culture of X" as one topic tend to be from apartheid times and are for this reason not really suitable. Feel free to start something---Pgallert (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Zimbabwe border

A number of Namibian travel sites focusing on the Caprivi Strip region assert that the country does in fact border Zimbabwe. It seems that this border situation is a bit more in dispute than the article suggests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.107.82.189 (talk) 04:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thumbnail map error

In the lead section's map of Namibia that shows Namibian cities, there are locations marked for Walvis Bay and Walvisbaai, which are just alternate names for the same place (Walvis Bay being the primary name). Can someone easily alter this map? Upjav (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Claim about design of the Namibian flag

The present claim that the current Namibian Flag was designed by the South African Master of Heraldry. That is a false or incorrect assumption. The Herald's task was to approve/ reject heraldic dervices.

My name is Roy Walter Allen resident in Windhoek , I was the creator and publisher of the quarterly SWA/Namibian business magazine entitled SWA/Namibia SPECTRUM, published from 1979 to 1982. I also contributed editorial and fetures to the Windhoek Observer weekly newspaper, and its Editor in Chief suggested a competition forthe design of a national flag for Namibia, to represent the projected winning party of the Namibian political elections. The colours of the flag I designed were royal blue. with a diaginal broad red stripe representing the series of conflicts for the territory, including the Mermasn campaignd, WW 1 and 11, and the Border War. I added the gold pictogram in the upper dexter corner which depicts the form of government I had proposed which would represent, by stylized triangular 'sun rays', with each 'ray' representing one of the constituent ethnic groups equally , ruling by concensus at a 'round' table.

The late celebrated Windhoek artist Dieter Aschenborn whom I knew while resident in Windhoek remarked, when I showed him the flag design at my home in Windhoerk West , that it would be one of the most attractive flags at the UN headquarters if accepted.

At the end f the Border War , after the SWAPO party had emerged victorious in the electionw which followed, I was reliably informed that its Leader,Dr Sam Nujoma personally liked my flag concept, but in order that it would display the all the colours of SWAPO, proposed that one of the large blue panels be changed to green.

This was agreed, and the design was submitted to the South African College of Heralds in Pretoria. and was unanimously approved by the Herald of that time, but was in no way designed by him or any other official at that office.

Signed and warranted.
Originator & Designer of the Namibian National Flag - Roy W.Allen
email for correspondence : gdp1@webmail.co.za

( NB I also wish to send supporting documents to expand the text on the subject. Please provide an email address to which they may be sent to wikipedia. )
92.232.55.198 (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear Mr Allen, we generally reflect what third-party sources say. The topic of how the Namibian flag was designed does not occur in this article but in Flag of Namibia where a similar claim had been added (and reverted) last year. Flag of Namibia is essentially unreferenced, and as a "stub" one of our worst articles. But we add / change content only if we have a reference for that. Can you point us to any newspaper, academic journal, government publication, etc., that supports your statement? Then we can definitely use that to put the facts straight.

I have taken the liberty to copy this discussion to Talk:Flag of Namibia. Regards, Pgallert (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Climate response

This article needs a serious and profound update following the post-2015 Sustainable development goals and work on Namibia's response to climate disruption, since many of the African nations are profoundly vulnerable to the health, economic, and geopolitical impacts of climate disruption. MaynardClark (talk) 23:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Namibia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.thecommonwealth.org/news/34580/34581/224187/250510spotlightonnamibia.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120604121733/http://www.eisa.org.za///WEP/nam5.htm to http://www.eisa.org.za/WEP/nam5.htm
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.namibian.com.na/news/full-story/archive/2011/january/article/uranium-saving-or-sinking-namibia
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.southafrica.net/sat/action/media/downloadFile?media_fileid=29571

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)