Jump to content

Talk:Cyril Ramaphosa

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Merge 2020 Phala Phala Robbery

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To not merge 2020 Phala Phala Robbery with Cyril Ramaphosa as the former is an independently notable event with well-developed content, but to consider merging the duplicates 2020 Phala Phala Robbery and Farmgate (scandal). Klbrain (talk) 05:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notable event, but it doesn't really warrant a standalone article. The page is short and unlikely to be substantially expanded anytime soon. Cyril Ramaphosa is not overly long and difficult to navigate, so it wouldn't hurt to incorporate any content from 2022 Phala Phala Robbery. Mooonswimmer 17:53, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge. The other controversy in Ramaphosa's article has a separate page, but it's an event of a completely different nature and scale. This is only "news" because Ramaphosa didn't report the theft to police and now someone else is making a big deal out of it. It can be covered sufficiently in the Ramaphosa article without adding undue length to the page. Schazjmd (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The severity of this article is much worse than expected, especially when opposing parties are asking the president to step down and allegations of Money laundering are being laid against the President. This controversy would add a lot of undue length to this page TapticInfo (talk) 06:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge In its current form it should be merged. If it expands drastically over time it can be split out in future, but there's no certainty yet that it will do so. Greenman (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC) Oppose Merge The changes since June more than warrant it remaining a separate article. Greenman (talk) 11:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: The robbery article:
1) concernes, before all, the person of R., only he was robbed,
2) consists of very few lines.
If, however, there comes much more about it to public knowledge, PPR can be made into it's own article again.
Steue (talk) 04:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Another article on the same topic has been created: Farmgate (scandal). I noted on its talk page that it duplicates the subject of 2020 Phala Phala Robbery. Schazjmd (talk) 17:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For two reasons. One is the seriousness of this incident and the extent to which it has already been covered in the media suggests to me that it will likely expand further, also also strongly indicates to me that the event does warrant a standalone article at this point. This is partly reflected by the moniker "Farmgate" coined and often cited in the media to refer to it. The second is that the Ramaphosa article is already quite long so creating a forked article for this subject will keep the Ramaphosa article at a reasonable length.--Discott (talk) 10:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On an important side note, it is obvious to me that at the very least the Farmgate (scandal) and 2022 Phala Phala Robbery articles need to be merged. We would just need to figure out the most commonly known name for the incident to merge the articles under. I must admit that I was not aware of the 2022 Phala Phala Robbery article at the time that I created the Farmgate article.--Discott (talk) 11:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. When this discussion was started on the 8th of June, the 2020 Phala Phala Robbery was a new, stub-class article with only a lede. At that stage, it would've been logical to merge it to Ramaphosa's article, however, since then, the article has been drastically expanded. Also, more of the robbery has come to public knowledge, opposition parties have called for a parliamentary probe into the robbery, etc. The robbery has become a huge political scandal in SA, like what Partygate became in the UK. Basically, it can now be be its own standalone article. What should be done is that the Farmgate (scandal) article written by @Discott: should be merged into the article about the robbery or vice-versa. Best, LefcentrerightDiscuss 12:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge Guptagate and Nkandlagate both don't have their own pages, which were greater in scale. Farmgate (scandal) and 2022 Phala Phala Robbery should be merged at the very least. Maqdisi (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge per Discott and Lefcentreright's reasoning. The articles are getting very lengthy and there's no sign the scandal is going away. CR's article will also keep getting longer so worth keeping it trim where possible. Also agree strongly on the Farmgate (scandal) and 2022 Phala Phala Robbery merger – on the name of the merged article, I think the most common descriptor at this point is just "Phala Phala", which is not ideal. "Phala Phala robbery scandal"? Jlalbion (talk) 21:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Greenman and Steue: In your responses above, you indicated that you may change your mind to support a separate page if the article expands drastically or if much more comes to public knowledge. Have Leftcentrerights's assertions swayed you that this has happened? Felix QW (talk) 10:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ Felix QW,
I wrote my opinion before [Lefcentreright] his/hers;
and I'm not keeping up to date on this issue.
As I wrote above: If things have changed, which they seem to have done, as I read above, it's perfectly OK with me to seperate the two topics.
Ping welcome, Steue (talk) 01:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pronunciation of his name?

[edit]

I guess, from "Phala phala", it is soft, like "Philadelphia", but I'm uncertain, because. e.g. in the Italian language, also in Indian transcriptions of names, an "h" (behind) indicates "hard".
Ping welcome, Steue (talk) 04:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Steue: It's a hard "p" in both Ramaphosa and Phala Phala – the "h" indicates it's aspirated. Acceptable variations of both can be heard e.g. here and here. Jlalbion (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, Jlalbion, and especially for the ping.
Steue (talk) 23:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jlalbion
I Just listened to both videos. To me these "p"s sound pretty normal.
So, why are these "p"s hardened ? or:
How would a soft "p" sound?
What is more often in this language?

Ping welcome, Steue (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right, I just meant hard as in (1) distinguished to what you called the soft ("f") sound of "ph" in "Philadelphia" and (2) aspirated. Full warning that I don't know a lot about linguistics! But whereas in English the consonant "p" might be aspirated or not depending on the word, in many (most? all?) Southern African languages, "ph" is always an aspirated "p" (like in "pat") and "p" is always unaspirated (like in "split"). Generally if you get the subsequent vowel sound right, you'll aspirate the "ph" automatically, and anyway if you pronounced it "Ramaposa" nobody would bat an eye. Jlalbion (talk) 10:26, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jlalbion
Thanks. In my (first) language (German) and in English I'm not aware of such (to me) tiny differences (which do exist in South African). But sometimes (when I study a sound in [IPA]) I do become aware that there are tiny differences in my language of which I have not been aware before.

Ping welcome, Steue (talk) 02:01, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Presidency (2018–present), Domestic Policy, Paragraph 4 - Citation 93

[edit]

New to Wikipedia editing.

"He has said that the state having the power to seize property for no compensation will encourage economic growth."

I don't understand the reference cited in this paragraph, number 93. It does not cite any source which supports the statement. The statement should be removed if it cannot be supported by a source. Migy007 (talk) 09:32, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When you find something that is unreferenced, one approach is to try searching to see whether there are sources that support it. Having done so, I see that several news outlets at the time referred to this, such as:
Morton, Victor (20 August 2018). "South Africa begins seizing white-owned farms". AP NEWS. Retrieved 7 November 2022.
So, I've added that as a reference. Klbrain (talk) 05:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
[edit]

"Following the first fully democratic elections in 1994, he became a Member of Parliament (MP) and was elected the chairperson of its Constitutional Assembly on 24 May 1994, a central role in Mandela's Government of National Unity."

The link for Constitutional Assembly is just the generic article, and not the article for the South African Constitutional Assembly from 1994. I believe this is a mistake and should be ammended. Thanks. --190.202.63.122 (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Image

[edit]

@EthanRossie2000: @Tobby72: @CeltBrowne: @Nick Levine: Seeking consensus on using infobox image. I prefer the second image because of higher resolution. JoshuaJ28 (talk) 02:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of these two options, I'd also choose the second due to it's higher resolution CeltBrowne (talk) 09:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally would go with the first as it is brighter and can see him clearer, without shadow on face. Keith D (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I choose the first image as it's brighter and shows off his face clearer. Overall, it's a nicer image in my opinion. EthanRossie2000 18:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to mention that it's from 2023 versus 2022 as well. EthanRossie2000 18:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, for the lead image, quality is preferred over date as per MOS:IMAGEQUALITY. JoshuaJ28 (talk) 09:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cyril_Ramaphosa&oldid=1253780325"