Jump to content

Talk:Demographics of South Africa/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Chinese classified as white or Asian

I took out the sentence that said that the Chinese were not classified as Asian, but as whites. See the related section in Asians in South Africa. There were some East Asians that were considered honourary whites, but many Chinese were classified as Asian. 69.158.5.191 02:11, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Portuguese in South Africa

I took out the part that said that some white South Africans of Portuguese descent stem from slaves the Dutch brought from Indonesia. It is not true because in the East Indies the Dutch labelled any Roman Catholic native "Portuguese" so those slaves were actually not Portuguese but contributed to the make-up of the Coloured and Asian populations (Drepanopulos)

I have heard that there is about 1 million Portugese in SA. Is that true? Are they classified as whites? �Dr.Poison 13:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the numbers, but I can confidently say that Portugese people in South Africa are considered white, by any local standard.

ManicParroT 06:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Population growth rate

Which reference is this from? The figures don't quite add up 1.82%-1.26%=0.56% (population growth should be births less deaths less emigrants). The small migration figure doesn't really influence things. --Uxejn 21:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The death rate and population growth estimates for 2006 come from Statistics South Africa. I couldn't find the birth rates among SSA's online publications, only an estimate of 2.73 children per female in 2006. I hasten to add that it clashes with the lower fertility estimates from the SA Department of Health so there's considerable uncertainty there. The death rate is accurate though, as almost all deaths are registered and then added up at the end of the year, unlike the population growth rates since a census was last held in 2001. The birth rate of 18.2/1000 in this demographics article is a holdover from the CIA Factbook that was previously used as the source for SA demographics, before I began plugging in the more reliable numbers from Statistics South Africa and other South African agencies. The CIA's projected birth rates are off by some undetermined margin as the impact of AIDS was overestimated by them (fewer mothers around = less children). The CIA presumed a 21.5% HIV infection rate in 2003 (a projection based on outdated estimates) when the actual number from three reliable studies between 2002 and 2005 show 11% or slightly less. If somebody can find reliable birth rates for South Africa the picture should definitely clear up. Otherwise we'll have to wait for the 2011 census. -- Dell Day 07:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic groups

Ethnic groups: 

   black 79.5%, white 9.2%, Coloured 8.9%, Asian 2.5% (2006 est.)

Black, white or coloured are not ethnic groups, but races. Ethnics groups of South Africa are xhosa, kwazulu or afrikaners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.60.64.227 (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If we were to make the ethnic groups Afrikaner/Xhosa/Zulu, then it would just replicate the Languages section. This data would also therefore be lost. Bezuidenhout (talk) 07:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
The Fact Book entry for SA calls them 'ethnic groups', Statistics South Africa uses the euphemism 'population groups'. I have no grounds for favouring either one, but 'race' is also misleading since, for one, people reported by the census as Asians can be of any race that originates from Asia.--LK 02:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I changed the line that said that the Khoikhoi were annihilated. That's just not true. Their societal structures faded, but the people were not annihilated.Mahedano (talk) 02:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

White Emigration Figures

Since 1994, several hundred thousand white South Africans have emigrated abroad. This figure is often erroneously quoted as being over one million, but in fact the total population of South Africans living outside of the country is less than a half million (this false information is possibly based on the fact that almost one million white South Africans have moved to another country during the period of 1994-2005, but the majority have returned to South Africa and not permanently settled in the foreign country). Similarly, it is often quoted that there are a half a million white South Africans in London, when in fact there are less than 150 000 in the whole of the UK. There are in fact more British Citizens resident in South Africa (212 000, according to the BBC's 2006 report) than there are South Africans in the United Kingdom.

I contest this, but I'm just going to tag it for citations rather than remove it. I have put different numbers in brain drain, and I'm interested in getting decent sources on this sort of thing.

As is said, the stats on the issue are tricky, and can be very misleading. Nevertheless, the verifiable facts I've found contradict parts of the passage above. Granted, many of the 800 000 to 1.2 million South Africans working in Britain these days return home, but I'd like to establish just how many. I don't think the claim of half a million South Africans in London is that far off. Half a million permanently settled is almost certainly a lie, though. SA Institute of Race Relations says 796 000 have emigrated since 1991 (which is support by the Fin24 article linked at the bottom of this page), and that is a large proportion of SA's white population (but less, as said, than a million). I've always felt double-citizens throw a spanner in the statistical works. I'd love to see decent statistics on this, because I think people tend to hide their dual citizenships, making fact-finding difficult. There are still many ancestral ties to EU countries, and they don't appear in emigration figures.Warrickball (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

In 2001 there were 45,000 people in Greater London who were South-African born (not SA citizenship). I seriously doubt this number has increase 5 or 10 fold in only 9 years? 500,000 would mean they were the biggest minority, bigger than the Indians/All Blacks etc.!!! 500,000 for the WHOLE UK, seems more appropriate. Also, the white population has fallen by some 500,000 since 1994, because there are more births than deaths lets say we are looking at 600,000 missing whites. Bezuidenhout (talk) 07:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Also, this sections is on "white" emigration, only 90% of SA abroad are actually white, so for the sake of this talk you have to slash off another 10%. Bezuidenhout (talk) 07:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Statistics South Africa actually reports that the white population rose (though only slightly) since the 1996 census. Despite that, the trend since 2000 is negative, the balance shows a population decrease of some 20,000 annually for the decade. They also report an assumed emigration of about 440,000 whites since 1996, but this is partly compensated by white immigration from abroad. You might have confused these two figures.--LK 02:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Source

I found a source that contains some good and recent information, I think. Since I don't have time to include it myself, I'm posting it here so that someone else can take advantage of it. City of Cape Town Demographics Discussion Paper August 2010 (Contains many pages of national data as well). — Gk sa (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Employment data

I noticed that the employment data for the different population groups are outdated/wrong (and not referenced anyway). Here are the relevant numbers from Stats SA's report 02-11-02, Labour Market Dynamics in South Africa, 2011:

  • Unemployment: Black 28.9%, Coloured 22.6%, Indian/Asian 10.5%, White 5.8% (Table 3.2, page 3-5).
  • Monthly median earnings: Black ZAR 2383, Coloured ZAR 3033, Indian/Asian ZAR 6800, White ZAR 10000 (Figure 4.37, page 4-52).
  • The report does not specifically distinguish between male and female earning per race - only the average for the country is reported. Males earn 15.5% more than the average earnings and females earn 16.7% less than the average earnings (calculated from Table 4.39, page 4-51). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.26.10.2 (talk) 13:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Population Groups in the 2011 Census

The percentages of "Black Africans", "Coloureds" and "Indians or Asians" in the SA population are listed respectively as 79.2 % (up +0.2 compared to 2001), 8.9 (unchanged) and 2.5 (unchanged). The percentage of whites has fallen however from 9.6 % to 8.9 % (-0.7 compared to 2001). That "odd" arithmetic is explained in part because the 2011 census included an additional population group category named "Other" that accounts now for 0.5 % of the population (slighly below 300,000 people in absolute numbers).

I wonder who those South Africans who are identified as "Other" are. To look for some clues, notice that 29.5 % of them speak English as first language, 15.2 % speak Afrikaans, 17.7 % speak a South African Bantu language, 0.2 % "speak" Sign Language, and 37.4 % are speakers of some "other language" which is none of the above. Also, out of approximately 270,000 people in this "Other" category, 141,000 were born outside South Africa. 189.69.56.159 (talk) 09:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Can a few of them be native Americans or people of mixed ancestry ? IIRC, the numerator is supposed to ask the individual which category do they see themselves in. A lot of people will object to being placed in one of the 3 main categories and then select the "other" option.
Note however that Wikipedia is not a forum and this is not the place to discuss these questions. -- Nic Roets (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Race/racial groups

I don't believe it is correct to use the words race or racial in this article, and it is unsourced. The Census 2011 household questionnaire only lists "population groups", asking in respect of each household member "How would (name) describe him/herself in terms of population group?". HelenOnline 07:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Isn't 'population group' just an euphemism from race? I don't see any difference between Stats SA's definition of, say, 'white population group' compared to what is otherwise known as white race.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 08:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
If Stats SA thought it was a good idea to use the word race I am sure they would have. It is not for us to presume what they mean. It is unsourced original research. HelenOnline 08:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
It is for us to avoid euphemisms, though. They have the same meaning and are used interchangeably in SA, including by Stats SA itself.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 08:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
It's only your personal opinion that it is a euphemism and it is not our place to interpret group names and official statistics obtained from Stats SA. Along with being unsourced, it violates all three of Wikipedia's core content policies. HelenOnline 09:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I think you're taking this matter much too seriously. In any case, it is not just a personal opinion that 'population group' and 'race' are used interchangeably in a South African context, and that should suffice.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Helen. Furthermore, South African journalists have a nasty habit of quoting Wikipedia and following our conventions. So we must be very careful of being a primary source in this case -- Nic Roets (talk) 10:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Believe it or not, I have found a source we can use. HelenOnline 20:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Table removed

FYI I removed a table which is obviously incorrect following various edits to the original entry. I do not have the time now to go through the article history and figure out what it should say and the exact source is not clearly indicated either. HelenOnline 08:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

UN projection table

Does this table still have validity seeing as the "on the ground" reality has already exceeded the projection? The population has already reached a number the projection said would only be reached by 2020. Perhaps the UN have updated the projection, or a new projection from a similarly authoritative source could be found to replace the current table. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I have updated according to their most recent projections. Greenman (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Illegal Immigrants in Introduction

First, Statements on 'illegal immigrants' in the introduction are not adequately substantiated. The statement seems to assume that all immigrants are illegal, which is certainly not the case. There needs to be a distinction made between legal and illegal immigrants. Here, reliable sources are needed, that acknowledge the difficulty in accurately estimating the population of illegal immigrants. Loose statements of facts from newspaper articles are not sufficient.

Second, it is questionable whether the issue of illegal immigrants and Xenophobia should appear in the introduction to this page on demographics in South Africa. Would this not be better suited in the sub section on immigration?

Dyltong (talk) 09:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, note that the official census numbers are quite far off. If a Zimbabwean says he or she was born in South Africa, Stats SA will not know.

So credible researchers look at all the inconsistent numbers and decide how much weight they place on each. These estimates rarely make it into scientific journals. But journalists then pick up the research for their articles. It's the best we've got.

For example, The Economist quotes the SA Institute of Race Relations as saying there are 5 million illegal immigrants. [1].

Mentioning anti-immigrant riots in the introduction, places undue weight on the issue. So I'm removing it from the intro. But 5 million illegal immigrants has a real effect on SA demographics, so I'm keeping it.

Nic Roets (talk) 07:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Can anyone please see if [2] has any relevant info? It's paywalled for me right now -- Nic Roets (talk) 09:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced Claims About Migrants into South Africa

Neither The Economist or Sky News articles substantiate or source these claims. Therefore, I have changed the data to the actually measured number of 1.6 million total foreign nationals in South Africa, as measured by the 2011 Population Census, Table 3.6: Province of usual residence by citizenship, carried out by Statistics South Africa. There is another problem. Since landreform, there has been a multi-billion dollar propaganda campaign in effect against Zimbabwe, of which the listed sources are a part. The Economist Magazine's board members are closely linked or the same family that stands to gain some of the world's biggest diamond mines, if the MDC comes to power; and Sky News. Then, these articles are from 2008, when even more pressure was put on the Zimbabwean government, because it was an election year. By the way, the '2 million' Zimbabweans in the press, because of lack of sourcing, quickly became '3 million', and then even '4 million'. Rather than put a special onus on census data, and none on wild claims made in the media, all data should be scrutinized to the same degree. MrSativa (talk) 12:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

You are saying The Economist is inflating the exodus from Zimbabwe as a way to discredit the Zanu-PF government. It does not seam plausible that The Economist would risk their own credibility. Anyone who wants to highlight the failures of Zanu-PF does not need to use such underhanded methods, because there are much more direct ways of doing this: 1. Show the hyperinflation, the clearest evidence of which is the existence of trillion dollar Zimbabwean banknotes. 2. Remind everyone of the IMF default.
Please post any comments you may have in the section above as a sign that you have read that section -- Nic Roets (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Demographics of South Africa. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 19:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Immigrants, citizens and the census

Firstly note that foreigners mean non-citizens. They were counted in the census and table 3.6 puts the number at 1.8 million.

But many readers are interested in immigrants, which include some people who have already obtained citizenship. They were born outside of South Africa and table 3.5 puts the number at 255371+74220+19345+66932+165622+148948+1109745+150036+161425=2.1 million. But the footnote clearly states that answers given in the census questionnaire was taken at face value. No adjustment is made for the people who lied out of fear for fueling xenophobia.

So the 5 million figure given by The Economist may well be much more accurate. -- Nic Roets (talk) 14:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Demographics of South Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Demographics of South Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Demographics of South Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Demographics of South Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Demographics_of_South_Africa/Archive_1&oldid=1176449122"