Talk:Johannesburg

Pronounciation

Is Johannesburg pronounced "Joe" hannesburg or "Yo" hannesburg? I've heared both.

Both are accepted; "Joe"- is the English pronunciation, while "Yo"- (or more accurately, something which resembles "Yuh"-) is Afrikaans. dewet|✉ 07:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I would say the Afrikaans version is more like a clipped version of "You" in English. Wayne (talk) 08:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Bobotie 94.254.63.111 (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Early talk

was Alexandra a "satellite town," or was it previously part of the Johannesburg municipality?

Alexandra was in fact a satellite town, with its own municipal boundaries, on the old border between Johannesburg and Sandton. In the previous government's Apartheid sysrtem, black townships were given some form of self-autonomy, with their own municipal governing bodies and buildings. It was a contrived, artificial way of enforcing the Group Areas Act, which kept racial groups apart in separate suburbs.

Alex, for short, is as much a part of Johannesburg as Soweto. The stark contrast between the area and the nearby upmarket area of Sandton, however, is absolutely marked, and is typical of South African cities: the best of the First World mixed with the worst of the Third World.

Crime

The article claims "The latest police statistics show that crime levels in Johannesburg have dropped as the economy has stabilised and begun to grow". What is the reference for this? Since the government has banned the releasing of police statistics (and seems to only publish propaganda relating to crime), and since all other 'evidence' appears to point to a continuing increase in both the decay of central Johanesburg and an increase in crime, I find it highly unlikely that crime levels in Johannesburg have really dropped. This definitely needs a reliable citation, and I feel the sentence should be dropped from the article or modified until it can be verified. Moreover the crime levels in Johannesburg are still extremely disturbingly high, so the tone of the sentence is misleading. - David 5 Aug 2006

"Extremely disturbingly high" is not exactly any more accurate. It can be construed as being just as misleading. Don't know if you live in Jozi, but what urban decay in the downtown area? Yes, some areas are gross, but others are being redeveloped: go take a drive through the city and buy yourself an apartment for R1 million. Urban decay? The truth is, nobody really knows how bad (or good) the crime is. Welcome to the world...

If you don't think that a per-capita murder rate of around 1 in 1300 per year is "extremely disturbingly high" then you have INCREDIBLY low standards. It's highly disingenuous of you to say "nobody really knows" when such statistics are available. As for urban decay, google for the "death of johannesburg" photo blog, you have to be in serious denial to think there isn't a major problem. I live relatively close to JHB, and have driven through some highly rotten parts of the city. David Nov 2006.

Once again, you cannot contradict yourself and use the crime stats in one breath to prove a point and then slate them in the next. The glass is just always half empty for you, hey? Clearly, by your pointing out that the stats are all fake, nobody really knows, now do they? Nobody is denying that Johannesburg has a crime problem. Again, what are you doing about it except whining like a spoiled brat?

First of all, the government has not banned the releasing of police statistice. In fact about 2-3 months ago the crime stats of all the police stations in Johannesburg were released on the front cover of The Star newspaper. What used to be true was that there was a moratorium of crime statistics. It was officially removed after about 1 year's implimentation, but that was circa 2003-2004. There is no longer a moratorium as far as I know, but crime statistics are released only annually. Finally, with regard to whether or not crime has improved, statistics show that murders were down from last year, while attempted murders were up, and cash-in-transit robberies were extremely up. Overall though they say crime is much better than it was in 1994 where it was at its highest. Finally, what does seem to be clear is that crime has 'stabilised' -- once again I think we do need to find some references for this -- crime has 'stabilised' and seems to slowly improve each year, and is the lowest since 1994 (apparently), but now it is a matter of bringing it all down. Rfwoolf 15:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Update: A few moments ago I read an article online where it is implied that the government has a non-official moratorium on crime stats, probably referring to the fact that, while there is no longer a moratorium per say (the statistics are always released), the stats are only released anually, instead of more often. Rfwoolf 05:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Im definately no expert, but from what i gather, crimes such as theft and burglary are not abnormally high by international standards. However violent crime i believe is regarded as alarmingly high. The number of armed robberies, hijackings and rape which take place in and around the city is scary. Though i dont live in the city centre myself, i often visit a mate who does, and often hear stories of crime which would truly horrify those living in a civilised society. Point is, whilst compared to the UK your chances of being mugged probably arent much higher in Jo`burg, statistically you are more likely to be murdered or seriously injured or maimed in the process. As a final point, the sentiment I get is that there is a lot of hate crime taking place which targets those in wealthier areas (not to be racist, but these tend to be young black people attacking white people). In other words, incidents of persons being violently assulted in their homes, for which the primary motive is not theft but rather physical abuse. the fact that these criminals (I think of terms like savages, among others) have been known not to run, but walk away from the crime scene, head held high, shows an arrogance, and a belief that they will not be caught and punished for their crimes. This above all is highly disturbing.

There are no numbers for crime, which I find typical. Wikipedia must hide the fact that a majority-black city has (as usual) high crime rates. South Africa was safer under apartheid. 24.124.98.1 (talk) 06:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay so first of all I cannot tell who is who here. Someone or something has screwed up the formatting. Second of all, woah that was really racist. I think your argument is admittedly shared by some other south africans but reality is much more complicated than that - Reallygreatoaktree (talk) 10:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Take into account that their are more black people to commit crime ;). Also if a city was 100% white than there would be more white crime........ Reply to that

DumaTorpedo (talk) 08:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

New York Reference

In response to the reference made to crime in New York, I find the two cities incompatable for comparison. Johannesburg has a crime problem because many poor people moved into areas that they were not allowed to live in before, where as in New York the crime problem of the 1980's mostly sprung up because the city government was completely bankrupt and unable to to provide any services or adequate police protection. I am deleting the reference. PZFUN 08:08, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The reference to crime in New York would not have been made if the reference to crime in Johannesburg had not been made. Crime is a problem in most major cities, and is not endemic to Johannesburg. All cities of the world have crime. A sweeping statement like "Johannesburg is notorious for its crime" is totally POV - especially when it comes from someone who does not live in the city. Rob Thomas 12:12, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I believe that it is only the people who do not live in a city that can really know what it is notorious for. New York is not notorious for its crime now. It is the safest large city in the United States. Johannesburg does have a crime epidemic. There are few cities in the world where one out of four people are involved in a crime every year, and where carjacking is such a problem. If crime were not such a problem, why would so many people be moving out of the city into gated compounds? PZFUN 13:21, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're right. New York is not known for its crime. It's known for the tragedy of planes being flown into buildings and those buildings falling down and 3,000 people being killed in 2 hours. I'd say that's a lot more dangerous than Jo'burg. I did not say Johannesburg doesn't have a crime problem. Of course it does. But then so does every major city in the world - including New York (bury your head in the sand as much as you like, dear). "I believe that it is only the people who do not live in a city that can really know what it is notorious for. New York is not notorious for its crime now." Um, since you live in New York, aren't you contradicting yourself just a tad?

Using the world trade centre as an example is like saying your're more likely to die from a meteorite hitting the earth than from a plane crash. The basis there being that a metoerite will kill billions from a single event, where as the plane crash only affects hundreds. Further more at least those killed in 9\11 can claim a forein attack as opposed to being needlessly and selfishly murdered by their own countrymen.

According to this: http://www.csvr.org.za/papers/papstats.htm the annual murder rate in Johannesburg is 1 in every 1332 people. According to this: http://newyork.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm the annual murder rate in New York is 1 in 14285 people. This is a difference of more than tenfold, they're not even in the same league. Even historically (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nycrime.htm), New York never got anywhere near that dangerous even at its absolute worst. So just saying that "all cities have crime" is highly disingenuous when the difference is so huge. Yes, technically all cities "have crime", but we don't measure crime in a binary "yes/no" value, and when you're over ten times more likely to be murdered in one city than another then you're comparing apples and oranges. When one in 1332 people are murdered every year, there is a HUGE crime PROBLEM. Is any other city (not in a country at war) that dangerous? - David

David - Medellin's murder rate in 1992 was 1 in 330.

Also, white South Africans sometimes tend to react hysterically to their nations' crime problem I've noticed - much more so than other crime-ravaged nations. This is possibly down to the racial problems of the country and distrust or open dislike of the black ANC government. Things such as accusing the ANC of covering up statistics because they release them once every year...which seems an unremarkable and even commendable practice. Serbitar 19:20, 10 Oct 2006 (UTC)

A further comment on New York Vs Johannesburg for murders. I have it at 1 in 3261 for New York (1990), and 'about' 1 in 916 for Greater Johannesburg (1994) - their worst years. Serbitar 20:00, 10 Oct 2006 (UTC)

David, you cannot contradict yourself by saying that the government is withholding crime stats and then in the next breath quote them to show how bad crime in Jo'burg is compared with New York. Make up your mind. If you don't like Jo'burg, then emigrate. Simple. Whining about it is not going to make it any better. Get up off your duff and start making a difference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.106.240.139 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like people COMPLAINING about crime, then YOU emigrate. I'm staying AND I'm complaining and I am making a difference, so bugger you. And there's nothing wrong with using our government's own crime stats to point out how bad it is, because it's reasonable to assume that if they are faking the stats, they will NOT be faking them to make things look worse than they really are - so the published stats are in fact a best-case scenario, and that best-case scenario is horrific.

This whole crime section is extremely problematic and if I hav etime I will gladly edit it in the future. The entire section is framed in a discourse of poverty/blackness = crime. It is removed from political context (the reference to group areas act is simple) and motivated by conscious or unconscious prejudice and/or racism. It is uncritical and needs serious attention. This debate about crime stats also appears extremely out dated.

How is whingeing like a little girl making a difference? As Serbitar pointed out, mass white hysteria. Of course there's a crime problem. Duh! What are you doing about it other than moaning? Moaning some more. Find reliable stats and then make your comparisons, otherwise shut up and buy that one-way ticket, dude... SA can do without negative people like you.

"mass white hysteria" ? stats show the majority of the crime is blacks commiting hate crimes against whites. apartide ended more then 10 years ago, it's time to get over it. as far as wealth goes, the ANC government has destroyed SA economic outlook through racist policys and chasing away all skilled labour and investment.

What are YOU doing about it, other than lying and trying to downplay the problem?

mr teflon man, stop deflecting... how is whining on wikipedia gonna change it? are you on drugs? where are the stats? are we just supposed to take your word for it that the majority of crime is black-on-white? get out poepol... your negative energy is attracting more crime - go read the secret, get an attitude change, or take your crime-ridden self to Australia - they can mug you there (or tell me where you live - i'll come do it) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.207.33.197 (talk) 16:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Johannsesburg is a young city and like most in fact all cities as young as Johannsesburg have problems . By young I meanr when everyone needed infrastructure, in Apartheid 80% of the population where not allowed to have basic needs like water and lights so in my opinion the ANC has tried and done well in uplifting a city a province and and entire nation from the legacy of the Apartheid regime however it is true that they could do and have done more. DumaTorpedo (talk) 08:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Khoi

"until the Khoikhoi and other Bantu-speaking people migrated into the area"? Someone please correct this! Khoikhoi are not Bantu-speaking, nor did they arrive in the country at the same time.

Fixed, removed the Khoikhoi section as they were a breakaway section of the San who moved south, into the Cape. However, I'm still not 100% sure of the dates placed there. I replaced the Bantu arrival date with one I found on the official Johannesburg site, but I am unsure of the "100 000BC" quoted for the San. Impi 21:43, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Question

Is the Monash University in Johannesburg a campus of the Australian one, or an entirely seperate entity?--ZayZayEM 12:53, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I just phoned Monash SA and the receptionist said they they are owned by Monash University Australia and it is run as a campus. --Jcw69 13:02, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also, correct me if im wrong, but the last line of the article makes refrence to WITS, or the University of the Witwatersrand, being known as "Moscow on the Hill", when this is incorrect as "Moscow on the Hill' was actually a common nick-name, applicable to the University of Cape Town (UCT), due to its location at the base of Table Mouintain and its pro-leftist stance during the Apartheid period? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.168.19 (talk) 08:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Google for "Moscow on the Hill UCT" and "Moscow on the Hill WITS" and you'll see that the name actually belongs to UCT. I'm removing it from the article. -- leuce (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

How big is Johannesburg

Xoxosg (talk) 12:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Water contradiction

Article: It is the only major city in the world that was not founded on a coast or that does not have a river running through it. Elsewhere in the article Mexico City and Phoenix are each identified as being such cities. Paul Beardsell 11:27, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Apartheid Johannesburg

Article: During the Apartheid era, Johannesburg was divided into 11 local authorities: seven white and four black. Well, no. The area which is now called Johannesburg is different from what Jhb was then. What happened is that the area adminstratively Johannesburg has changed. Randburg, Sandton, Soweto, Alexandria etc etc were never part of Johannesburg and this was not only a race issue, Randburg and Sandton were "white" areas: There is a new greater Johannesburg which never existed before. A more accurate but awkward sentence would be: What is the now expanded Johannesburg was formed out of 11 apartheid-era local authorities, including what was formerly Johannesburg. Paul Beardsell 11:37, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Climate

Article: In the winter, the average maximum daytime temperature is around 20°C, while the average summer daytime temperature is around 25°C. Inconsistent. We are comparing a winter maximum with a summer average. Or so it reads. Paul Beardsell 11:59, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Demographics - inaccurate stats

According to Statistics South Africa census 2001 approx 62% of Jhb households have a fridge. The article says different. Where are the article's statistics from? Paul Beardsell 10:22, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My use of the Stats SA web site can be checked HERE:

 City of Johannesburg Metro           Total households (all population groups)
     Radio yes                           786826
     Radio no                            220105
     Television yes                      680103
     Television no                       326830
     Computer yes                        163702
     Computer no                         843228
     Refrigerator yes                    629801
     Refrigerator no                     377130
     Telephone in dwelling yes           340911
     Telephone in dwelling no            666021
     Cell-Phone yes                      466418
     Cell-Phone no                       540513

So: Radio 79%, TV 68%, PC 16%, Fridge 63%, Landline phone 34%, Cellphone 47%. Paul Beardsell 10:38, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The article is accurate for: Flushing or chemical toilets 86%. Cellphone or landline or both in dwelling, according to another part of Stats SA: 56% approx, article correct. Article correct for water access. Paul Beardsell 10:52, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Many appear to have come from the City of Johannesburg's Demographics page. Impi 14:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And so you (plural?) are happy with them as they stand? Paul Beardsell 18:02, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This stats in this sentence I am still looking for the source of: "64% of Johannesburg residents own their own home. 57% own, or have use of a motorcar. 21% have at least one domestic worker. 11% moved houses in the last year. 2% flew overseas last year. 10% flew within South Africa last year." Much of that seems unlikely to me. Paul Beardsell 18:24, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Saying nothing about their accuracy - the figures come from http://www.joburg.org.za/business/stats.stm . Congrats on getting this to FA status - lets get that Disputed tag off the front page. 64% and 57% sound highly unlikely to me, if we include the townships ? Maybe everyone in Soweto owns their own house ? I spent a weekend there once - Naledi - and they certainly appeared to own their own house. Wizzy 08:29, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

That same source claims that 44% of Johannesburg residents have eaten in a restaurant in the last month. That such a high proportion have done so is unlikely even in a city such as Manchester, nevermind Johannesburg. 44%? In the wealthy middle class suburbs maybe, but those areas are not representative of the Greater Johannesburg described in this article. Perhaps the best way to get rid of the disputed tag is to delete all statistics which are only from the same source. Paul Beardsell 12:45, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've worked it out! People are forced to eat at restaurants because only 63% have a fridge! Paul Beardsell

"29% of adults have graduated from high school. 14% have higher education (University or Technical school). 7% of residents are completely illiterate. 15% have primary education" That adds up to 55% - what about the other 45% of the population? Sonelle 14:21, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have never heard the expression "people of colour" used in realtion to South Africa and am in fact not too sure what it means in a South African context (Google definition people of color - a race with skin pigmentation different from the white race). To me this sounds like an Americanism used outside of its home country.

"People of colour" is a phrase used by the apartheid government of SA to mean anyone who wasn't white. The phrase is still in use, without having any sinister overtones anymore. It is often used in the media when reporting the number of jobs that were previously white-only now held by non-white people, as an example.

A large group of people in South Africa are also referred to as being Coloured - these are descendants of Malay people brought to SA in the 1800's as labourers, and the result of interbreeding between themselves and other race groups in SA. Coloured is the term still used to describe these people, and is not generally considered to be offensive, as far as I know.

The government now uses the term "Black" to encompass anyone not white (including Indians, Coloureds etc), and uses the term "African" to describe a black person. I personally (as a white South African) find this quite offensive, as I am as much an African as anyone else, but that's a different matter :-). --Rooijan

PZFUN

PZFUN: Your bizarre reversion of several editors is a problem (see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles). If you object to certain parts of edits, feel free to change the, —but don't revert other (uncontested) edits that others make. Neutrality^talk 06:18, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to restore British spellings, just don't blanket-revert articles. Neutrality^talk 06:25, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to restore the previous British spelligns before you changed them. I'm still curious as to why you are right-justifying all of the images. it has made the page lopsided and ugly. I do not have an ownership problem, but I am curious as to why you are changing the entire layout of a page that you have had ny previous involvement with and did not discuss before you made the changes on the talk page. Páll 06:27, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Johannesburg in Kern county

I am kind of surprised that there seems to be a Johannesburg in USA. See the paragraph below from included link. If this is true, how about attaching a small note on the top of this article? "California law bans livestock from highways, but not domestic animals.

Linc and Helena Moore had been fined on 26 March after their chicken wandered onto a road in the small rural mining town of Johannesburg in Kern county. " [1]

Repeating

Parts of the article keep on repeating themseleves over and over again (like the trees thing.) Could we please get rid of some of this?--199.212.250.96 15:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jewhannesburg?!

I must say, this is the first time I've heard that one. I'm not too keen to have it in the article, but I'd like to hear others' opinions... Dewet 05:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Three distinct hits on Google.[2] Susvolans (pigs can fly) 08:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I live in Johannesburg, and I am sorry, I have never heard of Johannesburg being called Jewhannesburg. It is the first time I've ever heard of this word. I've asked some Muslims who work in my building and they too have never heard of this word. --Jcw69 13:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It looks like the word was used in the early 1900s as an anti-Semitic slur and a play on the name Johannesburg. Referances are only found by Google on 2 sites dating from this period. --Jcw69 13:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is one reference to the city as "Jewburg" in a collection of short stories called "From Jo'burg to Jozi" http://www.joburg.org.za/aug_2002/book.stm. The name is not meant to be derogatory but instead refers to the large Jewish population that used to live in the city. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 41.244.228.244 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry. Bigots can blow anything out of proportion and will seize on anything to push their nonsense. Hu 10:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

While the term 'Jewburg' is certainly derogatory, it is an integral part of the history of Joeys. It origin is anti-Semitism exhibited by both the Boer Republics and Imperial England to the early magnates (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Randlords). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.231.75 (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Whitespace on Johannesburg page

I don't know if it's just the browser I'm using (IE6 on WinXP_SP2) but there is a large block of whitespace between the History section header and the start of the History text. A simple fix I've found is to move {{Johannesburg infobox}} to the top of the page. Is anyone else also seeing this whitespace and what do you feel about the fix? --Bruce1ee (Talk) 08:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Defaced for several minutes during Feature

I happened to check out today's featured article -- this one -- only to find it defaced (06:40, 25 July 2005 by 203.144.19.176). It sat that way for 7 straight minutes before I showed up at random and reverted it. What's the record time for that? --Atario 08:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Highveld Strikers Cricket Team

The claim in the article that the Highveld Strikers are one of the world's best cricket teams is somewhat unsubstantiated. In the first place, the team no longer even exists, having merged with the North-West cricket team (from another SA province) to form the Highveld Lions at the start of the 2004/2005 season. This merge was part of the SA cricket authorities' changes to the domestic cricket scene, going from 11 teams to 6. The new team did not win any of the three major domestic titles in SA in 2005 - this can be confirmed from the 2004-05 Domestic Cricket Details. The Strikers were not even the strongest team in SA when they did exist under the previous cricketing system - the Northern's Titans and Western Province were probably the strongest teams in the country. How they can be said to be one of the strongest in the world is a little odd. --Rooijan 09:20, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

A lot of the copy seems to have been based (that's being kind) on [3], and is quite dated. I've just changed the old references to the MTN League, as well as removing all the 'best' POV, will also change the Highveld Strikers reference you mention. Greenman 16:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

population density

is it a little less than 2 people per sq km, or over 1 000? If if is over 1 000, the . shouldn't be used as the thousands separater, as it's nonstandard in English.--Fantrl 22:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Cradle of Humankind

The paragraph on the Sterkfontein caves is incorrect in almost every respect. I've made changes based on this site:

http://www.cradleofhumankind.co.za/content/content.asp?menu=34&group_id=12&group_menu_id=3

Infobox

There seems to be a problem with the infobox. When infobox in, it puts the whole article into the box. I can't seems to find the problem. I must be missing something. It might be in the infobox itself? I have commented it out for now. --Jcw69 10:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The infobox is a single use box. I have put the box back in and listed the template for deletion. --Bob 23:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Population numbers shown in the infobox do not match those in the article. There was another Census in 2011, plus the number for the city proper and the metro area seem to be confused as well as out of date. The source given for the infobox is not the RSA Census site or the city's site; instead it is an independent analysis of the data. The numbers need to match, article and infobox, and the source needs to be the latest official census, in my view. The independent analysis is cited for several items in the infobox. --Prairieplant (talk) 10:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC) --Prairieplant (talk) 10:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

population rank

I can't find the rank of 96th in reference to j berg anywhere. In terms of metropolitan area population it would be 40th. M i c 07:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Beyers Naudé

The street pictured is, I think, Judges Avenue. This is just after the intersection with Beyers with Hyundai garage, Tiger Wheel and Tyre and Mickey Dee's on the corners. The turn off to the Gym and Cresta is on the Right (not seen).

I agree, it is not Beyers Naude. Nor is it in Fourways -- it is in Cresta. -- leuce 16:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Where?

I think an image of South Africa with the location of Johannesburg would be useful here. Viralmonkey 18:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. although perhaps the standard is just to show the surrounding provinces?Rfwoolf 18:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

"Affectionately known as ... JHB" - er, not commonly nor affectionately as JHB

So Johannesburg is affectionately known as eGoli, Jozi, Jo'burg and JHB. I agree except for the last part - JHB. While it's true South Africans and others may refer to Johannesburg as 'JHB' this is not typically in an 'affectionate' sense. In fact I don't think I've ever heard someone say JHB when referring to Johannesburg. When I was in Johannesburg and I used to send letters, I would put "JHB" as part of the address - but that was technically incorrect. So in otherwords, I say we take it out..?

I'm giving this a couple of days, and then if I remember I'm gonna take out 'JHB'. Johannesburg is not commonly or affectionately known as 'JHB'. Anybody disagree?

Rfwoolf 10:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a common abbreviation in print though, so I'm rather loathe to get rid of it altogether. It's as much an identifier of Johannesburg as NYC is of New York City. But I do agree that it's a bit clumsy in the intro (in fact, I think that section could do with some rewording), so is there perhaps somewhere else in the article it can be moved to? — Impi 11:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

..affectionately known as J'burg ?

Someone added J'burg as an affectionate name for Johannesburg. I have since taken this out.
First of all I've never heard someone pronounce that, e.g. "Juh-bürg", nor have I ever read that in print.
Of all the apparent affectionate names to include, I'm inclined to leave this one out.
If anyone can add credence as to why it should be left in, please explain. Thanks. Rfwoolf 10:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Early residents of area

"The region surrounding Johannesburg was inhabited by small numbers of people and the Bantu people." This implies that Bantu aren't people...should it just be "small numbers of Bantu people," or were small numbers of some other group present in the area, in addition to (larger numbers of) Bantu people? -Elmer Clark (talk) 08:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Music

I find the music section of this article to be limited. I find it hard that there is a part of South Africa that has no connection to the music sung by the grammy award winning group, Ladysmith Black Mambazo, (what is that music called?). I believe this music is connected largely with the hostels. Also in the hostels is music called Maskandi. A form of music that may have originated in the plains of Kwazulu-Natal and Transkei and brought to Johannesburg by the migrant workers. This music is also very critical of current affairs e.g. "iMbizo". Also Newtown has a lot of Jazz. Infact Jazz international stars share a stage with accomplished local musos like Jimmy Dludlu, Mseleku, Mahlasela, Hotstix and many others, almost regularly, with a dedicated week or two every year. The music of Mahlathini, umbaqanga - I believe it is called, may have originated elsewhere but it found a home in Johannesburg. With local radio personalities like the late Kansas City Mchunu "Umfana Omuhle kunabo bonke abanye abafana emhlabeni" hosted many a show in this city. also I don't believe Brenda sang Kwaito, whereas Lebo "Mathosa (for clarity)" may have been featured by Kwaito artists, she and Boom Shaka were from the area of Music a little outside of Kwaito. Lebo M, an international music icon hails from this city and has a music production running in the city, right now? As noted in the "Four part harmony" movie the struggle of South Africa (and as such Jo'burg) I believe. Velabahleke (talk) 20:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC) Velabahleke

I find it strangely revisionist to concentrate solely on the evolution of the music of Black migrant workers in a history of Johannesburg. It should be remembered that for most of of Johannesburg's history, for a majority of Johannesburg's residents, mainstream entertainment was dictated by European cultural ideals.

The progression from the first Music Halls in the city to Commisioner Street at it's heyday as an 'African Broadway' (with theaters like His Majesties' and the Collosseum) mirrors the growth of Jhb itself. The roughly concurrent evolution of Schlessinger's African Broadcast Corporation into SABC's Broacast House made Johannesburg significant in the development of radio in South Africa; and later, through SABC's Auckland Park facilies, in the development of TV.

( On the subject of SABC; apparently, the first actor to portray Ian Flemming's James Bond did so at the Johannesburg studios of Springbok Radio in the 50's !!! )

86.163.182.134 (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Museum split

The museums section seems ripe for a split from the main article. It would shorten this one nicely, but it would also allow us to expand on each of the museums, some of which will never merit their own entries but may merit more than a single paragraph.

Any objections to the split? 9Nak (talk) 10:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I think there is enough information there and the potential to expand it further. Splitting seems like a good move --NJR_ZA (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Some additional museums that can be added are those located at WITS: Adler Museum of Medicine, Bernard Price Institute Paleontology Museum, Bleloch Geology Museum, Life Sciences Museum, Origins Centre --NJR_ZA (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Early History

It seems that around May 30, 2009 or June 1, 2009, all the information about pre-colonial Johannesburg was deleted.

The point of that section was that Johannesburg was a mining center before the arrival of the Afrikaners and the British, and that it was in the center of a fairly densely settled group of Sotho-Tswana communities.

Documenting pre-colonial life through ruins -- particularly the ruins of Sotho-Tswana smelting facilities in Johannesburg itself -- was the life work of one of South Africa's most prominent archaeologists, Revil Mason.

All that has been deleted.

Now it appears that history "starts" with arrival of the Voortrekkers. Was this an editorial decision? Or has the age old conflict in South Africa about whether the Transvaal was "empty" before the arrival of the Voortrekkers reared its head?

I would propose restoring that text, perhaps making it clearer why that story is important -- namely, with an introductory sentence perhaps that says Johannesburg was a center of economic activity and mining for hundreds of years, including before the arrival of the Dutch-Afrikaners and British.

i'd like to edit the page, but i have no time. however, let me point few errors that caught my eye on a cursory glance in the first opening paragraph.

Johannesburg is not the largest city in South Africa in terms of land mass: that claim goes to Durban, see all the country's Censuses. Johannesburg has 3.5 million inhabitants: it's the entire province Gauteng, which includes the country's administrative capital city Pretoria, that has 10,5 million inhabitants.

Johannesburg is only the largest economy and has recently surpassed Durban as the most populous city 3.3 million to the latter's 3.2 million. please, correct these facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fikile florence (talk • contribs) 01:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Collage

Can someone please create a collage to appear at the top of the article, showing some of Johannesburg's most iconic sights? I recently looked at New York, Moscow, and London's wiki pages and each one has a collage. It makes sense since cities of this size can't be summed up in just one picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimastername (talk • contribs) 15:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

There was one for a short while, but I replaced it because the image's copyright status was unclear. If it's copyright status is straightened out, I'll put it back.--Life in General, Master of Tropes 17:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• I can do it sometime, using only images from the site that already have approved copyrights.--Dolphin Jedi (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I made one and uploaded it yesterday. It is on the article now. I used existing images from Wikipedia/Wikimedia and one free-to-use image from Flickr. Also, if there is a problem with it, can someone not just remove it but state the problem and try to fix it. Thanks in advance. Jrobin08 (talk) 14:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Man-made forest

According to this article, there is biggest man-made forest in the world - but in another article I found that the largest man-made forest in Africa is Viphya Forest, which is a contradiction. --90.177.208.162 (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Which year 197.184.181.143 (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

IMHO, how can Johannesburg be referred to as a forest in the first place? A forest would be a place where there are only trees? I have often heard of Johannesburg being referred to as the biggest ‘Jungle City’ in the world. There is a subtle difference, if you stand on certain high points within Johannesburg, you cannot see the houses for all the trees, it appears as if it is just a jungle… AER --197.170.22.162 (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The claims are usually from marketing bodies, and the references in the text are now broken. I'd like to see a reliable source for this claim. Greenman (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

My point exactly. In China, there is a man-made forest consisting of 56 billion trees planted over 500,000sq km. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/sep/23/china-great-green-wall-climate. Johannesburg is alleged to have 10 million trees within its 500 sq km. It's an urban myth with a hint of propaganda, now repeated from Wikipedia by all kinds of blogs, thus perpetuating and entrenching the myth.

When I removed the section (which is inappropriately placed within the "Climate" section anyway), I had two users who undid my edits, both initially claiming that I'd not summarised my edits. Huggle, it turns out, is a blight on Wikipedia. Then DVdm claimed that my removing the content had to be "approved" in this Talk section... The original citations were dodgy to begin with, and are dead now anyway. Get rid of it! Michaelandsandy (talk) 15:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

False claims about being the biggest city that is not within a navigable river, lake or coastline.

Johannesburg is NOT the biggest city that is not within a lake, navigable river or coastline. At least Guadalajara, Mexico is bigger and has no navigable river, coastline or lake. I'm sure there will be more examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.180.244 (talk) 02:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Riyadh, with a population of 5.9 million (2013) in the city proper and over 7 million in the metropolitan area, takes the title of largest city without any significant body of water. In fact, there is no natural body of surface water within 300Km of the city. It is also one of the fastest-growing cities on Earth, which will ensure its continued status as the largest city in the world with no direct access to a "navigable body of water" for many years to come. BDS2006 (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Image of Pritchard Street c. 1910?

The image of Pritchard Street captioned at c1910 is probably misdated based upon the automobiles in the image. Most of the automobiles in the image are from the late 1930s and early 1940s. Innapoy (talk) 13:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Definitely misdated. Ackermans stores did not exist in 1910. --NJR_ZA (talk) 13:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Re-dating the photo also calls into question the contributor's assertion that the copyright has time-expired... Michaelandsandy (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

South African photo copyright expires 50 years from publication, and that photo is definitely from before 1963, so it's probably OK on that front. - htonl (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Infobox montage

The montage in the infobox is of terrible quality. The image of Wits looks squashed, the FNB stadium is cut in half, and the Brixton Tower is not exactly iconic of Johannesburg. It makes this article look very unprofessional, and it is frankly embarrassing to anyone who lives in Johannesburg. I replaced it with a better quality one, but my edit was soon reverted by Pollack man34. I'm bringing this to the talk page to try to build consensus and avoid an edit war: so what do people think of replacing the current montage with this one? (Or another even better one if neither is satisfactory.) Albertonian (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Timeline of Johannesburg

What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content. Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 16:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Johannesburg. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081210154403/http://origins.org.za:80/index.php/origins_site/widearticle/C37/ to http://origins.org.za/index.php/origins_site/widearticle/C37/

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} 15:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Demographics during Introduction

It says population of city is 4.something million, but then in the side it says 900,000. This is nothing if not contradictory — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.129.176 (talk) 13:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The 900,000 figure is for the "main place" of Johannesburg, in other words the absolute areas of Johannesburg and in particular excluse Soweto (which is counted as a separate "place"). The 4 million figure is for the City of Johannesburg not Johannesburg. Bezuidenhout (talk) 13:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Johannesburg/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Article requires extensive research as it is almost completely unverified. Alan.ca 13:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 13:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Johannsesburg public transportation issues

Built in its infancy J'oburgs public transportation system needs updating and the city is doing a good job ( Rea Vaya Gautrian, 25 billion rand to metrorail and updating metro bus ect)....... What do you think? DumaTorpedo (talk) 08:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Johannesburg. 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:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6H7Jql2A9?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.brookings.edu%2Fresearch%2Finteractives%2Fglobal-metro-monitor-3 to http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/global-metro-monitor-3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140910195641/https://unhabitat.org/the-state-of-african-cities-2014/ to http://unhabitat.org/the-state-of-african-cities-2014/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130814165415/http://www.nyc.gov/html/ia/gp/html/partner/partner.shtml to http://www.nyc.gov/html/ia/gp/html/partner/partner.shtml

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) 16:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Johannesburg. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150111013905/http://www.gcro.ac.za/sites/default/files/maps/pdfs/gcro_map_of_the_month_hdi_1996_to_2012_april_2014.pdf to http://www.gcro.ac.za/sites/default/files/maps/pdfs/gcro_map_of_the_month_hdi_1996_to_2012_april_2014.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/global-metro-monitor-3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111129011843/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Johannesburg to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Johannesburg
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sabcnews.com/south_africa/general/0%2C2172%2C151555%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100308014951/http://old.weathersa.co.za/Climat/Climstats/JohannesburgStats.jsp to http://old.weathersa.co.za/Climat/Climstats/JohannesburgStats.jsp
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.national.archsrch.gov.za/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/joburg-039-s-residential-projects-are-supporting-an-acceleration-of-the-rejuvenation-effort-2007-05-25
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121122121501/http://www.rhinolion.co.za/newsite/default.asp to http://www.rhinolion.co.za/newsite/default.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090304005253/http://www.gfo.co.za/content/GFOcongratulatesAFDAonAcademyMaywin065.doc to http://www.gfo.co.za/content/GFOcongratulatesAFDAonAcademyMaywin065.doc
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.drop-your-drink.com/2012/09/vodacom-unlimited-in-city-presents-bloc.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050828151458/http://www.gpg.gov.za/ to http://www.gpg.gov.za/

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) 23:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Johannesburg. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151222081241/http://www.uvawareness.com/uv-index/uv-index.php?location=johannesburg to http://www.uvawareness.com/uv-index/uv-index.php?location=johannesburg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140105215825/http://www.joburg-archive.co.za/2012/pdfs/cfo_report12.pdf to http://www.joburg-archive.co.za/2012/pdfs/cfo_report12.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110814035045/http://www.wits.ac.za/aboutwits/witstoday/facts-and-figures/3083/facts_and_figures.html to http://www.wits.ac.za/aboutwits/witstoday/facts-and-figures/3083/facts_and_figures.html

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) 03:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

A lot of history in Johannesburg#Government

There is now quite a lot of recent history in Johannesburg#Government. I think the GJMC material might well be best moved to to City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality#History or possibly History of Johannesburg, leaving a brief summary in this article. Generally Johannesburg#Government should concentrate on current government of the place, imho. Any views on this? Batternut (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I have moved GJMC material as above. Batternut (talk) 13:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Infobox area/population stats

The infobox currently lists the city area and population as 334.81 km2 and 957,441, and for metro area and population it has 1,644.96 km2 and 7,860,781.

The city area and population figures are really the figures for the "main place" of Johannesburg within the current City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality. The metro area is for the municipality, and the metro population is for the urban agglomeration (which extends beyond the metro municipality) though it had for a long time been the municipality figure of 4,434,827 until July this year.

This implicitly defines the city as the old bit (the "main place") in the middle, and the metropolitan area as the municipality. To me it seems that, for years now, the city has been the whole area covered by the municipality, and that the actual metro area is much bigger (some might say it is the whole PWV, some perhaps the Witwatersrand area, no official def seems to exist).

So I propose:

1. Changing the city area/population to be 1,644.96 km²/4,434,827, ie those of the City of Jo'burg MM.
2. Setting the urban area/population to be, 3,357 km²/7,860,781 as per citypopulation.de or similar RS
3. Blanking the metro area/population until someone finds good RS to support them.

Opinions / objections are sought, particularly as it touches upon the scope/subject of the article... Batternut (talk) 13:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Done 2 and 3 above, but not 1 due to templating complications (which I shall discuss shortly). Batternut (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Infobox demographics are for the main place

Due to the way Template:Infobox South African town 2011 works, all the demographic info in the infobox, ie the race, language, city population/area/density are for "Johannesburg main place" rather than the 4.4 million inhabitant municipality. This seems wrong, I think the article is generally covers the 4.4 million inhabitant place. The options seem to be:

1. revert to using Template:Infobox settlement
2. complicated changes to Template:Infobox South African town, just for this article (and probably Cape Town which is in a similar situation).

Any opinions/preferences? Batternut (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Johannesburg view.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Sport

Johannesburg is one of a very select group of cities to have hosted the soccer, cricket and rugby world cups. Others include London 41.116.0.66 (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Gold reef city

I need info in sotho about gold reef city 41.150.244.243 (talk) 21:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Infobox Content

I Have noticed that for sections of the Infobox such as "Area" & "First Languages", we seem to be using the statistics from This citation instead of This citation,

Meaning that we are showing information for the entire "City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality" (Including Midrand, Roodepoort, Soweto, Randburg, Diepsloot, etc) instead of just for "Johannesburg".

Is this really how it is supposed to be? Should we change what is showing (i.e. write what is in the second citation I mentioned) or should we leave it as it is?

GeographicAccountant (talk) 13:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, it seems like my query will never be answered.

I'm reluctant to edit this page without first having a "discussion" about what I said above, which means the content will not be edited by me.

But I still believe that we need to separate Johannesburg from the City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality; We shouldn't have the infoboxes of both pages looking alike! GeographicAccountant (talk) 12:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Nicknames

I'm not sure why the nicknames include a "Bhojpuri" version. This isn't a significant language in the city. I suggest we remove it. Wayne (talk) 08:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Doubtful or incorrect population, and megacity classification

According to Census 2022, the City of Johannesburg metro had a population of 4,803,262. Why is that figure listed as the city's (or main place's) value in the infobox? Also, if the overarching metro is 4.8 million, where do the values of 8.5 and 11 million, rounded exactly, come from?

Then, a megacity is defined as having a population of 10 million or more. The City of Johannesburg metro is 4.8 million. Why is it being called a megacity? GeoffreyA (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@GeoffreyA, Good question. The problem here is that we have Johannesburg, we have the City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality & we have Greater Johannesburg & nobody has made it clear exactly which "area" is being described in this article.

We have two neighbouring municipalities that are declared part of "Greater Johannesburg", namely the West Rand and Ekurhuleni. Maybe some of the figures used include "segments" of these two municipalities (I'm guessing).

Since you have verified that Johannesburg is "not actually" a "megacity", I recommend changing that word from "Megacity" to "Metro" in both the "Area" and "Population" sections of the Infobox. I also recommend just removing the 11 million figure from there, as it is not clear why it was put there & even exactly which communities were added together to form that rounded-off number. For the 8.5 million, I have the exact-same opinion about it as I have for the 11 million, even though a citation seems to be present there.

That same citation seems to have shaded a part of 4 municipalities (Johannesburg; Ekurhuleni; Mogale City; Rand West City) & I can't understand how those 4 municipalities have been declared as "one city" named "Johannesburg".

Since the exact "applicable area" is not clear, I recommend removing BOTH the 8.5 million (urban) & 11 million (metro) from the Infobox. I also recommend removing the 3357 km² (urban) from the Infobox. Afterwards, I recommend changing the word "Megacity" to the word "Metro" in both the "Area" and "Population" sections. I hope nobody sees any wrong in my proposal here. GeographicAccountant (talk) 23:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed response and advice. I have never edited the article nor lived in Johannesburg, so I do not have proper context for making big changes, but when I have some time, I'll see what can be done. Also, good points on consistency in the section below. An article, for example, can't be combining city-limits area with metro population: it will give the wrong density. GeoffreyA (talk) 08:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Done. I used the old Census 2011 numbers for the city's area and population, Census 2022 for metro, and updated the urban population according to the source. The lead section will need to be revised, but I'll leave that to others. GeoffreyA (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Johannesburg's Infobox Content

I have concerns about how we treat "Johannesburg" on Wikipedia. We have Johannesburg, we have the City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality (which includes Midrand and Orange Farm) and we have Greater Johannesburg (which includes the West Rand District Municipality and the City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality) & we need to make it clear on exactly which of these 3 areas this article is meant to be talking about.

As I stated above in the "Infobox Content" section on this talk page almost a year ago, the "Johannesburg" article seems to have parts of the infobox (such as "Area" and "First Languages") displaying the statistics for the entire "City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality" (1645 km²; which includes Midrand and Orange Farm) while others (like the "Racial Makeup" section) are only displaying the statistics for the area that is named "Johannesburg" (335 km²). In case nobody noticed, there is inconsistency here.

The "citation used" (& even the content appearing) in the "First Languages" part of the Infobox is for the entire municipality while the "citation used" (& even the content appearing) in the "Racial Makeup" section is only for Johannesburg (not Sandton, Randburg, Roodepoort, Soweto, Midrand, Orange Farm, etc). Why don't we have one citation being used in ALL sections of the infobox? (like the way the East London article is, although with a more-recent citation)

In short, all the citations used should be referring to the "same area", just like the way it is in the East London article (although with a more-recent citation like the 2022 census).

Also, in the "Area" section of the Infobox, we have the "Megacity" area appearing there as 1645 square kilometres. Why have we chosen to write "Megacity" there when that figure is basically for the City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality? Plus, when somebody clicks on the same "Megacity" link, it states that it should be an environment with 10 million people or more, meaning that we had no right to put a figure of 4.8 million next to such a word! So, that "Megacity" word will be changed to something else, preferably "Metro", as that is the exact size of the "City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality".

Then, we have the "Urban" area (3357 square kilometres) & it is not clear exactly which cities & municipalities we have added together to arrive at that figure. Does it include the entirety of the adjacent City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality or only segments of it? Again, it is not clear where this figure came from & if it is not stated, that figure does not belong there.

Then, we have three different Population figures, namely "Megacity", "Urban" and "Metro". As already stated, we can't have a figure of 4.8 million appearing next to the word "Megacity" & so, that word will be changed to "Metro" (in both "Population" and "Area"), since it is clear that this exact figure does not include Ekurhuleni or the West Rand. For "Urban", I have the same question again, which is Does it include the entirety of the adjacent City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality or only segments of it? Even though it has a citation, I am still concerned (the "shaded area" when somebody clicks the citation is not looking proper). The "11 Million" figure will be removed, as it is not clear which societies were added together to arrive at that number.

Sorry for writing a long speech; I just wanted to state "Everything" that is clearly wrong with the Infobox so that editors make the figures "consistent" (we can't have one section talking about Johannesburg alone & another talking about the entire municipality) & put correct figures in places where the wrong figures are displayed or replace figures that are not applicable (like the "11 Million"). I'll do edits on any section where I have found the right information & I suggest others do too.

As I stated at the start, We have Johannesburg, we have the City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality (which includes Midrand and Orange Farm) and we have Greater Johannesburg (which includes the West Rand District Municipality and the City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality) & we need to make it clear on exactly which of these 3 areas this article is meant to be talking about. GeographicAccountant (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Good points. Los Angeles is a useful example of how it could be handled. They've got a similar situation with city, metro, and Greater Los Angeles there. GeoffreyA (talk) 08:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Nice to know the word "Megacity" has been removed, as the population figure that was appearing there was "less than 5 million", which made it "not applicable" from various definitions in the Megacity article to be referred to as that (that word should only be re-added when the latest Population Statistics replace the current figures in this article).

So, as it seems, the figures for "Urban" in both the "Area" and "Population" sections of the Infobox (where a citation is supposedly present) are representing only the "Urban Area" of 4 municipalities, namely the City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality, City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality, Mogale City Local Municipality and Rand West City Local Municipality. In that case, why is there no mention of the "Total Area" (not just "Urban") & "Total Population" (not just "Urban") for the same region?

So, the "Metro" figure is the figure for the entire City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality (rural & urban combined) & the "Urban" figure is supposedly for a "larger area" than just the "Metro" (but with all the "rural areas" excluded)? I can't understand how the "Urban Area" figure appearing just over 2 times the size of the "Metro Area" figure is making sense.

I guess the Merafong City Local Municipality, which is part of the West Rand, is not included in these "Urban" statistics which seem like they are meant to represent the entire Conurbation of Johannesburg, meaning only the 4 mentioned municipalities that I have mentioned above are represented.

Otherwise, the concern still stands. The "Urban" figure in both the "Area" and "Population" sections of the Infobox is supposed to represent only the "Urban Part" of a "Larger area" & we need to state what that "Larger area" is somewhere; I can't understand how the "Urban" figure that is appearing is just over 2 times the "Metro" figure that is appearing or how the "Urban" figure is somehow 3 million more than the "Metro" figure (regardless of the years).

In the Los Angeles article, the "Urban" figure is "smaller" than the "Metro" figure, which I believe is how it is supposed to be, as the "Urban Area" is not supposed to be higher than what people would believe to be the "total area" (i.e. Metro).

If only there was a way to indicate next to the "Urban" figure in both the "Area" and "Population" that the figure is "inclusive" of the Rand West City, Mogale City and City Of Ekurhuleni numbers (even via a hatnote). But then again, why mention only the "Urban area" figure for ANY of these 4 municipalities if we cannot mention the "Total area" for ANY? That's my concern.

As stated, why is the "Urban Area" appearing as two times the supposed "Total Area" (if it is not the total area, it should be made clear) & why is the "Urban Population" appearing as 3 million more than the "Total Population" (if it is not the total population, it should be made clear). GeographicAccountant (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. In my edits, I tried to be conservative and was reluctant to remove the urban figures. According to the Afrikaans article, which is featured quality, "Johannesburg is also the centre of an urbanized area with more than 8 million inhabitants," and this article, in demographics, roughly states that too. I'm not sure if this is true or not, and have no previous understanding of Johannesburg or its surroundings. One possible solution is simply to remove the urban values, if there are concerns. GeoffreyA (talk) 09:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

There's some key information under metropolitan area. GeoffreyA (talk) 11:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Iam life a loss many — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.111.192.221 (talk) 18:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)