Talk:South West Africa

Heading

In the English edition the name should be South West Africa without the hyphen. SteveH 02:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree, outside of wikipedia, the term sometimes include the hyphen, but hyphen use is redundant. Redirecting German South West Africa, South-West Africa to move South West Africa. Electrawn 22:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge

I don't think it's proper to merge it into History of Namibia; instead, from there a link (ie: Main article: South-West Africa) to this article can be placed instead, with only a summary paragraph in the history article. SWA existed for long enough to have an involved history. Look for instance what was done in the History of South Africa article, especially in the "Legalised discrimination" subsection of "Apartheid era". dewet|™ 19:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. As country-like entities, they can support much of the boilerplate and format that country articles have, while "History of X" articles are typically narratives not well suited for describing government, economy, communications (including my favorite, the postal system :-) ) of the colony. Colony articles have generally gotten short shrift in WP, no doubt because of the political incorrectness in describing them as anything other than evil aberrations along the way to glorious independence. 1/2 :-) Stan 22:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Map

I added the map of Namibia to the article! If I did something wrong pleace contact me. Dr.Poison 22:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Well done... I've moved it up a bit, but otherwise quite fine. dewet|✉ 08:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I added it to the article about German South West Africa also ���Dr.Poison 20:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Politics

I think that both this and Union of South Africa should have Politics sections that deal with the politics of these nations during the times that they existed.

Image copyright problem with Image:Namibia SWA Arms.jpg

The image Image:Namibia SWA Arms.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Merger suggestion

Rather than create an article on this topic (Namibia under South African occupation), it may be better to place the material in the very short South West Africa article, which appears to be on pretty much the same topic. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion to merge this rather redundant stub with the more substantial South-West Africa article.---PJHaseldine (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. Ucucha 02:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

---

South West Africa → South-West Africa — Form used in most of the references, as well as the lead section. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

ICJ links broken

Some of the International Court of Justice links are out of date. I've updated the 1971 advisory opinion, which seemed obvious. Could an expert on the subject please attend to the others? --Wikiain (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Major revamp needed

The article's scope, infobox, and lead are incorrect:

• SWA was known under this name until 1884 and from 1915 to 1990.
• Thus the entire pre-colonial history is missing.
• It was not under a mandate of South Africa from 1915 to 1990. It was a mandate from 1920 to 1966. From 1915 to 1920 and between 1966 and 1990 it was occupied territory.

Will attempt a revamp, all suggestions welcome. --Pgallert (talk) 09:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 17 November 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) Fuortu (talk) 15:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

---

South West Africa → South-West Africa – Reversal of a page move made by User:IvanR82 that carried the rationale "There is no reference to a hyphen" --- This rationale is not factual. Several of the references, including those from the UN and from the ICC, use the hyphen, as listed on the article page. This move has been discussed in 2010, see above. According to the page log, there was another attempt in 2014 to move to the non-hyphenated version (without discussion). This move was reversed. I am asking that the renewed attempt be reversed, too. As an aside, I would very much like to know how a new account performed a G6 CSD to technically execute this move. Pgallert (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• Redirect will be deleted when you move a page over a redirect. It is now logged in deletion log. See [1] Fuortu (talk) 15:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

• Move back to hyphenated title: In a purely grammatical sense, "South West Africa" would be in the south of West Africa! Only "South-West Africa" would be in the south-west of Africa. See this basic grammatical primer on hyphenated adjectives. It clearly has WP:RS use and anything else is grammatically incorrect. I'd add that this move should be uncontroversial and, under WP:BRD, we probably don't even need this discussion. —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Srnec (talk) 03:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support. In those days they knew how to spell! Just because now many of us don't isn't a reason to move the article to poor modern English. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rename took no account of local English

@Fuortu

The recent move from South West Africa to a hyphenated form took no regard of the actual local English spelling of the name of the territory during all the years of its existence between the end of the German colonial era as Deutsch-Südwestafrika and independence as Namibia. For examples, refer to official documents of the territory and its postage stamps. On stamps, the name was never hyphenated in English during all the years while the full names of the territory was used from 5 March 1931 until the abbreviated and multilingual SWA began to be used on 1 September 1973.
Previous entries on this talk page show that this same issue also came up in 2006 and 2010. The argument that "In a purely grammatical sense, "South West Africa" would be in the south of West Africa" is moot since in the south of West Africa is exactly where it is actually located.
All the above also applies to the simultaneous moving of German South West Africa to a hyphenated format. Both moves should therefore be reverted. -- André Kritzinger (talk) 11:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Andre Kritzinger: You might want to have a look at a map. South-West Africa is not in West Africa. You further gave no examples of 'local English' and where it uses the non-dashed version. It also matters little whether it was hyphenated in Afrikaans, in German, or in 1931. Also, please make a decision whether you want to discuss a move or to continue reverting edits that are based on a discussion and on a consensus. Neither will be super productive as the move discussion was just a few weeks ago, though. --Pgallert (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Pgallert, on the last map of South West Africa or Namibia I saw, the country was situated on the West coast of Africa, which is the part of the continent adjacent to the Atlantic ocean.

SWA stamp series of 14 Feb 1961

Where did I mention hyphenation in Afrikaans or in German? I did mention “the actual local English spelling of the name of the territory”, which was in error since South Africa and South West Africa were both British territories until 31 May 1961 and there was not really a question of local English spelling. British English was in use the whole time and when and from where the hyphenated name suddenly emerged, I do not know

No examples of the non-dashed version? In case you missed the image of the 1½d South West Africa postage stamp next to my earlier comment, here is the 14 February 1961 decimal version of the definitive stamp series of 1954. The first South West African postage stamps to have the country’s name inscribed in English as “South West Africa”, no hyphen, were overprinted South African stamps that appeared in January 1923. The last commemorative stamp issue to be released with “South West Africa” in full with no hyphen, appeared on 6 January 1967. On all subsequent stamps, the abbreviated SWA was used. Now please name me any other territory or country that would continue to issue official postage stamps with its name inscribed incorrectly for 44 years!

This move was not handled above-board.

• Pgallert initiated it without doing his homework.
• Brigade Piron considered it “uncontroversial” in spite of the hyphen issue having surfaced several times during the last ten years and the fact that IvanR82 had moved the article to the correct name just a week earlier. -- André Kritzinger (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Andre Kritzinger, please read WP:GF and try to be more civil with other users. About the move discussion: the move was uncontroversial because it should never have been moved without discussion in the first place by you. If you want to open a move discussion in which other users get a say, you're still welcome to do so. As Pgallert has said, you need to find reliable (preferably published) sources that support your argument; a few postage stamps will not suffice. No doubt that the term "South West Africa" is sometimes used - but so undoubtedly is the hyphenated version (1). A discussion (and consensus) was needed before you moved the page off its established title. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Brigade Piron, taking your comments item by item:

• Please point out where I was being less than civil with other users. Or does being straightforward these days equate to being uncivil?
• You say the article should never have been moved by me without discussion in the first place. I’ve searched the article’s revision history page, but cannot find my name in there even once - you appear to also not be too strong on homework. The move, by IvanR82, appears to actually have been a revert to the original correct unhyphenated title which had been in use a long time. (I’ve been using it from about 2010 as a link, sans hyphen, in a multitude of the articles I maintain.)
• Yes, opening a move review is on the cards. All this is an attempt, as per the WP:IMR guidelines, to first discuss the matter with Fuortu, the discussion closer, who has been silent so far.
• A few postage stamps? Five definitive issues and eleven commemorative issues are more than a few. In this case, very few things could be more reliable and published sources than the postage stamps issued by the government of the country in question over a period of 44 years. Postage stamps are comparable to currency (coins and banknotes) and are, in effect, official documents.
• The unhyphenated "South West Africa" was continuously, not just sometimes, used throughout the existence of the territory until it became Namibia. The hyphenated version appears to be a recent phenomenon – your sole quoted source, a book advertisement, is dated 2008 while South West Africa ceased to exist on 21 March 1990. A more reliable (mostly) and much more detailed source than your book advert would be this page on the history of Namibia. For that matter, just see SWAPO. -- André Kritzinger (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Andre Kritzinger, The arguments are right here on this page with sources. A page move request ended with a consensus for the hyphenated title, which also happens to be the long-standing place of this article. You might moan about that, but without another requested move there's nothing going to change. Besides, article names ideally are of the same spelling as reliable sources spell them. If, as you seem to admit, recently the spelling is hyphenated rather than not, then this is a point in favour of the hyphen, not against. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 15:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and sorry to have to correct you on this item, but West Africa is a region of Africa to which the territory now known as Namibia certainly never belonged. If you follow the wikilink you'll see what I mean. --Pgallert (talk) 15:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

See the following Google ngrams:

• Ngram for South West Africa
• Ngram for German South West Africa

Andre Kritzinger seems to be correct about usage nowadays. This is probably a South African thing, since English usage during the German period prefers a single word (Southwest) or a hyphen (South-West). Based on all the evidence, I would not oppose reversing the last move. It is most important that the variation in usage be described and explained in the article. Srnec (talk) 01:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 6 February 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved to South West Africa. After this move discussion was opened as had been the suggestion of editors at move review, a consensus has developed that the title should be restored to South West Africa. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

---

South-West Africa → South West Africa – The move on 17 November 2016 from South West Africa without hyphen to South-West Africa with hyphen took no account of the actual local English spelling of the name of the territory during all the years of its existence between the end of the German colonial era as German South West Africa and independence as Namibia. For examples, refer to the territory’s postage stamps. On five definitive stamp issues and eleven commemorative stamp issues the name was never hyphenated in English during all the years while the full names of the territory was used from 5 March 1931 until the abbreviated and multilingual SWA began to be used on stamps on 1 September 1973. The present page name makes South West Africa the only country in the world to have consistently issued postage stamps on which its own name was inscribed incorrectly.

During a discussion about the move of 17 November 2016 and also during a Move Review, reference was made repeatedly to the fact that South West Africa is not a part of the United Nations subregion of Western Africa, which was defined by the United Nations Statistics Division as the western part of North Africa in 1999, nearly a decade after the establishment of an independent Namibia and therefore at a point in time not applicable to the pre-independence South West Africa. These assignments of countries or areas to specific groupings was for statistical convenience and it is unlikely that the intent was for it to result in changes in the names of already defunct historical countries or territories.

Since the territory’s official postage stamps were repeatedly discounted as reliable sources during the discussions while the cited sources were considered reliable, I consulted 20 of the 22 sources (two have dead links) listed in the “References” section of the article. Of these 20 cited sources, only twelve are actually more or less relevant and useful. In addition, I found nine more applicable but as yet uncited sources. In summary, of all the relevant and useful sources as shown below, only two support the hyphened South-West Africa while five are inconsistent. The majority support the non-hyphened South West Africa, as it was used throughout the existence of the territory until it became independent as Namibia.

No hyphen. Of fourteen relevant and mostly useful cited sources as well as some additional uncited sources concerning South West Africa, none uses a hyphen in South West Africa.

• UN General Assembly - Resolutions Adopted By The General Assembly During Its Twenty-First Session (This covers the period from 20 Sep to 20 Dec 1966)
• The South West Africa/Namibia Dispute – Documents and Scholarly Writings on the Controversy Between South Africa and the United Nations (Published 1973)
• Mediating Conflict – Decision-making and western intervention in Namibia. p. 46 (Published 1990)
• Recueil des Cours – Collected courses of The Hague Academy of International Law. 1986-V. pp. 213-214 (Published 1987)
• Documents Officiels de la ... Session de L'Assemblée Général (UN, 1949)
• Washington University Law Review, Volume 1967, Issue 2 - January 1967 - The South West Africa Cases (Published 1967)
• Encyclopædia Britannica - German South West Africa – Historical State, Namibia (Last update 6 Dec 2016)
• Encyclopædia Britannica - SWAPO Party of Namibia – Political Party, Namibia (Last update 29 Apr 2011)
• Foreign Affairs - The South West Africa Case: What Happened? (Published October 1966)
• 1914-1918 Online – International Encyclopedia of the First World War - South African Invasion of German South West Africa (Union of South Africa) (Last update 15 Aug 2016) Also particularly applicable to German South West Africa.
• Oxford Public International Law - South West Africa, Ethiopia v South Africa, Second Phase, (1966) ICJ Rep 6, ICGJ 158 (ICJ 1966), 18th July 1966, International Court of Justice (ICJ).
• Duke Law Journal - South West Africa Cases: Preliminary Objections
• Issue on Namibia – Decolonization, Vol 1. No. 3. December 1974. p. 3, footnote 1.
• Lee, Charles E. (1951). The Walfish Bay Railway. The Railway Magazine with which is incorporated "Transport & Travel Monthly", September 1951. Tothill Press Limited, London. pp. 627-628, 631.

Inconsistent. Five relevant and useful cited sources are consistently inconsistent, in all cases showing the name hyphened in the heading but mostly without hyphen in the text. None of these originated from the territory of South West Africa itself.

• International Court of Justice - Case Summaries - International Status Of South-West Africa - Advisory Opinion of 11 July 1950
• International Court of Justice - Case Summaries - Voting Procedure On Questions Relating To Reports And Petitions Concerning The Territory Of South-West Africa - Advisory Opinion of 7 June 1955
• International Court of Justice - Case Summaries - Admissibility Of Hearings Of Petitioners By The Committee On South-West Africa - Advisory Opinion of 1 June 1956
• International Court of Justice - Case Summaries - South-West Africa Cases (Preliminary Objections) - Judgment of 21 December 1962
• International Court of Justice - Case Summaries - South-West Africa Cases (Second Phase) - Judgment of 18 July 1966

With hyphen. Only two cited sources use only the hyphened version. One of these is a present-day establishment’s web page.

• Newell M. Stultz (1974). Afrikaner Politics in South Africa, 1934-1948 - Epilogue: 1948 to 1970. p. 161.
• Namibia – The Cardboard Box Travel Shop - Zambezi Region (Caprivi Strip)

All the above also applies to the simultaneous moving of German South West Africa back to a hyphenated format. André Kritzinger (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - collecting my counter-arguments from above, and commenting on a few of the sources listed:
• As my main argument is invalid, my oppose is, too. Change to Abstain. --Pgallert (talk) 05:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  1. On postage stamps the name of the territory was never hyphenated because the stamps carried the Afrikaans name of the territory, "Suidwes-Afrika". None of the stamps linked above carry the name of the territory in English. --struck, I'm sorry, should have checked properly. --Pgallert (talk) 05:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  2. The territory has never been part of West Africa, see for instance History of West Africa which goes back more than ten millenia. This has nothing to to with the definition by the UN. The grammatical argument of Brigade Piron, that without hyphen, South West Africa would wrongly refer to the south of West Africa, still stands.
  3. Usage in sources:
     • Source#2, The South West Africa/Namibia Dispute – Documents and Scholarly Writings on the Controversy Between South Africa and the United Nations (Published 1973), listed as "without hyphen", should be listed as "inconsistent".
     • Source#3, * Mediating Conflict – Decision-making and western intervention in Namibia. p. 46 (Published 1990), listed as "without hyphen", should not be listed at all. It calls the territory "Namibia", and the phrase "South West Africa" only occurs within proper names, e.g. National Party of South West Africa and South West Africa Constitution Act.
  4. Ngrams: Srnec has made a valid point above about Google saying there's no hyphen. I'd like to note, however, that the spelling in this region has always been British English, and that the BE Ngram looks like this: Prior to the early 1960s (after which the name often was "Namibia") the predominant usage was with a hyphen. Is it too much of a stretch to say 'While the territory was still universally known as South[-| ]West Africa, it was mostly spelled hyphenated'?

  --Pgallert (talk) 08:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Pgallert’s comments addressed point by point:

1. This is false! All of the stamps linked above carry the name of the territory in English! Just look! The first definitive South West African stamp issues from January 1923 to 1927 (overprinted South African stamps) were all monolingual in either Afrikaans or English, but printed in such a manner that each Afrikaans (or English) stamp on a sheet would have four English (or Afrikaans) neighbours. The same applied in respect of the first own South West African stamp issue of 5 March 1931, of which the 1½d Afrikaans and English pair (added on 1 March 1937) is depicted in the previous section above. The definitive stamp issues of 15 November 1954 and 14 February 1961 were both bilingual with the full name of the territory in Afrikaans and English on all the stamps - the 1961 decimal issue is depicted in the previous section above. The same applied to all commemorative stamps, i.e. either monolingual stamps with a neighbour in the other language, or bilingual stamps with the full name of the territory in both official languages, up to and including the Verwoerd stamps of 6 January 1967. On none of these stamps was South West Africa hyphened. All subsequent stamps used the SWA abbreviation instead of the full name.

3. Sources.

• Source #2: Granted, I somehow missed the inconsistencies.
• Source #3: See pages 38 to 41, for example. The proper names "South West Africa", "South West Africa National Union" and "South West Africa People's Organisation" are all mentioned, all hyphenless.

The bottom line remains what the territory called itself. For that, see its postage stamps. André Kritzinger (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• Apologies, I struck my point 1. Saw the Afrikaans name on top and thought, 'Ja, but this is Afrikaans' without looking at the bottom of the stamps. I'm sorry. --Pgallert (talk) 05:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support. The nominator makes a very compelling case – if so many prominent reference works prefer the hyphen-less version then so should Wikipedia. I don't think the claim that "South West Africa" properly refers to southern West Africa holds much water. Unless you're using a particular style guide (which Wikipedia doesn't for article titles), "south west" is just as valid as "southwest" or "south-west", although perhaps less common. I personally prefer "south-west" in my own writing, but this isn't about what I would prefer, it's about what was actually used. There are plenty of other geographical features and regions that use "south west" in their titles – South West Cape, South West England, South West Island, South West Queensland, South West State, South West Wales, South West (Western Australia). IgnorantArmies (talk) 10:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

South West Africa's name should NOT be hyphenated!

South African English uses the British spelling convention, as South West Africa was a mandated territory of the Union of South Africa from 1915 to 31 May 1961, when South Africa became a republic, albeit, outside the Commonwealth. Even today, Namibian English and South African English both follow British Commonwealth spelling conventions - as both countries are now Commonwealth republics. - (119.224.80.18 (talk))

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on South West 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idecisions/isummaries/isswasummary500711.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idecisions/isummaries/itswasummary550607.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idecisions/isummaries/icswasummary560601.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idecisions/isummaries/ilsaesasummary621221.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idecisions/isummaries/ilsaesasummary660718.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303172411/http://legal.un.org/repertory/art77/english/rep_supp7_vol5-art77_e_advance.pdf to http://legal.un.org/repertory/art77/english/rep_supp7_vol5-art77_e_advance.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728144356/http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/303/35/IMG/NR030335.pdf?OpenElement to http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/303/35/IMG/NR030335.pdf?OpenElement

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) 20:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)