Talk:AfriForum

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on AfriForum. 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/20130811050629/http://sun025.sun.ac.za/portal/page/portal/Arts/Departemente1/geskiedenis/docs/from_mwu_to_solidarity.pdf to http://sun025.sun.ac.za/portal/page/portal/Arts/Departemente1/geskiedenis/docs/from_mwu_to_solidarity.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140116072223/http://www.thenewage.co.za/73896-1021-53-TKAG_Afriforum_become_antifracking_force to http://www.thenewage.co.za/73896-1021-53-TKAG_Afriforum_become_antifracking_force
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140116072520/http://www.thenewage.co.za/Detail.aspx?news_id=71296&cat_id=1099 to http://www.thenewage.co.za/Detail.aspx?news_id=71296&cat_id=1099
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140821041728/http://www.thenewage.co.za/mobi/Detail.aspx?NewsID=47994&CatID=1009 to http://www.thenewage.co.za/mobi/Detail.aspx?NewsID=47994&CatID=1009
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121211202232/http://www.citypress.co.za/politics/hate-speech-charge-laid-against-lamola-20120709-2/ to http://www.citypress.co.za/politics/hate-speech-charge-laid-against-lamola-20120709-2/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121119232400/http://www.citypress.co.za/Columnists/Laager-mentality-is-a-load-of-bull-20101002 to http://www.citypress.co.za/Columnists/Laager-mentality-is-a-load-of-bull-20101002/
 * Added tag to http://www.info.gov.za/speech/DynamicAction?pageid=461&sid=24488&tid=53893

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality Discussion
I’ve noticed the article is riddled with unsourced, often low quality sentences stating that a claim the forum made in the previous sentence is actually incorrect. I realize this is a controversial issue, but Wikipedia is not a debate forum. Ganondox (talk) 02:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

sock puppet

I must agree with Ganodox. This is a place for facts - not unsubstantiated political opinions. Badbury (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

sock puppet

Hi, it seems you are posting your point of view on this matter and others as opposed to facts. AfriForum describe themselves as an inclusive civil rights organisation, and I cannot find any mainstream neutral sources which support your view that they are 'white nationalists'. If we use the current Wikipedia definition of white nationalism, AfriForum clearly do not qualify and it is disingenuous to repeatedly suggest that they do Badbury (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

If you are so keen to avoid an edit war, please articulate what the problem is. Blanket reverting and accusations of vandalism are not a solution to this supposed problem. Grayfell (talk) 19:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You are trying to impose on this article that a civil rights organization is a white nationalist / white supremacist organization, this is a serious accusation, if you want to do so you need proof and reliable sources, which you didn't provide, both of what is there are opinion articles of WP:QUESTIONABLE sources. Cilinhosan1 (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


 * So if "white nationalist" vs. "civil rights" is the specific problem, why bludgeon the process by reverting months of edits? As I said on my talk page, I'm not the one who originally added this, and there have been many edits since this change was made. Attempting to present this as a lone act misrepresents the situation. This was added in the beginning of March, and has been built on by multiple editors. The banner across the the top identifies a serious POV issue with the article, and cleaning this up is going to need a lot effort.
 * As for "civil rights organization", I contend that it's too vague, and is only sporadically supported by sources, which makes it a WP:EUPHEMISM. I don't care what the group calls itself, because Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion.
 * Looking through news articles to get a sense, there are several common descriptions, "civil rights group", "civil rights organization", just "rights group", "farming group" "lobby group" just "organization", and so on...
 * It looks like many news sources avoid any description. This is something news outlets can get away with, as they can assume that local readers will already have enough background to fill in this context, but Wikipedia doesn't have that luxury. What we need to do is provide enough information that an international readership will have a picture of what this organization does based on reliable, independent sources. I don't think any of these are sufficient for this. There is also the problem of WP:RECENTISM when using news sources.
 * Looking through book sources, the results are pretty similar, but it's harder to find a consensus, and more time-consuming to determine reliability. One that might be useful is Civil Society and the Zuma Government, which is (I think) indirectly published by the International Development Research Centre. This source refers to AfriForum as an "activist alliance", but of note is that the source describes their activities and positions. The source summarizes that they have opposed affirmative action and have been surprisingly influential in the ANC government. To me, this suggests that "lobby group" is a simple, accurate starting point that is agreed on by many reliable sources, and disputed by none.
 * Am I wrong? Does anyone have any better ideas? Grayfell (talk) 22:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Misrepresenting a civil rights organization as a white nationalist / white supremacist organization is not the only problem, and if you call weeks of edit war reverting the edits of any editor who didn't comply with your opinion as "building" an article, I have to disagree. If you say that an organization isn't what it is, you need to provide reliable sources saying the contrary, which you didn't, and of all the articles that you provided the majority of them call it either a "civil rights group", "civil rights organization", or simply organization / group, none of them call it a "white supremacist" or "white nationalist" organization. If you want to break the consensus of more than 3 years since it was stated in this article that it is a civil rights organization, complying with what the majority of sources say and what the organization itself says, an edit war is not the way to change this consensus.
 * As if the news you presented weren't enough to confirm, many books refer to AfriForum as a civil rights organization or group, such as South Africa and the Case for Renegotiating the P eace, Bridge Over Blood River: The Rise and Fall of the Afrikaners, Free Speech: Ten Principles for a Connected World, The Economist, Volume 384, Issues 8536-8548, Southern Africa Report, Volume 26, South Africa Survey, and many, many others. I don't know how you could not find any of those sources and instead come up with the only book that you could find that did not refer to it as a civil rights organization or group. I think that there was a reason it stayed in the article as a civil rights organization for more than 3 years before the edit war, and any person reading this can understand too.
 * Regarding the reversal of edits prior to the edit war, what was reverted were vandalism edits that were added for the sole purpose of discrediting the organization, and didn't bring any constructive value to the article, had no reliable sources, and were solely based on the opinion of the editor, and even false information. Cilinhosan1 (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Since you merely copy/pasted your Google book search results, I can clearly see that you specifically searched for the phrase "civil rights". Do you understand why this is a problem? This search string actively excludes all sources which don't support your preferred wording. So what, exactly, was the goal in copying these search results? The point of the article is not to find sources which support your prior assumptions. Anybody can do that. The point is to neutrally summarize all reliable sources.
 * As I tried to explain, we need to evaluate sources for context, as well as reliability. The book source I mentioned above appeared to be reliable, and I explained why I thought it was reliable. It also provided context about AfriForum, and I tried to explain why I thought that was relevant.
 * As the first example you link, what is the African Sun Media publishing house? Is it reliable? Who are Pierre du Toit, Salomé Teuteberg, and Charl Swart? Are they recognized experts? I sincerely don't know, but the book you link contains a single passing mention which provides no context about the organization, and was selected based on arbitrary search criteria to fit a predetermined editorial preference. This makes this a weak source for any sort of summary of the organization as a whole.
 * The common thread among all substantial sources (not just the passing mentions that pop up with a lazy Google search) is that AfriForum is almost exclusively focused on Afrikaner advocacy. Is this a civil rights issue? Yes, but that's too simplistic, and ignores the context of what those sources are saying. Of those books you link, several appear unreliable. All of the three that seem usable are discussing the AfriForum. If this is a "civil rights organization" in this context, it's surreal to consider this a "free speech" argument. Compared to the pre-Apartheid flag and statue issues they're previously been involved with their motives are especially obvious. According to them, free speech is only for Boers, I guess. Grayfell (talk) 02:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As I stated before, these were easily accessible sources that mentioned AfriForum as a civil rights organization, which directly contradicts what you said that there were not enough reliable sources stating that it is, which is not true, I could go on and on and explain every single book of why it is reliable and find even more reliable sources, I could criticize the sources that you present as you did, but this will lead to nothing, since you're already determined on imposing your opinion on the article, regardless of the data that I present. Your opinion of an organization if it is simplistic or complex is not relevant, there's no source stating that it isn't a civil rights organization, on the contrary, the majority of the sources state that it is a civil rights organization, because that's exactly what it is. It doesn't matter if you agree with its cause, just because you don't agree doesn't mean you should go on and start vandalizing its article and start doing what I explained in my last post regarding the edits.Cilinhosan1 (talk) 03:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You do not appear to understand my point at all. The lede should explain, in neutral terms, what this organization is and why it is noteworthy enough for an encyclopedia article. The current article does not do a good job of this, and neither did the recent version. "Civil rights organization" is accurate, but it is not precise. "White nationalist" is much more precise, but it is not, necessarily, accurate. We need a compromise that is both. Civil rights organization is also WP:PEACOKery, since it sounds very pleasant and positive, but doesn't provide very much clear information. The goal is not to discredit them, but it is also not to "accredit" them. The goal is to explain to readers who they are, and "civil rights ___" doesn't do a very good job of this because it's not clear what such an organization would actually do.
 * Regardless of what I might think of the organization, there is nothing wrong with specializing. The problem is that we should not misrepresent the focus of this organization. AfriForum only (again, according to sources you, yourself have presented) focuses on civil rights for Afrikaners. Compare the first sentence of the lede to other Category:Civil rights organizations and there is a mismatch. Even though it is obvious what The Gay Straight Alliance Bermuda (GSA Bermuda) does simply from the name, the lede describes it anyway without resorting to bland vagueness. Likewise, Committee for Civil Liberties and Legal Aid mentions victims of the Jatiya Rakkhi Bahini. Ban the Box mentions ex-offender, and so on. A good lede explains the topic. This is not a good lede because it is euphemistically mentioning activities in terms the organization itsell would chose. This isn't acceptible, because Wikipedia isn't a platform for advocacy or advertising. Grayfell (talk) 04:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think that there's anything partial about stating that a civil rights organization is one in the lead of its article page, like many other organizations have stated in their articles that they are a civil rights organization. You say that the term is not precise, but in the lead itself it is stated that they are a civil rights organization that "promote Afrikaner and other minorities", which gives the proper explanation to the reader, and again, you are still trying to push your personal opinion on this article stating that it is a "white nationalist" organization, which I've already explained in my previous posts, please, stop. Regarding what you said about WP:PEACOK, I have to disagree, since many other articles on civil rights organizations state in their lead what they are, to give an example among many others, the Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Los Angeles specifically states civil rights organization in its lead, plain and simple, without issue. If you want to make changes to the lead, that we can discuss, but insisting that it is a "white nationalist" organization will lead to nothing, and this was already discussed in the previous posts. Cilinhosan1 (talk) 06:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The first sentence of the Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Los Angeles article includes ... dedicated to advocating for civil rights, providing legal services and education and building coalitions on behalf of the Asian Americans, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (NHPI) communities. This is a level of context which is not properly included in this lede. The article alludes to who AfriForum works for, but not clearly. Who are these "minority groups"? Does this mean the Southern Ndebele people and the Tswana people? Both of those are minority groups in South Africa, but I am very skeptical that AfriForum is concerned with anything other than white South Africans, and the sources I have seen support this. If the lede doesn't reflect what reliable sources have to say, this is a problem, and a white advocacy group being described as white nationalist may or may not be accurate, but it's hardly surprising. Grayfell (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It should say Civil Rights organization for sure in my opinion. WP:NPOV  Bobherry  Talk   Edits  21:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Heads up when Full Protection expires this will likely need PCP. I was reading the page history and this dispute goes back all the way to last month.  Bobherry  Talk   Edits  21:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, we'll keep eyes on things when that time comes and we'll make sure that the appropriate actions are taken ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   21:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * sock puppet
 * Do not ping me for something this flimsy. This is obviously WP:OR and isn't worth a detailed response. PR is cheap, and you get what you pay for. Grayfell (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * sock puppet
 * This is a distraction which only serves to whitewash a white nationalist organization. The only reason to include this source at all is to refute a point I made in passing, but the source is to flimsy and too obscure to accomplish this. The KKK fund-raised for the Back-to-Africa movement. The Nazis' had honorary Aryans (sounds familiar). White nationalist organizations will support minorities when it is convenient, or maybe the won't. None of this matters unless reliable sources say it matters. If you have a source saying AfriForum cannot be white nationalist because they are "considering" legal action, let's see it. Grayfell (talk) 01:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

sock puppet

sock puppet

So I'm late to the party and missed all this discussion, but when I came here looking for general fact-based information about this group, I was surprised that the lede doesn't mention allegations that it's a white nationalist organization. I notice that there's already a reference that describes Afriforum as a white nationalist organization, and that the title in the link is the only place the term "white nationalist/ism" appears on the article. There are plenty of reliable published sources on the association between Afriforum and white nationalism or white nationalist groups. . Whether it fits wikipedia's definition of white nationalism or not, and whether it fits the definition of a civil rights group, are neither here nor there -- the proposition that many people actually regard Afriforum as a white nationalist group is a fact, and one that I think is noteworthy enough to deserve mention in the lede. I suggest adding something after the last sentence of paragraph 2, along the lines of "and it is sometimes described as a white nationalist organization." (with some appropriate reference(s)). 196.210.79.75 (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC on Afriforum's categorisation

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Classical liberal za (talk) 13:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC) Classical liberal za has been blocked for sock puppetry. Grayfell (talk) 19:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:RFC and how this shows in the RfC listings - what exactly is your brief, neutral question? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


 * User:Classical liberal za has been blocked for sock puppetry. This, um, question is a loaded, cherry-picked mess, and since this was started by an account acting in bad faith, it's hard to believe this RFC will be productive. If someone else would like to start fresh, perhaps, but this particular RFC seems dead on arrival. Is there some reason not to close an RFC started by a blocked account? Grayfell (talk) 19:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I would recommend a return to the original lede. Park3r (talk) 09:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

... Against AfriForum
AfriForum has won several cases against several prominent local media houses that were lodged with the South African Press Ombudsman and the organisations (News24, HuffPo SA and the Mail & Guardian) were ordered to issue public apologies to AfriForum. This is absolutely critical as it casts a shadow on the neutrality of the aforementioned organisations (N24, HuffPo and M&G) and any other news outlets linked to them and it is imperative that the reader is made to understand this. 197.245.16.108 (talk) 13:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Ah, I was going to add this. The text the IP added said:

"AfriForum has laid multiple successful complaints with the South African Press Ombudsman against News24, Mail & Guardian and The Huffington Post SA, several prominent local media houses. The Ombudsman found all of the aforementioned outlets to be in serious breach of the South African Press Code and each organisation was ordered to publish a public apology to AfriForum. The complaints related to "misrepresentation, distortion and suppression of the facts" relating to statement's AfriForum has made and the failure to "take care to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly" by stating that AfriForum supports the white genocide conspiracy theory, despite AfriForum having consistently stated that the organisation does not believe white genocide is occurring in South Africa.       "


 * The first finding in the sources states: "News24 was in breach of Section 7.2.4 of the Press Code for stating that AfriForum did not offer a single solution, while Roets did so – albeit in response to a question. This section says: “[Comment or criticism is protected even if extreme, unjust, unbalanced, exaggerated and prejudiced, as long as it] has taken fair account of all material facts that are substantially true”.
 * The rest of the complaint is dismissed." I suggest editors read the entire report.


 * I don't think SA Promo is a reliable source here. I'm not sure that the media apologies are reported adequately. "Multiple successful complaints" is incorrect so far as I can see. The complaint about New24 was only upheld on one issue, the statement "that it did not offer a single solution to the issue of land restitution".


 * The other complaints were:


 * “Roets’ submission – which he tweeted and which is available on AfriForum’s website – does not explain why he believes that white people never ‘stole land’ (besides just claiming that they never did) nor does it offer any clear or sophisticated argument about Section 25”; and
 * “At one stage Roets sat grinning while black MPs spoke of their families’ experiences under apartheid, wars of dispossession and how his attitude merely served to harden some attitudes.”
 * The organisation adds that:
 * News24 manipulated an edited version of a video in which he had presented AfriForum’s submissions to the Constitutional Review Committee in such a manner so as to portray it as the truth to corroborate the false and untrue accusations; and the reportage has caused it serious reputational damage."


 * These were rejected. The Finding on the video complaint starts with "This part of the complaint has no legs to stand on. Part of the finding about the complaint about reputational damage was " I am not going to blame News24 for causing “serious reputational damage”, as Roets himself – by not finding time to address solutions in his formal presentation – contributed to this “reputational damage”." Again, editors should read these in full as I can only copy part of them here. Doug Weller  talk 14:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed "fake news", which here is a bullshit term, from the header. That these outlets were found to be wrong in whatever doesn't make the term applicable. Drmies (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In any case some of the Press Council reports were, to put it kindly, misrepresented as in the article the text added says that that it up held complaints about "white genocide" whereas in fact not all of the Press Council findings even mentioned white genocide. Doug Weller  talk 08:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

NPOV issues
See the above and WP:NPOVN where I've raised this and another issue. Doug Weller talk 16:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There is still a lot that needs to be culled--I just removed a passage containing this, "...who is a member of the SAPS according to his Facebook profile, said on this social media platform...". It was added last year in this edit by a drive-by IP (go figure). This article needs to be edited carefully, and whatever is not rigorously verified or clearly neutral needs to be thrown out. And not every "controversy" is worth noting, of course. Drmies (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking over the edit history and the discussion above, it appears that one editor edit-warred and argued at length about the lead; they were eventually banned for sockpuppetry, but shortly afterwards a new account appeared and made a single edit reverting to their preferred version. My assumption given the context would be that that was a sockpuppet; either way, I feel their edit was not an improvement, since it went against a huge number of sources and wasn't reflected by the (admittedly abortive) discussion above. --Aquillion (talk) 11:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * 1. I've had a look at the page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_75, Doug, and it appears to me the main issues of contention is how to deal with rulings made by the press ombudsman. I agree that (a) not every ruling needs to be mentioned and (b) one should try to be neutral -- sometimes a ruling favours AfriForum, and sometimes it favours the other party.  Sometimes, when a paper is forced to publish an apology, the apology isn't very apologetic either.  I don't think this issue warrants the neutrality label for the whole article.


 * 2. From what I can see in the edit history w.r.t. the edit warring, the main issues are (a) whether AfriForum is a civil rights organisation and (b) whether AfriForum is a white nationalist organisation. I wish there was a simple solution to this problem, but the fact is that both these terms evoke an emotional response.  In addition, let's not forget that authors who use these terms do not necessarily use them in the same way that Wikipedia uses them.  I personaly prefer that however Wikipedia defines something should be used as the definition in the lead.


 * 2.1 The Wikipedia article on civil rights says "Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals' freedom from infringement by governments, social organizations, and private individuals. They ensure one's entitlement to participate in the civil and political life of the society and state without discrimination or repression." Does this apply to AfriForum?  I believe it does.  One can't say "civil rights aren't really civil rights if we're talking about the rights of a specific group only".  I understand that there are those who believe that the label "civil rights" organisation somehow lends credibility to AfriForum, but whether an organisation's focus is racist or non-racist isn't part of the defirtion of "civil rights".  If white supremacists want to protect other white people's civil rights, then that is still "civil rights", even if it is racist.


 * 2.2 The Wikipedia article on white nationalism says "White nationalism ... espouses the belief that white people are a race and seeks to develop and maintain a white national identity." Does this apply to AfriForum?  I don't think it does.  There are groups in South Africa who believe that "white people are a race" and should have its own national identity, but the fact that AfriForum is an organisation by white people and mostly for white people does not mean that they believe white people are a separate race whose existence should be protected from other races.  I understand that many people use the label "white nationalist" to refer to any organisation that is white, and I understand that particularly in South Africa the label "nationalist" is often used by critics to refer to white politicians, because of the name of the political party the "National Party" (often referred to by ANC politicians as the "Nationalist Party"), but this is not what Wikipedia means by "white nationalist".  I fully agree that the article should say "so and so calls AfriForum a white nationalist group", but not that the article should say "AfriForum is a white nationalist group" and link to the page on white nationalism.


 * 3. As for primary sources, etc., well I don't think the bulk of this article uses primary sources (or uses it incorrectly). I do agree that the lead can be rewritten, but I'm afraid that if I do that, I'll offend whoever's opinion is no longer reflected in it, whether the editors who say "civil rights" or the editors who say "white nationalists". -- leuce (talk) 11:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


 * {{re|Leuce} I don't have a lot of time for this, but I will say that we should not use Wikipedia definitions just was we don't use our own articles as sources - they can change at any time, and the article should reflect not our definitions but how reliable independent sources describe AfriForum. Terms such as "civil rights", "free speech", "democracy" etc are being co-opted by the far right for their own interest, another reason to rely on independent sources. Even if we decide to attribute white nationalism, we should still link to the page. Maybe we can label sections NPOV now, I'm not sure., how say you? Doug Weller  talk 12:19, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I say that if we go with that definition of civil rights the NRA counts as a civil rights organization. What I hear the editor say about "white nationalism" is something completely different--here the argument is "I don't believe they think white people should be protected" or something like that. The editor's recent edits to this article are a mixed bag--they add a section detailing every single board member (something we do not usually do) based in part on primary sources (which we certainly shouldn't do--these board member have no inherent notability, and there is no inherent reason to detail board membership for every organization we have an article for). OK, it's not a mixed bag. Look at this edit--the source is here. Note that claims, for instance, that the report wants the  "the status of Afrikaans be reduced". That is not true, and what Leuce has done is completely twist the report's comments:"The IITT also observed that the initiation practices conducted by the university residences are exclusionary in nature and restrict access to the residences. The traditions are carried out in Afrikaans and non-Afrikaans speakers are marked out as different and unwelcome." So, an attempt to regulate exclusionary (racist) initiation rituals in university residences is here distorted into a call for linguistic and racial oppression (of Afrikaners): that is not what "to ensure that the promotion of Afrikaans is not used as a tool for exclusion in any form" means. Similarly, the quota--the report states that a "radical normalization" of demographics take place, and wants to undo "the tacit implementation of racial quotas at the Potchefstroom campus residences, which seeks to maintain an 80% white student composition". Whoa, 80% Afrikaans, and a change in policy that would allow for a more diverse and representative student body is here turned into something "that favours black students". I'm done reading: this is gross. Drmies (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I admit that I do not understand what a "primary source" is.
 * @Drmies: W.r.t. the report, I feel it is relevant to state what the report had said, but obviously to sum up the entire report in a single sentence is going to lead to omissions. There were 10 recommendations in the report, but I don't think we need to list all 10. Indeed, most of the recommendations do not relate to AfriForum's complaint at all.  The two sentences I added tried to provide context for AfriForum's claim that "the report discriminated against Afrikaners".  I'm sorry you feel that I had "completely twisted" the report, and I would of course be happy to read alternative ways of summing it up.
 * Correct me if I misunderstand, but you appear to think that my edit is an attempt to paraphrase the text that you quoted. It is not.  My edit relates to the 10 recommendations only.  The rest of your comment appears to be a discussion of the validity of the report itself -- but I'm not interested in that (no offense intended).  I just wanted to summarise the issue that AfriForum had with it.  I'm not saying that AfriForum is correct or that they have a valid complaint. -- leuce (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Added: I've just noticed your edit in which you removed the sentence about language and racial quotas. Your version makes it appear as if AfriForum said "the report discriminated against Afrikaners" because of the fact that the report investigated initiation practices, which is rather silly, IMO. -- leuce (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Leuce, I am removing those bullet points, which add another type of formatting, greatly complicating matters particularly for screen readers. Yes, I removed your language about language and racial quotas, because "he report recommended inter alia that the status of Afrikaans be reduced and that student residences apply racial quotas that favour black students" is a blatant misrepresentation of what that report says. It is so blatant that I have no interest in discussing this any further with you--you are either not aware of how English works, or you are consciously playing dumb. Either way, you are, with that text of yours, furthering AfriForum's cause, suggesting that there is, somehow, discrimination against Afrikaner students and favoring of black students. Good day. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1. Thanks for taking time to reformat -- that was very kind of you. 2. I accept your good faith (sorry that you don't accept mine). You make a good point about the importance of not appearing to further AfriForum's cause: by clarifying how the report may have been offensive to AfriForum, one may create the impression that AfriForum's complaint is valid. 4. I appreciate the fact that you checked my edits for neutrality. --leuce (talk) 06:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no specific opinion about listing board members -- I only researched the board members because I was trying to verify the claim that "most of" the board members have had links with the FF+. I did not want to just remove the claim, because it has a cited reference that actually says that, but I had my doubts about its accuracy, so I added the board members for the sake of balance.  However, I concur that listing board members isn't usual (and can get outdated quickly).
 * I accept your sentiment (which I have encountered before) that we should not use Wikipedia articles (and definitions) as references for other Wikipedia articles, although sometimes definitions on Wikipedia articles reach a state of stability so that most edits to them are just minor tweaks. I also understand that there are some people would prefer not to call the NRA a civil rights organisation.  As I had said, the term "civil rights" is very emotive and some people believe that if we say a group is a "civil rights" group, then it implies something positive (not neutral) about that a group.
 * The issue is additionally complex because AfriForum is an Afrikaans organisation who originallused the Afrikaans word "burgerregte" (which literally means citizen's rights), but which is often (and also by AfriForum itself) rendered "civil rights" in English. And just to make matters worse, the word "burger" in Afrikaans can also imply a "white Afrikaans-speaking person", depending on context.  Heh-heh-heh. -- leuce (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I know that and I do not find it as amusing as you do. And "burger" in Dutch and Flemish means a middle-class person who is mostly interested in maintaining the status quo, to the exclusion of those who are not like him. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, and if we're going to list the board members, maybe add that Ernst Roets believes in the white genocide hoax, Leuce? Drmies (talk) 14:19, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Identify woman
Can anyone identify the woman speaking here? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhMqc7exTus&feature=youtu.be&t=1602 -- leuce (talk) 10:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Classification
I understand that there have been an edit war involving sockputtetry in the past year or two with regard to the classification of AfriForum, and although I can understand the editor's frustration, and while I denounce the tactics that he had used, I feel that using appropriate classification in the lead of this article is important, especially since AfriForum is regarded by some as a controversial organisation. If there are multiple non-fringe opinions about what AfriForum is, this can be dealt with in a subsection.

Currently, AfriForum is classified as a "white nationalist" organisation. I feel that this is an important point, because any reader who reads the lead but does not have his own idea of what "white nationalism" is may click the link to the article on white nationalism and put under a certain impression about what AfriForum is.
 * Firstly (1), a review of AfriForum's activities (not just the controversial ones that make the papers) should show that AfriForum does not "espouse the belief that white people are a race and seek to develop and maintain a white national identity". While most of AfriForum's activities relate to Afrikaner cultural and societal issues (and while most/all Afrikaners are white, depending on your preferred definition of "Afrikaner"), AfriForum does not promote the idea that white people should remain somehow separate from the rest of the nation or that white people should have rights that other colours do not have.
 * Secondly (2), AfriForum is an organisation for and by primarily Afrikaners, so I believe it would be fair to refer to them as an "Afrikaner" organisation, despite the fact that they sometimes also fight for the rights of other minorities. In the press, AfriForum often tries to promote itself as an organisation for all minorities, but their web site, vision and mission, etc. clearly state that their main or sole focus is Afrikaners.
 * Thirdly (3), although the label "white nationalist" may relate only to views and not to activities, I have the impression that most people's interpretation of the term is that "white nationalist" organisations are typically political organisations that involve themselves primarily in white nationalist politics, i.e. the promotion of a white identity. By contrast, most of AfriForum's activities are not aimed at promoting identity, even if AfriForum often plays the "cultural identity" card when promoting themselves among their target membership, i.e. Afrikaners.

For these reasons, I recommend (a) labelling AfriForum simply as a non-profit organisation that promotes Afrikaner minority rights and encourages Afrikaners to be socially and politically involved and (b) that a subsection be created about the various views about the nature of AfriForum (possibly as a subsection under "Criticism"). I do not recommend this because I'm trying to promote AfriForum, although this does strike a balance between AfriForum's description of itself and an objective look at the actual activities that AfriForum is involved in (and not just the controversial ones discussed in twitter storms). --leuce (talk) 09:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd say as I said above, how do reliable sources describe it? We need that as well. Doug Weller  talk 12:21, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I have gathered all the URLs in the Talk page and article that I could find that relates to or that were cited specifically in the debate about how to label AfriForum, and checked them. URLs that did not appear to answer the question, were omitted in my final list.
 * While at first glance it appears that there are more URLs to support "civil rights" group, that is simply because editors who have that view were more prolific in URL gathering. It is difficult to judge whether an article is objective or subjective, and it is not always possible to see whether an article is a news report, an opinion piece by a staff member or an opinion piece by an outside contributor.
 * Overall, however, most articles that use the term "white nationalist group" are vehemently anti-AfriForum, although several articles that use the term "civil rights group" are also highly critical of AfriForum. I saw very few articles written in a neutral tone use the term "white nationalist".  In quite a number of cases where URLs were submitted as evidence for "white nationalist group", the articles did not actually call AfriForum a white nationalist group, but merely mentioned AfriForum while discussing white nationalist groups or themes elsewhere in the article.  It was not always easy to tell when such a mention was meant to imply that AfriForum is indeed a white nationalist group, or merely a group that is associated with white nationalist groups or views.
 * On the other hand, I get the impression that some local news sources rely too much on AfriForum as a source of the news. This is evident when the article is clearly not a press release and is credited to a staff reporter, but everything or almost everything in the article is or appears to be a quote from someone at AfriForum.
 * My own conclusion is that enough sources refer to AfriForum as "white nationalist", "lobby" and "civil rights" groups to warrant the inclusion of all three terms in the lead. The source with arguably the most clout, the South African Human Rights Commission, uses the term "lobby group".
 * Here is the list:
 * # White nationalist group:  This article doesn't label AfriForum, and does not reject AfriForum's own label "civil rights organisation" outright, but implies that it doesn't quite agree with the label. The article quotes columnist Max du Preez at length, who calls AfriForum a "tiny lobby group".  This opinion piece by Sisonke Msimang calls AfriForum a "fascist organisation", and probably considers them a white nationalist group because she writes "If Afriforum wants to be a successful white nationalist organisation it needs to win support at home."  This article refers to AfriForum as a "white nationalist lobbying group".  This article refers to AfriForum as a "white nationalist group".  This opinion piece refers to AfriForum as a "lobby group", but bemoans the fact that Daily Mail neglected to mention that many other publications refer to them as a "white-nationalist organization".  The URL redirects to GayNation.co.  The article refers to AfriForum as a "white nationalist" group.
 * # Afrikaner nationalist group: The article does not itself label AfriForum, but says that another group refers to AfriForum as an "Afrikaner nationalist movement".  In this opinion piece, columnist Max du Preez says that AfriForum "parades as a civic rights organisation" and that it wants the "flame of exclusive Afrikaner nationalism ... to burn high again".
 * # White rights group: This opinion piece refers to AfriForum as a "white-rights group".  The article implies strongly that AfriForum is a white nationalist group.
 * # Lobby group: This article (which was submitted as evidence of "white nationalist") refers to AfriForum strictly as a lobby group.  This opinion piece refers to AfriForum as a "lobby group".  This article refers to AfriForum as a lobby group.  This article refers to AfriForum as a lobby group.  The SAHRC refers to AfriForum as a "civil rights" group only in connection with one case.  In the rest of the site, it refers to AfriForum as a lobby group.
 * # Civil rights group: These books do refer to AfriForum as a "civil rights" group: page 44;  chapter 13 (no page numbers);  chapter 2 (no page numbers);  page 18 and page 28;  page 251.  I checked and confirm that these articles refer to AfriForum as a "civil rights" organisation or group:             . These also refer to AfriForum as a civil rights group, but the sources are not objective:  This article was written by Gerrie Nel, who works for AfriForum.  This is a press release (SAPA), so it's probably written by AfriForum itself.  This look very much like a press release, although it doesn't say it is.  This article does refer to AfriForum as a civil rights organisation, but it may just be quoting Gerrie Nel.  This article was written by an anonymous author. --leuce (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Leuce, here you removed "lobbying group", saying "lobbying is only a small part of what they do". Pardon me for thinking that completely illogical. The rest of your summary doesn't make any sense either: "a balanced view of what AfriForum has been called by notable organisations such as SAHRC". Balanced? Was anyone saying they were not also a lobbying view? Or is it, as I suspected, that this "notable organisation" gets namedropped in the lead to lend more respectability to the club? Drmies (talk) 13:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right about namedropping the "notable" organisation, but not for the reasons you believe. I namedrop the organisation to lend credibility to the claim that they are a "lobby group" and not to lend credibility to the organisation itself.  From your previous comments, it appears to be me that you consider "lobby group" to be a rather positive label.  It took me a while to realise this.  I certainly don't consider the label "lobby group" to be in any way a positive label.  I don't write that AfriForum is a lobby group because I'm trying to do AfriForum a favour, but simply because it is true that in many rather neutral articles they are referred to as a lobby group.-- leuce (talk) 08:10, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I think you misinterpret the edit that you refer to. I did not remove "lobby group" -- you did. -- leuce (talk) 08:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I think you misinterpret the edit that you refer to. I did not remove "lobby group" -- you did. -- leuce (talk) 08:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Leaked memo text
I'm not convinced that the sources back the text:

"In March 2020, AfriForum threatened to take legal action against the government after a leaked memo read that Covid19 relief funds for small businesses would be granted to businesses that had at least 51% black ownership. The memo was dismissed by the Small Business Development minister as fake news. Several news sites, including News24 and The Citizen published articles backing the fake news claim, however shortly after they published their articles they had to issue corrections after evidence was revealed that the leaked memo was genuine and had come from within the government department in question. Weeks later, AfriForum issued papers to take the minister of tourism to court after it was revealed that race would be a determining factor in issuing Coronavirus disease relief funds to businesses within the tourism industry. "

Among other things I don't see confirmation that there was a real memo, not a draft. And "had to issue corrections"? ?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 11:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Not neutral
I don't understand the outline of this article. It is unreadable. The leads is POV, with a few press oriented remarks. The introductory summary is also not reflecting the article, mentionning facts that are not mentionned in the rest of the article. Impossible to find any good information there and impossible also to try to edit. Zeerust Boy (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 1st : Kallie Kriel statement in the leads : It's his own POV, not the Afriforum's and he's saying it was an error and a terrible time. Have you the same statement in the leads for FW de Klerk who said the same thing ? It is a POV of many Afrikaners (which former NP Minister disagreed for exemple ? R. Meyer ? L. Wessels ? late Pik Botha ?) and here, it is concerning Kriel himself. It can be in his own article but anyway not in the leads because it is not representative of the Afriforum statement (neither indeed of the rest of this article).
 * 2nd: White genocide theory in the leads : Why is it there ? Not mentionned in the rest of the article. It's a theory they don't support (see their Statements and also these press articles :  I have double checked the information that I have at my disposal and I do want to concede the point now, Afriforum did not use the phrase white genocide. In fact, from what I'm seeing now, they have gone out of their way to say the large scale of white farmers is not white genocide. Bongani Bingwa, Breakfast Show host. Read also this. At least, there is a debate (it's very easy in the press to repeat a fake news if they don't double check the information) but it has not to be in the leads.
 * 3st there is no mention in the leads concerning Afriforum's mode of action (petition, lawsuits...), its relations with other minorities (Khoisans, coloreds) or its international action (farmers in Zim). It has more to be cite there than white genocide theory or Kallie Kriel statement.
 * 4th : there is a lot to say also about readability and planning of the article. I tried to propose a new outline of the information, classified as follows: history, national, international actions, polemics but all were delated. I tried also to have the same thematics gathered in the same part (land, farm attacks, Disrupted land) but it was delated. Same for Quotas in sports actually mentionning in two separate parts of the article and delated. Zeerust Boy (talk) 09:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Please fix missing or low quality external links
Hi, can someone fix this article: broken links, not neutral pov, etc. Any edit I try to make gets reverted. Kind regards Rossouw (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It is difficult to understand what your complaint is. Regarding your last edits, one was reverted, one was not.


 * The edit that was reverted was 08:18, 2 June 2022, which gave the reason: removed duplicate source. The two sources were not duplicates; though they were badly labelled in their citation templates.  I checked both sources.  Though the original URLs are dead, the archive-links worked fine.  I corrected the page titles for each of them and provided data for the work field of the citation template.  Your edit was mistaken.  It was explained in my edit summary.


 * If there are other broken links, please tell us which ones, and we will try to find archive links so people can still access the content that was cited. -- Toddy1 (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Great, and the blatant non-NPOV? Rossouw (talk) 06:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This is easier to explain with an example. Suppose in the article on Abraham Lincoln you objected to the statement: Lincoln led the nation through the American Civil War and succeeded in preserving the Union, abolishing slavery, bolstering the federal government, and modernizing the U.S. economy.  A good way forward would be to:
 * start a section on Talk:Abraham Lincoln where you quote the statement objected to,
 * explain what it is about that statement that you regard as "blatant non-NPOV"
 * suggest how it could be fixed
 * Often with changes, you need to show (a) that sources support your change and/or (b) that the sources cited for the existing text do not really support it. Please also bear in mind that Wikipedia articles are supposed to have neutral point of view, so it is reasonable to have parts of the article the support the pro-AfriForum/Lincoln/whatever POV, and other parts that support the anti-POV.  Political issues generally have two or more sides, so readers should be told both sides (within reason). -- Toddy1 (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)