Talk:Volkstaat/Archive 2

Archived from: Talk:Volkstaat

Rationalisation of External Links
I've cut down the external links section. A few of the links were to newspaper articles, which could make useful references (though they're fairly POV as a whole), so I've moved them here. I'm trying to keep the links down to directly relevant ones. -Kieran 14:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Boere Declare Sovereignty in South Africa 7 June 2006
 * The Boundaries of Afrikaner Self-Determination
 * Telegraph: Murders foreshadow South African land war 3 July 2005
 * BBC: South Africa's bloody battle for land 4 July 2005
 * Mail&Guardian: Govt hits out at 'anti-land-reform' farmers 10 September 2005

More unsubstantiated text removed
I've removed the following passage:

''While some advocate a violent solution, specifically Die Boeremag, many of the Afrikaner community feel that the best way to safeguard their culture, heritage and people, is through self determination and obtaining minority rights peacefully. They point out that minority rights and separatism are "hot topics" in current international politics - such as the Palestinians, the Flemish in Belgium, the French-speaking people of Quebec in Canada, the Kurds in Iraq, the Tamils of Sri Lanka and the Basques in Spain.''

Until someone can find a reputable source for this, it's either unreferenced or original research. -Kieran 01:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

What this article really needs
Well, I've done some cleaning up of this article. In particular, I've started a references section, and begun including referenced facts about the history of the Volkstaat concept. It seems to have been a fairly important part of the negotiations surrounding the peaceful dismantling of apartheid, and I think this needs to be conveyed in the article, along with some facts about that process. An excellent source (not all of which I've read), is here. The book "'Volk', Faith and Fatherland", seems to be a second excellent source of information about the Volkstaat, and about right wing activities in South Africa generally. If someone feels like plowing through those sources, and finding a few more, and then incorporating some of the information therein into the article, I think that would really help. A third good piece of analysis on the subject is here, though it was written in 1997, so is somewhat dated.

Something that would also be interesting to include is some mention of parallels between the Volkstaat idea and Zulu seperatism. Some of the sources mentioned that these were two major forces in the negotiations in the early 1990's, which impacted on the final form of the current constitution.

Anyway, what I'm trying to get at is that this article is currently full of generalisation by weasel words, and really needs to move towards more specific statements of fact. For example:

"Some Afrikaners (the Freedom Front in particular) argue that the most feasible location would be the arid and undeveloped Northern Cape where Orania ... Other Afrikaners, however, wish to establish the Volkstaat around Pretoria".

OK, this mentions that the Freedom Front are the main proponents of the Northern Cape Volkstaat. But, are they the only proponents of that model? Who else supports it, besides them? Maybe no-one? What about these "other Afrikaners"? Which Afrikaners, and where is the source to back this up? I would guess that the "other Afrikaners" would be the far right wing types who frequent sites like this one, the source of the map on the page.

I think it would be better (and more in line with Wikipedia policy), if statements about "some Afrikaners", could be changed to mention specific organisations, or else specific numbers of people, with a reference to the survey in which that number was found. The same needs to happen with all the other weasel words on the page, in accordance with WP:AWW. -Kieran 02:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words
As per my above post, I've put the weasel words tag on this article. The tag should go when we've qualified all the statements like the one above. -Kieran 02:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Kierano, please supply a list of the statements with whom you are unhappy so that they may be reworded in order for the tag to be lifted. --Gemsbok1 08:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If no objections are made, by way of a list of questionable statements, by 31/08/2006, the tag will be lifted. --Gemsbok1 09:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

International legislation
I've removed the below text from the article. The reasons are: 1. It does not apply to the idea of a Volkstaat (see below for justification). 2. (The reason, in compliance with Wikipedia policy): The applicability of this legislation to the subject matter constitutes original research (as does my response to it). If you can find a reputable source that claims that this applies to the Volkstaat, please put the text back, with the reference, and who made the connection.

->Begin text

Prof C. Lloyd Brown-John of the University of Windsor, Ontario states that: "A minority who are geographically separate and who are distinct ethnically and culturally and who have been placed in a position of subordination may have a right to secede. That right, however, could only be exercised if there is a clear denial of political, linguistic, cultural and religious rights."

The United Nations General Assembly adopted resolution 47/135 on 18 December 1992, entitled the "Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities"

The salient terms of this declaration include the following:
 * States shall protect the existence and the national or ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic identity of minorities within their respective territories and shall encourage conditions for the promotion of that identity.
 * Persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities (hereinafter referred to as persons belonging to minorities) have the right to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, and to use their own language, in private and in public, freely and without interference or any form of discrimination.
 * Persons belonging to minorities have the right to establish and maintain their own associations.

->end text

Why this does not apply:

Afrikaners are neither geographically seperate from South Africa (there is no municipality in the country where the population is entirely white and Afrikaans speaking - 2001 census data), nor are they in a position of subordination, as they, like all South African citizens, are afforded equal rights under the South African Bill of Rights. Afrikaner culture is protected by the Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities in South Africa, and by the consitution.

-Kieran 21:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The text is relevant to the idea of Ethnic Separation, as it states the requirements for an application to the International Court to be successfull (could you not connect the dots?). You may of course site that Afrikaners do not meet the requirements of international legislation insofar geographic separateness goes (remember that attaining geographic separateness is exactly the goal of the Volkstaat movement, or have you missed the plot entirely?).  Afrikaners will argue that the South African Bill of Rights and commissions are only smoke screens, as in actual fact, minorities are being excluded from having free associations and to participate equally in the job market. -Gemsbok1 06:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I guess in its current form it's ok to be in there.


 * Personally I don't believe that geographic seperation of a group of Afrikaners is achievable on any scale larger than Orania (it's just not practical). Be careful also about sweeping references to Afrikaners: I think the references in the article clearly show that this is a minority view, even among Afrikaners. I think you'll also find that the article shows that Afrikaners, as a whole, are still participating more than equally in the job market, although they, along with white English-speaking South Africans, have fallen from their priveleged position under apartheid. I would like to see a concrete example where Afrikaners (or another minority) were excluded from having free associations (at least where those associations did not involve the deprivation of the rights of other South Africans). -Kieran 11:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the chances of success are highly unlikely, but who knows what might happen in the future? The articles in an encyclopedia should not try to predict the future. I also did not place any of the abovementioned arguments in the article, as it is speculation both ways. I have however personally experienced job interviews where I was denied the position due to my skin colour, but that is a story for another day. I think the article is now a good example of a well researched and largely neutral document, thanks for all the research you performed. --Gemsbok1 16:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Introduction
I have truncated the huge introduction which duplicates information contained in the body of the article. The introduction now only contains the central idea of the term "Volkstaat" for Afrikaners. - Gemsbok1 09:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Reshuffled content
I reshuffled the content to consolidate the South African government's response to the volkstaat concept at the end of the article, giving a fitting conclusion to the article. -Gemsbok1 14:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Including unpopular in introduction
It would not be a NPOV to insert an opinion about the statistical data, as different readers will interperate the findings differently. I.e. one person sees only 30% support as being unpopular, while another would quantify 30% as meaning 750 000 Afrikaners supporting the idea, which is not unpopular and is in fact more than the total populations of 68 independent countries. Refer List of countries by population.

It would be better to just present the statistics, which is neutral, and allow the readers to make their own conclusions. -Gemsbok1 10:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)