Talk:Afrikaners

Cuisine

This page needs a significant section that notes the unique cuisine of the Afrikaner including Koeksisters, Vetkoek, and various others... Dean — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deanerasmus2006 (talk • contribs) 10:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Global Presence

Neither the Netherlands nor Belgium offer working holiday opportunities to South Africans, and with the UK's immigration laws that also changed, none of the Commonwealth nations offer working holiday permits to South Africans any more.

Maybe the section on Global presence be changed to reflect this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wimc (talk • contribs) 10:36, 2008 December 23 (UTC)

Australia and New Zealand

So the census figures for Australia and New Zealand provide separate categories for those who identify as "Afrikaner", and whites who report being speakers of Afrikaans. Wikipedia should cite the figure used for self-identification, with a footnote explaining that the number of Afrikaans speakers in these countries is much higher. Afrikaans doesn't necessarily equate to Afrikaner, since it's not clear how many Afrikaans speakers overseas also identify as Afrikaner.

Let's bear in mind that - especially overseas - there may be many children who are raised with Afrikaans as a household language, if one of their parents was an Afrikaans speaker. That does not mean these people identify as Afrikaners. Also note that many white South Africans - regardless of their ethnic background - are bilingual and were raised speaking both English and Afrikaans, especially prior to 1994. Katangais (talk) 23:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Recent Edits - Bias and possibly not NPOV

Comment on some big deletes - one wonders about a slight bias - I cannot see any of this material as historically contentious - though several recent edits did appear as 'agenda edits'- just an opinion.

Regards - Dr. BeingObjective (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

For clarity's sake, we're discussing the addition of the following three sentences to the end of the lead:

As a result of this election the National Party was ousted from power, and was eventually was dissolved in 2005.

A 1999 survey of Afrikaners determined that after the 1994 election, 2.5% of Afrikaner respondents stated they were actually emigrating, 26.4% stated they would leave if they could, and a further 5.3% were considering emigrating.[1]In modern day South Africa there is still a sense of Afrikaner nationalism and a sense of strong cultural identity.

I disputed that the extra sentence about the NP's dissolution is necessary, when the previous sentence already notes it was ousted from power as a result of the 1994 elections. Thereafter it was politically irrelevant, even before it was dissolved in 2005 (and by which time its popularity among Afrikaans voters had substantially dwindled). The sentence about Afrikaner migration statistics in 1995 according to a study that is over 20 years out of date might be interesting to include the population history section, but is of limited relevance to the lead. The closing sentence about Afrikaner nationalism and cultural identity was uncited, which is why I removed it. --Katangais (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

My comments of the edits/ content under appraisal:

Dissolution of NP – not a big issue, a few words that hardly make a difference and actually round off the statement about the loss at the polls.

Survey — it was created by a political party to gauge voter sentiments, not the same as a proper well-constructed survey conducted by an organisation specialising in the field.

The statement about "sense of nationalism/ strong cultural identity" is unsourced and must go.

Also, I am concerned with the amount information being added that at first glance appears to be sourced, only to prove on closer inspection that is is not – for example, in "Since the fall of apartheid, a large number of Afrikaners have left South Africa and can be found in numerous regions around the globe. This has been termed 'The South African diaspora'. Afrikaners and Black South Africans have experienced lower migration rates when compared to English speaking citizens. Common areas settled in this migration are the United Kingdom, Australia, Portugal, and Canada.", the source attests only to the destinations of those emigrating — the racial breakdown, etc. is all WP:OR.

Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Well - we do agree on 'rounding off the thought' - sure it is one simple sentence that completes the thought - it should not require a lot of thinking and major dialog.

I assume the person who deleted that can correct it?

Lots of odd statements in the whole article IMHO. I stated I just happened to read this article and my own edits are trivial.

Did you look at the removed 'historical content' - I think it was in the history section and deleted and declared as 'original research?

I claimed this as numerous POV edits - from a long time ago - based on the number of unsupported edits about what Afrikaners 'think' and 'are'. As a truly objective reader - I always considered an Afrikaner as a 'white' Afrikaans speaking cultural group - and this gets more than a tad murky - I am not really sure what defines white in 2023 (I am a Physician) and I think there was some mumbling about genetic admixture testing - and then the whole discussion really collapses - but the premise of why this article even exists is really ONLY about national identity - who do YOU think you actually are.

This is certainly not the poorest article on WP - but when it comes to the opening set of paragraphs that brings the story to a post 1994 reality - it simply stops.

As an objective reader, in the opening it stops at 1994 -I think attempts to add anything - and the reverts with alacrity - are the contention - perhaps?

Cheers Dr. BeingObjective (talk) 16:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I reviewed the whole article just to ensure I had not missed anything.

I have a suspicion others have not.

In the introduction - I do not really see why some 'fleshing out' of what is already in the body of the article is causing intense distress:

Consider:

'An Afrikaner diaspora has developed since the end of the South African white minority government in 1994. Emigrants have settled predominantly in English-speaking countries, with their largest concentrations in Australia and New Zealand.'

'Efforts are being made by some Afrikaners to secure minority rights. Protection of minority rights is fundamental to the new 1996 post-apartheid Constitution of South Africa. These efforts include the Volkstaat movement. In contrast, a handful of Afrikaners have joined the ruling African National Congress party, which is overwhelmingly supported by South Africa's Black majority.'

Per WP:MOS - adding a few sentences at the get go - does not seem to warrant deletion with alacrity - when it is in the body of an article - IMHO as a lazy person - the review of the first four paragraphs might draw me into the article - I'd hope it was clear this was the intention - I am not sure the claims of the deleting editors is really very robust - and the poor sourcing claims are really weak - as the supporting elements in the text body are largely from similar origins - it is not a MEDMOS article -

BeingObjective (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, fleshing out information that is already noted in the body of the article is not the purpose of the lead. Brevity is a concern here as well. --Katangais (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Well yes and certainly no - again, I think the comment a distinction without any difference.

This is NOT an ad hominem matter.

What was added - was not bloating the intro - I do think you are debating on a very thin thread but keep coming back - adding five sentences is absolutely WP:MOS trivial - but your adamancy supports the contention of clear bias or total inability to compromise.

This is rather obvious - you repeat and repeat - but offer only the same povs - it is your opinion that - so it must be - you state this over and over - and it is absolutely not a WP:MOS topic, this is your own 'goto' to try to support your thinking.

I think any reader can surely see this.

Leave it as is - I am not debating the totally obvious with you. This is simple but if you just want to be correct - I am happy to make you happy - it was a trivial silly dialog.

BeingObjective (talk) 19:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Keeping the article NPOV

This language is compliant with WP:MOS and in reality - numerous deletes and lengthy debates about the few sentences added - seems rather POV - this version completed the 'thought' left half expressed in the last paragraph version - it seems reasonable, it should not be contentious and above all it is accurate and cited.

Reg. Dr. BeingObjective (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

In the twentieth century, Afrikaner nationalism took the form of political parties and closed societies, such as the Broederbond. In 1914, the National Party was founded to promote Afrikaner interests. It gained power by winning South Africa's 1948 general elections. The party was noted for implementing a harsh policy of racial segregation (apartheid) and declaring South Africa a republic in 1961. Following decades of domestic unrest and international sanctions that resulted in bilateral and multi-party negotiations to end apartheid, South Africa held its first multiracial elections under a universal franchise in 1994. As a result of this election the National Party was ousted from power, and was eventually was dissolved in 2005. BeingObjective (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Measures taken by Afrikaners to creata a bond with black population in south Africa 197.250.50.46 (talk) 08:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

What "measures"? I'm not sure what you are trying to say or ask. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

History

Measures taken by Afrikaners to creata a bond with black population in south Africa 197.250.50.46 (talk) 08:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)