Talk:Orania

The myth that Orania is a "whites only" enclave

The introductory paragraph states the following: "Orania is unique in that population is entirely white and Afrikaans-speaking"

This statement is not supported by the census data of the 2011 census quoted to provide the total population numbers and racial makeup of the town. Refer to http://census2011.adrianfrith.com/place/374003

I could not find a reference in Orania's own literature indicating that only white people are allowed in the town. The only references available describing Orania as white-only are media articles.

It seems like Orania is made up of people who self-identify as Afrikaners, irrespective of their race or home language as indicated by the census data noted above and Orania's own literature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.159.131.34 (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems like there is an interview process, so self-identification isn't sufficient. 196.210.239.154 (talk) 05:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

So it it your contention that the Afrikaners are not a homogeneous group of white persons? How would an Ethiopian become an Afrikaner? (PeacePeace (talk) 01:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC))

Back to the question of is Orania "whites only". There's two issues: Firstly, can non-white persons visit Orania? The answer is clearly yes. It is well documented Orania has received some very famous black visitors, including Nelson Mandela, Jacob Zuma, and Julius Malema. It's also received regular, non-famous visitors of color: for example, this article mentions several Black delegates at a Libertarian conference held at Orania. I've read accounts of neighboring coloured and black residents shopping at Orania.

The other question is, can a non-White person become a permanent resident of Orania? There are plenty of sources that claim Orania is "whites only" although this is not expressed in any official website or communication from Orania. There are also some references to handful of non-Afrikaner people residing in Orania, for example here.

I would conclude that people of all races can and do visit Orania, and that although thus far only white people have taken up residence there, there is no official prohibition on non whites from residing in Orania. SONORAMA (talk) 22:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

OR. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, they can't do that because it's illegal. But i would assume it's pretty fucking obvious they don't really like non-whites.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.15.96.125 (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Orania is not a "whites only" town:

a) Orania is an Afrikaner town, not a white town. For example, "whites" from Sweden, England, America etc cannot move to Orania. There is no campaign to encourage European immigration to Orania, which there would be if they were a whites-only town.

b) The SA government's own census figures show that 1.9% of the population is of coloured ancestry. If Orania was whites-only, there would not be any other groups.

c) Afrikaners are not "white". DNA analysis shows that their genome has Asian and African heritage. Thus the one-drop rule excludes them from being regarded as white.

d) Afrikaners literally translate as "people from Africa". I feel that is important to respect people's self-identification and their lived reality. People in Orania identify as Afrikaners, not as so-called "whites" as the media like to label them.

e) The meaning and acceptability of words change over time. What was normal and acceptable in the past may be highly offensive in the future. For example, we dont call African Americans the n-word anymore, Indians coolies, natives Red Indians, or use the Arab word for unbelievers to describe African people. People rightly get upset when we use these labels today. The word "white" is on the same trendline. Is has become a loaded word, an insult and even a racist slur.

f) Afrikaners in South Africa are a vulnerable minority at only 5% of the population. They are often targeted by hate speech , songs calling for their murder, torture and murder. So, I feel that Wikipedia must be responsible and not inflame racial hatred against a vulnerable minority in South Africa. A country where more than 500 000 people have been murdered since 1994. User:johnmars3 05:17, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, the sources overwhelmingly describe it as whites-only, and we have to follow what they say. If you feel that this is in dispute, you have to high-quality secondary sources (not just statements by the town's leaders) making that controversy clear. Right now I am not seeing it. --Aquillion (talk) 05:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• So, what you are saying is the Government of South Africa (Stats SA) is not a reliable source? That DNA analysis by the University of Pretoria is not a reliable source? But, that some journalist from Huffington Post is a reliable source? Okay, I understand. User:johnmars3

• The current sources for whites-only are the Guardian, ABC News, and the BBC, which are all high-quality sources. It's easy enough to find more, such as [1][2] - I can dig up many more, if you'll be convinced by them? More importantly, though, you're not actually presenting sources that dispute that - saying "well I personally think Afrikaners aren't white" or even "these sources say Afrikaners aren't white" doesn't matter. You need sources disputing the idea that Orania, specifically, is whites-only in order to treat it as controversial; or you need to show that sources describing it as whites-only (or words to that effect) are in the extreme minority. I don't think either is actually true; sources overwhelmingly describe it as whites-only and emphasize that aspect as the topic's main point of notability. --Aquillion (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Again.

- The South African government census shows that non-whites live in Orania. You CANNOT say that it is a "whites-only" community if non-whites live there according to the GOVERNMENT. Full stop.

- The Guardian has a leftwing bias and IS not a neutral source. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/ Johnmars3 (talk) 13:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@Johnmars3: Please provide links to the relevant page(s) of the South African government census, so we can see this.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Census 2011

https://census2011.adrianfrith.com/place/374003 Johnmars3 (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

That is brilliant - and here is the equivalent page on the official South African census http://www.statssa.gov.za/?page_id=4286&id=6964 At the time of the 2011 census, Oriana had a population of 892.

• 0.9% Black African
• 1.9% Coloured
• 0.0% Indian/Asian
• 97.2% White
• 0.0% Other

Of languages, 98.4% have Afrikaans as their mother tongue, and 1.6% have English.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Using statistics to argue against what reliable sources say is WP:OR; and, I mean, if you object to the Guardian, I've provided a huge pile of other high-quality sources that characterize Orania as whites-only in a way that makes it clear that that is its central point of notability. If you disagree with their characterization you should contact them requesting that they issue a correction; but Wikipedia isn't the place to try and set the record straight or otherwise WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS - we follow what the top-quality sources say. And they overwhelmingly looked at those figures and nonetheless determined that Orania is, roughly speaking, best described as a whites-only settlement - and that that goal and characterization is central enough to its notability that is often the primary descriptor in high-quality academic sources. --Aquillion (talk) 04:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

References

An Afrikaner city or a white ethnostate known as a Volkstaat

an Afrikaner city	a white ethnostate known as a Volkstaat
The stated aim of the town is to create a stronghold for the Afrikaner minority group, the Afrikaans language and the Afrikaner culture through the creation of an Afrikaner city.	The stated aim of the town is to create a stronghold for the Afrikaner minority group, the Afrikaans language and the Afrikaner culture through the creation of a white ethnostate known as a Volkstaat.

References

There is a disagreement over the wording of a sentence (above). According to @Johnmars3: Orania has abandoned the volkstaat idea and is no focusing of growing an Afrikaner city with economies of scale.See "evolution of concept" in Wikipedia article below, as well as links provided.^[3] @Desertambition: has re-added information about Volkstaat^[4]

Of the sources:

1. Requires registration. I have not checked it.
2. Says Die Orania Beweging is die idee organisasie wat die daarstel van Orania as Afrikanertuiste beplan en gefundeer het. Die Beweging se strategie is uiteraard 'n politieke strategie wat sedert 1998 die daarstelling van 'n volhoubare Afrikanertuiste ten doel het. As 'n idee organisasie, is dit die idee van Afrikanervryheid, wat toenemend tasbaar word soos die vestiging van meer Afrikaners in die geografiese gebied verwerklik. [The Orania Movement is the idea organization that planned and founded the establishment of Orania as an Afrikaner home. The movement's strategy is, of course, a political strategy that has been aimed at establishing a sustainable Afrikaner home since 1998. As an idea organisation, it is the idea of ​​Afrikaner freedom, which becomes increasingly tangible as the settlement of more Afrikaners in the geographical area is realised.]
3. Uses "volkstaat", "Afrikaner enclave", and "another whites-only Afrikaner separatist enclave". It says "Natal is for the Zulus, the Eastern Cape, Transkei and Ciskei are for the Xhosas," Carel Boshoff patiently explains at the documentary’s beginning. "Afrikaners also need to identify and concentrate themselves somewhere."

It would be a more accurate summation of the sources if it said "white Afrikaner ethnostate known as a volkstaat". Claiming that it is a city is absurd.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Orania is clearly trying to create a white ethnostate known as a Volkstaat. White nationalists changing their messaging to downplay the white nationalism should not dictate what Wikipedia says. I am content with the compromise you have suggested: "white Afrikaner ethnostate known as a volkstaat". The link should be white Afrikaner ethnostate so that it links to white ethnostate. @Toddy1: Desertambition (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Please change it to that.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• We should not cite Orania's own website (orania.co.za) in the lead anyway, especially not for something potentially self-serving. We have better sources about its purpose in the body. --Aquillion (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Accord on Afrikaner self-determination

The legality of Orania is always questioned. Therefor it is important that the legal framework from the Accord on Afrikaner self-determination and Article 235 of the South African constitution be mentioned. Please stop deleting it.Johnmars3 (talk) 13:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Johnmars3: I have moved your comments to the appropriate page.

Reliable sources are used to show how important something is. Please cite a reliable source which directly explains that this is import. Do not use primary sources which don't mention Orania, as this would be original research. Wikipedia articles should not contain any original research. This article is not the place to make new legal arguments, it is a place to summarize reliable sources about existing arguments. Grayfell (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I am not making an argument, doing original research or stating my interpretation/opinion. It is a well known fact that the FF+ got the ANC and NP to sign the interim accord which led to article 235 of the South African constitution. Article 235 g/tees the right of cultural groups to create their own independent areas. It is fundamental to the existence of Orania. I have linked the original signed interim accord from the SA government website. I have linked the constitution from the SA government website showing article 235, and I have linked the Accord on Afrikaner self-determination Wikipedia article. There ARE NO RELIABLE SOURCES in English about this. I can link Youtube discussions in Afrikaans, but what would be the point? Johnmars3 (talk) 03:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I am trying to explain to you that you are doing original research. I appreciate that your intentions are good, but your edits are what matters, and your additions are a form of original research as Wikipedia uses the term. Even with sources, drawing a line from fact A to claim B is WP:SYNTH, which is a form of OR. In this case A is the WP:PRIMARY documents which do not mention Orania, and B is the claim that this is "fundamental to the existence of Orania". This is your own interpretation of the sources. It may be an accurate interpretation, but it's still original research unless you can cite a reliable source which also supports this position.

If reliable sources explain this connection, cite them. Those sources do not have to be in English and can be in any language at all, but they do have to be reliable. Youtube discussions are unlikely to meet WP:RS. Also consider that the lack of English sources might mean this isn't as much of a "well-known fact" as you believe it to be. Grayfell (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Bavaria Bier.jpg
• Building Orania.jpg
• FF+ Conference.jpg
• Fence less.jpg
• Industrial Park.jpg
• Malema Orania.jpg
• Orania Apartments.jpg
• Orania students.jpg
• Orania.jpg
• Pecan Nuts.jpg
• Securiteit.jpg
• Small giant statue in Orania.jpg
• Street festival.jpg
• Water works ditch.jpg
• Zuma Orania 2010.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Article Presents Fringe Theories as Mainstream

The mainstream view is that Orania is white supremacist and racist in nature. Doesn't matter what they "officially" say. Article will be tagged as misleading and presenting fringe theories as mainstream.

https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2013-05-16-orania-the-place-where-time-stood-still/

"The Orania residents’ insistence that it is language that provides their motivation for segregation, rather than race, is thus deeply disingenuous – however much they may use circumlocutions like “foreigners” to avoid mentioning colour. The lie is exposed by the fact that when Christo’s father’s transport company fails to take off, he tells the camera that he believes he is being boycotted because he has publically stated that he will transport “others of foreign nations”."

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/oct/24/an-indictment-of-south-africa-whites-only-town-orania-is-booming

"Oranians claim the town is a cultural project, not a racial one. Only Afrikaners are allowed to live and work there to preserve Afrikaner culture, the argument goes.

The reality, however, is a disquieting and entirely white town, littered with old apartheid flags and monuments to the architects of segregation. While there are no rules preventing black people from visiting, those who live nearby fear they would be met with violence." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desertambition (talk • contribs) 12:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I will make some minor changes in the intro but this article needs a massive amount of revision. Desertambition (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Your edits are highly problematic as they are not factual. Orania is not a whites-only town, it is an Afrikaner town. To call the town racist is nonsense, non-Afrikaners from Europe/Asia/Africa are not welcome, unless they are committed to Afrikaner culture/religion/language. The Daily Maverick is a small hyper-liberal outfit in South Africa and does not represent the mainstream. Comment added by Johnmars3 — Preceding undated comment added 10:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment I would like to point out that these allegation of "anti-white" racism are absurd and highlight exactly why this article needs extensive revision. Desertambition (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Johnmars3 has expressed valid concerns, particularly about The Daily Maverick.

Nevertheless Afrikaners can be regarded as a race, just like Jews. Both groups have a lot in common, including large numbers of deaths in concentration camps as part of their history. It is perfectly reasonable to regard an Afrikaner-only town as racist.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

"Anti-white racism" is not a valid concern, especially on an article about a white nationalist town. Accusing people of being anti-white racists is not productive. I also find the comparison between jews and Afrikaners to be an inaccurate and potentially highly misleading comparison. We should not forget that "Anti-Racist Is a Code for Anti-White" is a racist slogan. Potential WP:NORACISTS issue. Desertambition (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

That the town is an Afrikaner-only town is supported by the three sources cited:

• Webster, Dennis (24 October 2019). "'An indictment of South Africa': whites-only town Orania is booming". The Guardian. Retrieved 2022-01-08. says it was set-up as an Afrikaner-only hamlet
• Davis, Rebecca (15 May 2013). "Orania: The place where time stood still". Daily Maverick. Retrieved 2022-01-08. refers to The Northern Cape Afrikaner enclave of Orania and The town’s stated raison d’etre is the preservation of Afrikaans culture and language, and comments made by the residents on film reveal that many still consider themselves to be in a state of siege in this regard.
• "'Whites-only' money for SA town". BBC News. 29 April 2004. Archived from the original on 8 January 2015. Retrieved 12 April 2015. Orania is a small town in the northern Cape populated by white Afrikaners

-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

All three of those articles mention the fact that it is a whites only town. The wiki article already mentions the fact that residents reject a "white" identity and embrace Afrikaner alone. The reason this town has received so much coverage is because it is a whites only town. That is the focus of most of the articles. "Afrikaner only" is not how reliable English media describes it, it is how they describe themselves. "Whites only" is frequently used and allows for a more clear understanding of the town and the controversy around it. Desertambition (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Those sources all say "whites-only", and they generally say that more prominently than they do Afrikaner. We could possibly include both in different parts of the article, but the fact that some sources also describe it as Afrikaner-only doesn't really seem to justify omitting the fact that it is whites-only. Furthermore, reading the sources, I'm not seeing anything that supports the implications you are making by stating that it is Afrikaner-only, ie. nothing supports the idea that they are attempting to discourage non-Afrikaner whites from moving there, while the sources go into detail on how it is effectively whites-only. More to the point, the fact that it is effectively whites-only is more notable, as can be seen from the attention sources devote to it - it is what attracts attention to the topic and therefore needs to be mentioned in the first sentence. --Aquillion (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I've only looked at one source, The Guardian, but it says Buyers undergo extensive vetting, central to which is their fidelity to Afrikaans language and culture, a commitment to employing only white Afrikaners, and a string of conservative Christian undertakings. "white Afrikaners only" would seem like the most appropriate choice based on that, and likely a compromise that should stop the edit warring. BilledMammal (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

An editor added Over 500,000 people have been murdered in South Africa since 1994 businesstech.co.za (15 July 2019) as a citation. But I cannot see any specific mention of Orania, so I do not see its relevance. So I have removed the citation.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I added Over 500,000 people have been murdered in South Africa since 1994. Most people who move to Orania cite crime as a major reason for their move. I feel that for context we should point to the crime problem in South Africa. For example, just in the year 2019/2020 there have been 1.2 million incidences of housebreaking in South Africa, a rape every 4 minutes etc. User:Johnmars3 (talk) contribs) 11:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

References

@Johnmars3: You have a good point. But there is a policy WP:SYNTHESIS, which forbids our combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. This may seem a little unfair. But if we did not have such a policy there would be much bigger unfairnesses.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Above: Orania is not a whites-only town, it is an Afrikaner town. To call the town racist is nonsense, non-Afrikaners from Europe/Asia/Africa are not welcome, unless they are committed to Afrikaner culture/religion/language. The Daily Maverick is a small hyper-liberal outfit in South Africa and does not represent the mainstream. Well well. I confess that I'm unfamiliar with either The Daily Maverick or the notion of "hyper-liberalism"; but if The Daily Maverick somehow fails to cut the mustard, then how about some of these:

• "Inside South Africa's whites-only town of Orania": Title of BBC story, 2014
• "Inside the all-white 'Apartheid town' of Orania, South Africa": Title of ABC story, 2019
• "‘Orania will go’: MEC Lesufi calls time on whites-only town": Title of The South African story, 2021
• "Orania: the land where apartheid lives on": Title of Telegraph story, 2013
• "Orania ist – mitten im Herzen Südafrikas – eine weiße Stadt", in "Die Buren werden vom Unterdrücker zum Unterdrückten", Der Tagesspiegel, 2015
• "Ein Dorf nur für Weisse": Title of Tages Anzeiger story, 2019
• "Das weiße Dorf in der Regenbogen-Nation": Title of Die Zeit story, 2013
• "Afrique du Sud : un village réservé aux blancs": Title of Franceinfo story, 2018
• "Afrique du Sud: une petite enclave blanche va lancer son bitcoin": Title of AFP story at Le Point, 2017
• "Afrique du Sud : la vie en blanc existe encore à Orania": Title of Jeune Afrique story, 2015

(And FYI, even

• "Welcome to Orania... as long as you're white: Remote town in South Africa where Afrikaners dream of building their own state": Title of Daily Mail story, 2013

though this source is unusable.) How is it, exactly, that the mainstream opinion is judged not to be that Orania is a "white town", or a "whites-only town"? -- Hoary (talk) 09:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary: Hitler did not merely want an all-white Germany. He wanted one for so-called "Aryans" only – with no Jews and Slavs (who are just as white as the people Hitler favoured). The people who run Orania do not merely want an all-white town. They want one for Afrikaners only. They do not want white people who are not Afrikaners.

By the way, there is nothing new about this kind of discrimination. They practised it in the 1880s and 90s in the Boer republics, and it led to the Jameson Raid and the Second Boer War.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

If you look at more than just the headlines, you will see that sources you mention support this:

• It is an Afrikaner-only town, where only Afrikaans is spoken, because of fears about "diluting culture". BBC News Inside South Africa's whites-only town of Orania by Pumza Fihlani (6 October 2014)
• ...the town was created during the last years of apartheid, where it was meant to be a safe haven for Afrikaners. They are the ethnic group descended from the Europeans who colonized South Africa. They speak their own language, Afrikaans. ABC News Inside the all-white 'Apartheid town' of Orania, South Africa by Candace Smith and Byron Pitts (12 April 2019)

-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Toddy1, I don't dispute that "The people who run Orania do not merely want an all-white town." Numerous sources say that the people who run Orania want an all-white town. Do you agree? -- Hoary (talk) 10:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Since all Afrikaners are white, it is a bit superfluous. But since not everyone seems to understand this, I have changed the first sentence to is an all-white Afrikaner only town. But the Afrikaner only is the important bit.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Putting aside the matter of which is more important, "all-white" or "Afrikaner only", thank you for having the first sentence read "Orania (Afrikaans pronunciation: [ʊəˈrɑːnia]) is an all-white Afrikaner only town in South Africa" (with three references). -- Hoary (talk) 12:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I have edited the first paragraph saying that Orania is a "white" Afrikaner town. Afrikaners are not white. They have been living in Africa for >300 years and have significant non-white DNA . johnmars3 06:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Ethnic_groups_in_South_Africa#White_South_Africans describes Afrikaners as white. The articles listed above also overwhelmingly describe them as white, and Orania as all-white. We say what reliable sources say. What would you describe them as if not white? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I feel that is important to respect people's self-identification and their lived reality. People in Orania identify as Afrikaners, not as so-called "whites" as the media like to label them. Here is their past President's explanation . Also, DNA analysis supports their claim with significant African and Asian DNA in their genomes. johnmars3 — Preceding undated comment added 15:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• Nonetheless, the sources overwhelmingly describe the town as whites-only and treat that as its most notable aspect, so we must cover that description prominently. It is possible for people to have multiple identities, so we can say that they are both Afrikaner and white, but if you want to argue that they are not white or that there is serious dispute over the town being whites-only, you must present sources to dispute the massive number of sources describing it as whites-only above. So far I'm not seeing it - even most of the sources you've presented use both terms and make it clear that the settlement is also whites-only. --Aquillion (talk) 05:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I strongly object to the change from a white Afrikaner-only town in South Africa to is a white nationalist settlement in South Africa. This was discussed above and in edit summaries and was the result of WP:CONSENSUS. The cited sources support this. For example, The Guardian: Buyers undergo extensive vetting, central to which is their fidelity to Afrikaans language and culture, a commitment to employing only white Afrikaners, and a string of conservative Christian undertakings.^[5] The BBC says Orania is a small town in the northern Cape populated by white Afrikaners.^[6] ABC News says: ...the town was created during the last years of apartheid, where it was meant to be a safe haven for Afrikaners. They are the ethnic group descended from the Europeans who colonized South Africa. They speak their own language, Afrikaans.^[7] None of the three sources cited explicitly call it "white nationalist". (Is it racist to describe Afrikaner nationalism [or Ukrainian nationalism] as "white nationalist"?)-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Aquillion: I see that you have changed a white Afrikaner-only town to an Afrikaner whites-only town giving the edit summary the sources overwhelmingly emphasize the restriction by race more than the Afrikaner restriction, so we ought to order it like this. Please quote from sources for this. I know the headlines overwhelmingly emphasise the "whites-only", but headlines are not a reliable source WP:HEADLINES. Non-Afrikaners are not welcome in Orania. -- Toddy1 (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I've added the quotes, plus two additional academic sources. I can add more if necessary but it seems silly at this point, especially since even the existing sources easily showed the necessary quotes at a glance - can we consider it settled that whites-only is a nearly-universal descriptor and is the core of the topic's notability, and will remain in the lead going forwards? --Aquillion (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted to the consensus form; both "Afrikaner only" and "Whites only" are accurate, with the first being a more precise form of the second (similar to how Nur für Deutsche could be described as "Whites only", but is more accurately described as "Germans only"), but the grammatically correct way to present them is as "white Afrikaner only", similar to Black British, White Brazilians, and White Mexicans. BilledMammal (talk) 07:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Eviction, black/coloured

I have edited the 2nd paragraph saying that "black residents were evicted" as it is factually incorrect. a) It was not black people, but people part of South Africa's coloured community b) They were not "evicted" by the Boshoff gang, but by The Dept. of Water Affairs after they build replacement homes for them johnmars306:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Johnmars3 Hmmm, perhaps this is just an American thing, but in American parlance "black" and "coloured" are synonymous. Also, I agree that the Department of Water affairs was the ones who evicted them and then moved them over 100km away. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is just an American-English thing, rather like the offensive notion that black people are "African Americans" (even though most black people in the USA are just as much Americans as white Americans).

During better times, Cape Colony and Natal were part of the British Empire, and this opened up opportunities for migration to Cape Colony and Natal from India. The descendants of Indian migrants are generally called "coloured". During the Second Boer War, coloured South Africans wanted to fight for Queen and country, but the stupid racist British were not very keen. -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

There are lots of other groups who are also categorised as coloured, but I do not know much about them.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

References

@CaptainEek:"Coloured" people in South Africa refers to the mixed descendants of Khoi, Malay, Bantu and Europeans. In the South African context "black" refers to the Bantu settlers from West Africa, tribes like the Zulu, Xhosa, Sotho, Tswana and Swazi. johnmars3 14:47, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

POV tag: article is extremely misleading

Orania is a white nationalist settlement whose main goal is to create a white ethnostate known as a Volkstaat. Orania is looked at as a model for white nationalists around the globe. Extremely strange and problematic that this article does not make those things clear. This needs to be mentioned in the MOS:LEAD and 85% of this article is written like an advertisement for this explicitly white nationalist settlement. This article needs much more focus on the overt racism and discrimination that this town, by their own admission, exists to perpetuate. Desertambition (talk) 01:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

If you're here looking to fix articles that have inaccuracies or omissions, then you've failed to make valid points. Judging by your user page you have a clear bias, constantly crying about racism and the like, visibly it must hurt your feelings that white South Africans are making an attempt to live in their own communities, free from the dangerous racism they face constantly in other parts of the country. Why not focus on your overt anti-white racism? Guess anyone who disagrees with you is Far-Right? Wanting to purge the site of Confederate flags is also ridiculous. Calling farm murders a "dogwhistle" clearly shows you're not anywhere close to neutral. Wikipedia already has a far enough left-wing bias, why make it worse? Look up the articles for white pride and black pride, and one is purely negative while the other is purely positive. This article already mentions the Volkstaat, and why shouldn't whites have a right to self-determination? GoldenTemple2002 (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@GoldenTemple2002 Wikipedia observes a policy of civility. Focus on the content, not the contributor. Do you have a constructive and explicit suggestion on how to improve this article? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@CaptainEek How can we assume good faith when this user openly advocates for white nationalism and peddles white genocide conspiracy theories? Openly advocating for racist ideas should come with bans. Seems to be an obvious violation of the Universal Code of Conduct and many other Wikipedia guidelines. WP:NOTHERE and WP:NORACISTS are just two of many applicable policies. Desertambition (talk) 01:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Desertambition Since I have become involved in the issue I can no longer take administrative actions, like banning folks. I'm unsure if GoldenTemple will even edit again, but if they do, and they're still POV-pushing, I'll ask for a block. In the meantime, sometimes it easier to ignore certain obvious troublemakers than to engage. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I've read through it and cannot find anything that would render this article biased or unable to be considered neutral in any way. Best to leave it as it is, but people with political agendas will rush to demonise and slander the people living here. Is Wikipedia meant to be an encyclopedia based on objective truth, or a politically charged site designed to mislead? Sadly it is becoming the latter. GoldenTemple2002 (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Wrongly placed advert tag placed on the article

Just because Oriana is a small place populated by racist bigots who are prejudiced against people like me does not mean that the article has to be crap. Nor is it desirable to remove good information from the article to express our disapproval of the racists bigots who live there. An advert has been wrongly placed on the article. The reasons given Discussed on the talk page. Article is extremely long and full of unnecessary details. I cannot see that any of the "reasons" for the tag are true.

• The only place on the talk page that mentions "advert" is a post dated February 2022. So I have placed this post under the same heading.
• I do not think that the article is all that long. It is certainly not excessively long.
• As for unnecessary details - it is a pity that Wikipedia cannot have such a level of well-sourced details for every town or village that size.

So I am going to remove the tag-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed on the talk page. The article gives excessive WP:UNDUE weight to details not covered by reliable sources. The most notable aspects of the town are the racist bigotry, not the fact that they made a telegram account or their unique category of "Afrikanerdom" which editors are still steadfastly protecting without offering any coherent reason why it's anything but white nationalist nonsense. Desertambition (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Racism by Boers against non-Boers has been going on for a long time. What you call "white nationalist nonsense" is what it is all about, and what it has always been about. Things like the Jameson Raid mean nothing to you, because Jameson and his men were white, and you do not seem to understand that racist Boers are prejudiced against all non-Boers whatever their skin colour.
I have no idea what proportion of Boers are racist; some are, some are not. -- Toddy1 (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

This comment has nothing to do with my comment so I am confused. There is no need to mention their telegram channel or have a special category called "Afrikanerdom". Didn't talk about boers at all. Desertambition (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think any editor is objecting to renaming "Afrikanerdom"; I would suggest WP:BOLDly implementing your preferred section title. Editors may object to your choice (I don't believe you have proposed one here) but if they do we can then discuss. BilledMammal (talk) 05:05, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Split a paragraph to make reading easier

@Johnmars3: In this edit you split a paragraph "to make reading easier". But the edit also had the effect of leaving The current iteration of Orania is a result of Apartheid era ideas that an ethnic Volkstaat should be established for the Dutch-descended Afrikaners. Orania was originally established in 1963 to hold workers building a nearby irrigation canal, and abandoned in 1989. The next year, a group of Afrikaner families led by Carel Boshoff purchased the town, and the coloured squatters were evicted by The Department of Water Affairs. divorced from what I assume was the citation for it :(

I had assumed that the text was supported by the following citation: "Van dorp tot Afrikanerstad" [From village to Afrikaner town]. Netwerk24. 15 September 2015. Is this correct? I do not have access to the URL, so I cannot check. It is vital that content is supported by citations.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The current iteration of Orania is a result of Apartheid era ideas that an ethnic Volkstaat should be established for the Dutch-descended Afrikaners. Orania was originally established in 1963 to hold workers building a nearby irrigation canal, and abandoned in 1989. The next year, a group of Afrikaner families led by Carel Boshoff purchased the town, and the coloured squatters were evicted by The Department of Water Affairs. I don't know who put this paragraph in, I just edited it a little bit. It seems to be a summary of info further down in the article and is unreferenced. The existing citation refers to the residents' plan to grow Orania from a town to a city. I have also copied a reference below into the paragraph. Trust you will find it so in order. johnmars3

"Squatters" is a charged POV term, and my reading of the source (a contemporary newspaper article) made "residents" make more sense. The Department of Water affairs may well have declared them to be squatters so they could be evicted, but it had also let them live there for the past 30 years, so at that point they were clearly long term residents. Since they were evicted as part of apartheid, I further think "squatter" is an inaccurate term chosen by the Apartheid government, which is hardly neutral. Also, I don't think splitting the paragraphs in the lead made reading easier. It is standard to have 3-5 medium length paragraphs in a lead. Very rarely are there single sentences. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I do not know enough about South African history to assess the meaning of the term "squatters".

In Kenyan colonial history the term "squatter" was a misleading term to describe a tenant on a "squatter contract". Such tenants rented land for agriculture, and paid for this land by providing labour on the landowner's farm. None of this has any relationship to the normal English-language meaning of the term squatter. I suspect that the name was chosen to be deliberately misleading. I do not know if South Africa had "squatter contracts".-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Johnmars3: I had a look at https://saldru.lib.msu.edu/dvd1/Agriculture%20%20General%201991.pdf. It is a 516 page pdf file containing scans of of perhaps 500 different articles. Please can you provide details of which articles you are citing. It would be really great if you could complete {{cite news}} templates for them.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Toddy1: Page 9: "Making way for Orania's boere" johnmars3

• I've reverted these changes for now; I don't think it improved readability, and I'm extremely concerned about the additions of stuff like "squatters" that potentially introduces POV language while not necessarily reflecting the sources. The old version seems fine to me - if you think there are specific issues, please identify them. Also, be careful about changing "white" to "Afrikaans" and omitting "white" in general - the sources overwhelmingly say and emphasize "white", so we can't really remove it or replace it blindly, especially given that the words don't mean the same thing. --Aquillion (talk) 05:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Please be careful with words:

• "Afrikaans" is a language. It is the language of the Afrikaner people (we used to call them Boers), but lots of coloured and to a lesser extent black people speak Afrikaans as their first language.
• "Afrikaner" is an ethnic group. Whatever their genetics, they look white.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:56, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Factuality of statement that black neighbours fear for their lives

Do these black people in Orania look terrified?

- https://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/warm-welcome-for-eff-members-voting-in-orania-22886005

- https://www.enca.com/sites/default/files/2019-04/eNCA%20Election%20Bus%20in%20Orania.jpeg

- https://bucket.mg.co.za/thoughtleader/65e1c004-img_3409-scaled.jpg

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx-irg7MxaQ

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0jfW4UhIQE

- https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/b0908fe91bc6cba3995b37fafc5a5229e5841796/0_181_3543_2126/master/3543.jpg?width=620&quality=45&auto=format&fit=max&dpr=2&s=825b8c9e23de1597c19743eb462550fc

Johnmars3 (talk) 01:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I do not know whether it is factual. I checked the two citations for the statement. One did not mention it, and was a citation for something else that was the wrong place. The other citation did support it. I have changed the statement to a quotation with the correct citation next to it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Johnmars3: You put in your edit summary that Black people visit on a daily basis and shop at OK and the local petrol station. The town is not entirely white, government census shows that almost 2% of residents are coloureds. A useful thing to do would be to put in a statement saying this backed by citations to reliable sources that explicitly support the statement. The best place for it would immediately after the quotation from the Guardian. It is consistent with WP:NPOV to give both views, provided that both can be supported by appropriate citations.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The article needs to be massively revised

Some stuff like "Afrikanerdom" is obvious white nationalist nonsense that does not deserve its own category. I have started making changes. If there is something I removed that should be part of the article, please explain why it's notable and should be included. We do not need to have stuff like listing every single specialist in town or mentioning the fact that they made a telegram channel (???). Desertambition (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Really, you do not know what you are doing. -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I do not need to explain why your statement is not helpful. Wikipedia is not a WP:BROCHURE and coverage is almost exclusively focused on the overt white nationalism, not all the superfluous information that was included in the article. Wikipedia does not give WP:UNDUE weight to points of view not supported by reliable secondary sources. A lot of these sources are from Orania itself. If you have a specific issue with what was removed, then you are free to explain why. Desertambition (talk) 19:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• A few parts might be salvageable, but yeah, that section isn't as well-cited as it looked at first, and a lot of the sources feel like they were misused (in particular few of them talk about "Afrikanerdom" as a concept, which makes it dubious as a section header.) Going over the sources and how they're used:

• Burgt's "The Afrikaner Quest for Community. A study on Communitarianism in Orania", which we cite repeatedly, is a masters' thesis; per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, masters' theses are not usually reliable sources, so that source should be removed and we should find new sources for anything cited to it or remove them if we can't.
• Haleniuk's "Orania – the embryo of a new Volkstaat?", another source we cite everywhere, does not appear to have been published at all. We need to figure out where and how it was published, and if the answer is that it wasn't or that it's just from a student periodical then it needs to go as well.
• Pienaar's "Die aanloop tot en stigting van Orania as groeipunt vir 'n Afrikaner-volkstaa" is (yep!) also a Master's thesis. Again, it needs to be replaced unless we can find evidence that it has been influential.
• I don't even know what to make of Versluis, Jeanne-Marié (15 April 2000). "Dorp sal 10 000 mense kan huisves". Volksblad (in Afrikaans).; it appears to not even have a stable web address, just an IP address? In any case it doesn't look like an WP:RS to me, and given that I cannot find any indication that the article actually exists outside of this IP address it is probably undue anyway. Several other sources have the same problem (eg. Malan, Marlene (22 April 2013). "Olé, olé, olé, Orania!" (in Afrikaans). Rapport.) - we need some indication that these were actually published in an RS and not just on a random IP address.
• Naudé-Moseley, Brent; Moseley, Steve (2008). Getaway Guide to Karoo, Namaqualand & Kalahari. Sunbird. ISBN 978-1-919938-58-5. is a tourist guide that only mentions Orania in passing; I think it's plainly undue to use it the way we are here.
• Obviously we should avoid citing Orania itself for anything potentially-promotional.
• Several other sources are reliable but are being used in a weird way. Citing passing mentions of stuff that exists to eg. "Orania: the land where apartheid lives on" is plainly not accurately reflecting the source.

My feeling is that we should start by pulling out these sources (and anything cited purely to them that we can't find a better source for), as well as any similarly low-quality or unusable sources - I didn't examine every single source. The section should also be retitled to something more neutral (I would suggest just making "culture" the main title.) Then we can see what is left and if it's worth salvaging or if it should be broken apart into demographics and the existing economy / administration sections. --Aquillion (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

We should change the first sentence to say white nationalist settlement instead of white Afrikaner only. That's clearly their justification but reliable sources describe it as whites only, there is little focus on the so-called "preservation of Afrikaner culture". Right now, this article is a WP:BROCHURE. No one has justified the inclusion of so much blatantly misleading and WP:UNDUE nonsense. Please explain in detail why the information is in any way encyclopedic @CaptainEek:. Desertambition (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I will try to go over a few points and add more later. This is what I am trying to remove:

1. "Afrikanerdom" - Why is this a category? White nationalist messaging, not encyclopedic information.

2. Holidays - We do not need to include every small holiday in every tiny town. This is brochure information.

3. "The Orania Beweging (Orania Movement) is a local political and cultural organisation that promotes Afrikaner history and culture." - Blatantly false. Orania is a white nationalist settlement and all reliable sources support that.

4. Cultural institutions - This is a tiny town of 2,000 people, the main focus in coverage is the overt racism and white nationalism, not these random shops and "Afrikaner culture".

5. Orania: The Little Town that Racism Built is cited in the article and yet nothing about the racism is mentioned and it is cited in relation to property values. There's no mystery, this article has been whitewashed.

6. "The Boshoff family are regarded as the 'political elite' of Orania. They are generally seen as being relatively more liberal than most of the town's other residents." - This is not encyclopedic information and yet it was re-added as well.

7. "In August 1991, the farm Vluytjeskraal 272 was added to Orania. It was divided into smaller farmsteads, and now grows pecan nuts, olives and fruit." - No reason this needs to be on Wikipedia.

8. Many unnecessary pictures that do not reflect coverage by reliable sources.

9. "Town authorities have a strong focus on green practices, including recycling and conservation.Solar water heaters are a requirement for all new houses built in Orania." - The source for this is literally Showed up by the 'racists'. Another blatant example of whitewashing.

10. Much about their "law enforcement" is misleading. They are subject to South African laws like everybody else.

The article is completely misleading and biased. There is no need to "rewrite" anything. There needs to be much more coverage on the racism and white nationalism and less on WP:BROCHURE information. Desertambition (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@Desertambition There needs to be much more coverage. I agree. So write and include it. If you're going to remove problematic material, do it in smaller chunks with justifications for each. That way, your edits are much more likely to be kept. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I just read your 10 points, and I have to say that I am disapointed with your take. I thought that this was an article about Orania. But it seems that you want to turn it into the Mein Kampf of Anti-racism.

For example you say "There needs to be much more coverage on the racism and white nationalism", but the article already uses the words white/racist/racism/racial/bigot/nationalism to describe Orania 71 times. Seventy one times! How many more times to do you want to call them racist? 100 times? 1000 times?

And then there is your "Many unnecessary pictures that do not reflect coverage by reliable sources". So what exactly does this mean? That the reality of the pictures of Orania does not reflect YOUR biases or the biases of the "realiable sources" at The Guardian? Wanting to delete "Many unnecessary pictures that do not reflect our progressive opinions of the town" really smacks of some Stasi level propaganda... Johnmars3 (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Master's Theses as sources.

I mentioned this above, but the problem is so serious that it deserves its own section. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, Master's theses are not generally usable as sources unless there is some indication that they were extremely influential (which is not the case here.) Yet this article is extensively citing four of them. Hagen, Pienaar, Burgt, and Van Wyk are all totally unusable as sources and need to be completely removed from the article; everything cited to them needs to be cited to an actual WP:RS or removed. Seldon, a PHD thesis, is probably not a good source either but is not as glaring as the four Masters' theses. --Aquillion (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

This entire article is filled with nonsense. There needs to be a point where we just say WP:NONAZIS and get rid of so much blatantly false and misleading information. I do not understand why spreading white nationalist propaganda is not ban worthy. I'd say 80% of the article is useless, misleading, or false information. If Wikipedia does not ban the obviously racist users, then we are just asking for these problems to occur over and over again. Desertambition (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but it's more useful to focus on the sourcing issues, since those are things that can be directly discussed and have clear policies; it also gives people who want to retain some of the text clear indicators of what would be necessary (ie. they can go to RSN to argue that the sources are usable, or find better sources), which points towards a resolution that will address the underlying problems. Generally if an article has problems like you're describing, there's one of three possible reasons - first, the sources are bad, in which case they should be replaced or removed and anything we can't find a good source for should go as well. Second, the sources are being misrepresented, in which case we should rewrite it to reflect them. Or third, some sources and aspects are being given undue weight, or the sources are lopsided in an undue manner and don't reflect the bulk of mainstream coverage. It's more useful to trace those underlying policy problems, and address them bit by bit so we can see what's left, than to just say "it's all wrong." The masters' theses are a particular problem because they are sources that look high-quality at first glance but are actually unusable, which is part of the reason I want to start with them (since if they're not dealt with people will say "no, wait, look, there's all these scholarly sources!" when of course there isn't because MA theses don't have peer review - or any editorial controls at all, really - and therefore don't even fit our definition of WP:PUBLISHED.) --Aquillion (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I do hear you Aquillion. I don't want it to seem like I'm just dismissing it all, I went through point by point and removed information that was promotional and blatantly misleading. We do not need to have so much information when reliable sources overwhelmingly talk about the racism and white nationalism exclusively. Even the first sentence is misleading. It is a white nationalist settlement and that is the most accurate way to describe it. You are obviously right but I feel like we are still giving this article way too much credit. I have not seen another article laid out in this way where almost every paragraph has information that is misleading, promotional, and not supported by cited sources. There are significant WP:UNDUE issues, do you agree that the article should focus on the racism and white nationalism more than anything else? Desertambition (talk) 21:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, why not just remove the information with the sources? So much of it is clearly nonsense and not encyclopedic. Feels like we are pretending this is something that it isn't. There is no "Afrikaner cultural project", it's called white nationalism to everyone else in the world. It's like if articles on neo-nazis talked about how they're not racist, they're just trying to preserve Aryan culture. Wikipedia is being used to regurgitate white nationalist talking points. Desertambition (talk) 21:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC) @Aquillion: Desertambition (talk) 21:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, we can remove anything that seems obviously undue or exceptional, but there's no huge rush. Those sources were used for a ton of things, and some of that information is probably easy to cite elsewhere and belongs in the article. --Aquillion (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@Aquillion: Not trying to beat a dead horse, but editors keep saying that some of the information should be included. What exactly should be included that you think I erred in deleting? I provided reasons and removed information that was completely unnecessary. There seems to be no acknowledgement that coverage of this town overwhelmingly and almost exclusively about the white nationalism and racism. That is not reflected in the article. Desertambition (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

It is hard to say because the real answer is that we determine that by looking at the sources. So figuring out which sources are usable (and possibly looking for other sources) is the first step. Having something about its education system and religion aren't necessarily a problem, although religion might make more sense folded into demographics, and education into administration. Having something on the culture might make sense, but it would read very differently depending on what sources are available. But basically, if you want to argue that literally all that is written about Orania relates to its racial issues, the way to do that is to analyze the available sources (which includes figuring out what sources in the article are usable, as well as what can replace the ones that aren't.) WP:V means that people who want to talk about other aspects of Orania have to produce sources to support that, and if the ones they've presented so far are obviously unusable then they can be removed, but giving them a chance to produce better sources leads to a more useful discussion. --Aquillion (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

This discussion has been ongoing for years. There is mountains upon mountains of evidence showing that this is a racist white nationalist settlement. So much of the article is not even cited properly. I remove them like you are saying and then it gets reverted. We need to stop pretending this information is encyclopedic. No one has been adding anything about the overt white nationalism and racism. I will keep repeating it because no one is acknowledging this. I have already outlined why the information is not relevant and cited improperly. Yet editors continue to pretend like this article isn't written like a WP:BROCHURE. In my opinion, Wikipedia having blatant white nationalist propaganda is bad. Editors are throwing guidelines to the wind because the topic is so obviously controversial. Almost none of this article meets notability criteria when reliable sources almost exclusively focus on the racism and white nationalism. How many sources do we need? I have already linked many of them in the discussion above, citations that were already in the article talking about the racism but had been whitewashed. This is not just a normal town with normal coverage. This is a settlement by and for racist white nationalists who want to create a whites only ethnostate. The article does not reflect that. I'm not exaggerating when I say every single reliable source mentions the overt racism and white nationalism. Every single one.

Inside the all-white 'Apartheid town' of Orania, South Africa

Inside South Africa's whites-only town of Orania

Inside Orania, South Africa's whites-only town

These are only a few of many articles that talk about the white nationalist settlement and their strong love of apartheid and racist ideals. Desertambition (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'm totally fine with the master theses being removed. But I do object to just removing 40k of text at a chunk when much of it is true and sourced. The solution is to fix what is there, not just delete it wholesale. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Contradictory claims in opening sentence

The opening sentence says:

Orania (Afrikaans pronunciation: [ʊəˈrɑːnia]) is an Afrikaner[3] whites-only[4][5][6] town in South Africa, where 97.2% of the population is white.

A town cannot be whites-only and allow non-whites to live there. Every single source describes Orania as whites only with no people of color. We should remove the self-reported census results from the opening because it is misleading. Desertambition (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I do think we should take the census with a grain of salt, or attribution. Perhaps as a stand alone second sentence that says "According to the [year] census, 97.2% of the population is white." CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:28, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Why would we need to add that when it is abundantly clear, and supported by every source, that the town is 100% white with no people of color. They obviously reject the "white" label, but so did the so-called "Aryans". Desertambition (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not overly attached to it, was just providing a possible compromise. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

It is an exaggeration to claim that it is abundantly clear, and supported by every source, that the town is 100% white with no people of color; the South African Census is a source that says that it is 97.2% white.-- Toddy1 (talk) 00:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Fortunately, we have high-quality reliable sources describing the source as whites-only. If your personal feelings are that the census contradicts this, you can contact the numerous high-quality sources describing the town as whites-only to request that they make a correction, but we absolutely cannot use WP:OR / WP:SYNTH to try and "correct" them ourselves. I suspect that the sources will disagree with your feelings on this - a town being whites-only doesn't necessarily mean that they have successfully barred all whites from it. But the point is moot; we have to follow the secondary sources in a situation like this. --Aquillion (talk) 04:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• The census is plainly WP:OR / WP:SYNTH in this context (and is a WP:PRIMARY source besides) and should not be used in the lead in any capacity. If someone wants to try and use it to argue that "whites-only" is inaccurate, they need a secondary source making that connection directly. Otherwise, the solution is to move the census figures to avoid the implication that they are "rebutting" the sources describing the town as whites-only or are otherwise a reply or answer to it - it's inappropriate to use primary sources that way. --Aquillion (talk) 04:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

"white Afrikaner ethnostate known as a Volkstaat"

This line implies that the Volkstaat concept is distinctly defined by racial separatism. This is not backed up by the sources listed, which do not state such claims.

Using the first source listed in the wiki article:

"The volkstaat model strives for an independent Afrikaner state but is not concerned about the remainder of South Africa. Moreover, unlike the homeland partition model which allocates a state for whites, the volkstaat model proposes an ethnically defined state for Afrikaners/Boers. White British immigrants would, for example, generally not be welcome in such a state" (pg 43.)

There are other quotes in the same source that imply it as being more suitable described as an Afrikaner nationalist idea rather than a white separatist one.

The other sources listed do not describe anything regarding Orania's foundings on this matter, although the third article uses "Volkstaat" to describe the town in its current state as an "Afrikaner enclave" (which doesn't matter as the context for the wiki article is regarding Orania's foundings, not what its current purpose is.) None of the articles use the word "ethnostate" either to describe it.

I suggest that the line be changed to "independent Afrikaner state known as a Volkstaat" with a link to the Afrikaner nationalism page in the brackets of the "independent Afrikaner state" line. Emkut7 (talk) 01:39, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

The source, that you just quoted, says "proposes an ethnically defined state". That absolutely lines up with the current definition. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay fair enough, but my larger problem was with it being defined as a white ethnostate. I probably should have made that more clear. Emkut7 (talk) 03:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

A Volkstaat is distinctly defined by racial separatism. It is a continuation of the apartheid idea intending to create a white ethnostate within South Africa following the end of apartheid in 1994. Despite South African white nationalists maintaining that they are only concerned with so-called "Boer/Afrikaner culture", all reliable sources have made it clear that this is just a thinly veiled excuse for racial supremacy and separatism. The focus on Boer/Afrikaner preservation cannot be detached from the history of apartheid and their existence in a majority black country.

The End of One Party Rule in South Africa: A Profile of South Africa’s Political Parties

"From the very beginning of its existence, the FF knew they had no chance of beating the ANC in truly free and fair elections, so they transitioned away from their previous goal of maintaining the racist Apartheid system towards the creation of a separate “Volkstaat” (people’s state) or a fully independent white ethnostate."

A history of South African Nazis

"After attempts to secure a white Volkstaat or Afrikaner homeland failed in the 1990s, the South African far Right started to abandon overt fascist rhetoric. Recently, Afrikaner nationalists and white supermacists have been organising around ideas of “white genocide” and defending “Christian culture”. But extremist politics are never far from the surface. For example, a Facebook anti-farm murder page at one point openly shared the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging or Afrikaner Resistance Movement flag, which was based on the Nazi swastika."

Redrawing the Map for Democracy - How South Africa's post-apartheid government tried to do away with the territorial legacy of racial segregation.

"Initial proposals to set up an all white, Afrikaans-speaking volkstaat also did not meet tests of administrative rationality. Paul Daphne, a commissioner and ANC party leader, recalled: "The people proposing a volkstaat outcome were battling to find a map which would show any part of the country with a majority of whites in it." COSAG, the conservative Afrikaners group, was particularly persistent in to its push for majority single-language communities." Desertambition (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Emkut7 We've had this conversation before, the sources overwhelmingly describe Afrikaners as white. This description is particularly helpful for our audience, which generally would assume that Afrikaner means African, and thus black. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Without commenting on the rest of the discussion, which I have not properly read, I would note that I disagree with which generally would assume that Afrikaner means African. I don't believe readers will associate the two in that way - just as they won't assume a Balti is from the Baltics. Further, we shouldn't generalize away from ethnic groups because our readers might be ignorant of them. Instead, we should provide a wikilink and allow the readers to educate themselves. BilledMammal (talk) 07:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Boers intentionally adopted the Afrikaner identity to distance themselves from apartheid and convey a sort of psuedo-indigeneity and connection to Africa. Regardless, I do not see the relevancy of your comment to the inclusion of "white ethnostate" unless you are arguing it should not be included. Desertambition (talk) 07:24, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense. They started calling themselves Afrikaners during the 19th Century, though the English called them Boers. They did not adopt the name to distance themselves from apartheid. Regarding the racist view that all Africans are black, people holding that view should be educated not pandered to.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

You are literally calling me an anti-white racist unironically, or at least heavily implying it. I have been indefinitely blocked for less. There are no consequences for this absurdity. "Regarding the racist view that all Africans are black, people holding that view should be educated not pandered to." This is not conducive to a collegial environment. This is completely unnecessary and 100% irrelevant to the point of including "white ethnostate" in the article so I do not understand what your objection is. Desertambition (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

No I am not. An editor (who is not a racist) wrote the sources overwhelmingly describe Afrikaners as white. This description is particularly helpful for our audience, which generally would assume that Afrikaner means African, and thus black. Writing about racism is not the same as being racist or accusing other editors of being racist.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Either you're implying that some editors hold racist views against white people or you should take back your comment, but I digress. There is clear ambiguity over "Afrikaners" in the English speaking world (In fact, "Afrikaners" means "Africans" in Dutch/Afrikaans).

Regardless, this is not relevant to the discussion at hand of whether or not white ethnostate should be included in the article. If you take issue with another part of the article, it would be helpful to make a new section. Desertambition (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

The term was in common usage in the late nineteenth century; I think you might be mistaken with your claim about the motives for the use of the term Afrikaner over Boer. And my comment was in response to that particular reason for the use of the term, rather than in regards to the use in general. In regards to the use in general, I don't currently know enough to comment. BilledMammal (talk) 08:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Afrikaner has a clear and unambiguous meaning in South Africa. It's a term that long pre-dates the end of apartheid, and it's not a recent invention: it's always referred to the (white) descendants of Dutch colonists (erstwhile Cape Dutch and Boers). No user of South African English, or any South African in general would confuse the terms "Afrikaner" and "African". They are two distinct concepts, with a low-level debate ongoing about whether non-blacks, including Afrikaners can be regarded as Africans.Park3r (talk) 04:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Again, the sources en masse describe the town as white, so I don't see how this point is arguable. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 15:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

My point was in response to that specific justification. Looking further into this, I would oppose just "white ethnostate", as it oversimplifies the situation - the current "white Afrikaner ethnostate" is better. However, I note that this implies that Afrikaners might not be white, which is misleading. BilledMammal (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

You say that Orania is just an excuse for racial supremacy. It makes zero sense.

a) How can they be racial supremists if there are no other races? Orania is a small Afrikaner community in the middle of the desert. Who are they oppressing? The martians?

b) For them to be racist they must hold political power, which they have none. The ANC has a supermajority in local and national parliament. Orania has zero representation in the ANC government.

c) For them to racist they must hold institutional power, which they have zero. It is a poor community owning no large banks or companies in the rest of South Africa. As they have zero institutional or government power, and as racists can only be racists when they hold prejudice plus power, Oranians clearly cannot be racist. Johnmars3 (talk) 10:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

A racist is a person who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group. It is not just a matter of skin colour as an American actress who had a minor part in Star Trek seemed to think. Nor is it a matter of power. German racists in the 1920s were prejudiced against a white ethnic group who they perceived as being powerful, which like most racial prejudices was not supported by the facts. Oriana was founded on the basis of racial discrimination - i.e. a town for Afrikaners only.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Please don't quote outdated unscientific definitions. For a person to be racist they must have prejudice plus power Barndt, 1991. As people in Orania are a tiny minority, very poor, with zero political power, they cannot be racist. Johnmars3 (talk) 16:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Requested move 1 April 2022

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Consensus and data have found that this is the primary topic. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

---

• Orania, Northern Cape → Orania
• Orania → Orania (disambiguation)

– Clear primary topic by pageviews. BilledMammal (talk) 09:26, 1 April 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 07:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• Yeah, virtually everyone who lands on the dab page will then proceed to follow the link to the settlement [8]. I've never seen usage data so unambiguously supporting a proposed primary topic. Now whether that article has more enduring significance in the long term than the other topics with the name, that's another question. I can see the argument for this position (say, extent of coverage in sources), but even if that's granted, part of me is a bit uneasy about the idea that every reader who searches for e.g. the genus of palms common in the tropics will have to arrive on a page about what looks like a racist little town. – Uanfala (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Looking at the clickstream data somewhere between 97 and 100% of outgoing traffic from the DAB page comes to this article each month if I've read it correctly. Seems to be a fairly obvious primary topic. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 21:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support. The town is the primary topic. Park3r (talk) 22:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2022 (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.

Be Fair, if Orania Is A "White Only" Town Then Finland Must Also Be Labelled A "White Only" Country

Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Finland#Demographic_statistics

scroll down to:
Ethnic groups

Finn 93.4%, Swede 5.6%, Russian 0.5%, Estonian 0.3%, Romani 0.1%, Sami 0.1% (2006)

If Orania is a "white-only" town with 97.2% of the population being white then Finland must be a "white-only" country with > 99% of the population being white. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pat-From-Canada (talk • contribs) 17:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

As has been discussed, the 97% number from the census is dubious, and regardless we use the language that reliable sources use, which is "white only". If they haven't achieved that in reality, that doesn't it isn't their intention. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:53, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Let me put it this way.

A mixture of statements and facts:

Manute Bol was a 7' 7" NBA basketball player. At the same time Muggsy Bogues was also a player in the NBA and he was 5' 3" so Muggsy Bogues was taller than Manute Bol. <- Nonsensical statement.

You can make whatever statement you want but the math has to support the statement.

Mathematically, you cannot say that Finland is not an "all white" country while Orania is an "all white" town, this is as nonsensical as my NBA player statement above. If you do not support the 97% number then you need to state why and you must provide proof of to support the "all white" statement.

The BBC and friends make serious errors and let's not forget what they just admitted to doing to Princess Diana with the false documents. If nonsensical math and nonsensical statements are to prevail here just because it is recycled from the BBC, then there really isn't any hope for the truth to prevail, people will be guilty until proven innocent.

Furthermore, you seem to believe that the people of Orania have an intention to create a 'white only" town, are you going go stick to this even if it can not be factually supported? again guilty until proven innocent. Many innocent people are being harmed by this, it seems like a miscarriage of justice to condemn them without proof. If this was a statment against an individual, they could sue for defamation of character.

Again is the BBC proof? they just admitted to falsifying documents to control princess Diana. If wikipedia becomes more obsessed with notable over truthful then we are in real trouble. Pat-From-Canada (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The BBC is generally reliable, but imperfect like all sources. We have no reason to doubt it in this case though, or the many other sources that call the town whites only. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Pat-From-Canada The thing is that the election of Trump in 2016 really rocked the leftist establishment (media and academia) and send them into a frenzied overdrive to censor/gatekeep everything that does not fit their narrow worldview. This cancer has not spared Wikipedia, to such an extent that the co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, went on record to say that "Wikipedia cannot be trusted and is definitely not a reliable source" and that "it is now propaganda for the left-leaning establishment"

You can see this in the very biased way this article gets edited to put Orania in the worst possible light. For example: Recently a mod stated "There needs to be much more coverage on the racism and white nationalism", but the article already uses the words white/racist/racism/racial/bigot/nationalism to describe Orania 71 times. Seventy-one times! How many more times do they need to call them racist? 100 times? 1000 times? Should this article just consist of the word "racists" over and over and over?

And don't get me started on the leftist double standards. We get told that we have to accept peoples self-identification. So, if you are a man who identifies as a women then that is perfectly fine, you are now a woman and heaven helps anyone who misgenders you. But, if you are a man who identifies as an Afrikaner, because he finds the white label to be offensive, then apparently deadnaming him as "white" is not problematic.

And as if the negative focus and hypocrisy are not enough, any info or source, that does not paint the blackest picture and try to provide context is "problematic" and gets erased. For example, Orania schools have had a 100% Matric (grade 12) pass rate for the past 30 years. The rest of South Africa has an education crisis with grade 4s unable to read and a matric pass rate of 44% . However the info which adds context about the rest of South Africa gets deleted as writing "white nationalist brochure material".

Another example, Orania has had ZERO murders in the last 30 years. Britstown, a small neighbouring town averaged more than 4 murders per year over the last decade . The rest of South Africa had more than 500 000 murders since 1994 when the ANC took over (bear in mind that the reference article is from 5 years ago and that figure is now more than 600 000.) . But this crime comparison gets deleted on Wikipedia, despite it providing very important context as to why people fleeing to Orania says that "crime" is one of their main motivators.

Another example of bias. Orania has grown its economy by more than 10% per year for the past couple of years. For context, the rest of South Africa has been in and out of recession . Orania has an unemployment figure of less than 5%, South Africa's unemployment figure is over 35% However, mentioning South Africa is writing "white nationalist propaganda" and gets deleted.

But the most insidious thing that gets done is reference policing. Where people who studied the Orania in detail and wrote their Master's theses on the place, where university DNA studies (showing that Afrikaners are not technically "white"), and where the South African government's census data (showing Orania is not a whites-only community) are NOT "reliable sources", but the left of Lenin Guardian newspaper is a reliable source... A recent example of this is a Wikipedia mod stating, and I quote "Many unnecessary pictures that do not reflect coverage by reliable sources *should be deleted" because God helps us if people can see pictures of the place that does not support your progressive propaganda.

Don't get me wrong. I don't live in Orania and I don't want to live there. The place is a barren sh!thole in the middle of the desert filled with Afrikaner nationalists. But here is the thing I don't get. Why the overwhelming hostility? They are not imposing their ideas on anyone else. They are not threatening anyone else. They removed themselves from society and live their separate lives as they want. If Oranians were black or women then they would have been lauded as heroes .

Imho opinion Wikipedia should provide a balanced report on the town and this includes context. Sure, write about their negatives, but don't try to do a hack job on them because their mere existance deeple offends your progressive principles .— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnmars3 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for general discussions of which political position is correct. Trying to infuse that into this discussion will only end poorly. Let's focus on the sources. Pat, John, can you each propose the wording you'd like to see? I think the solution here is to get a group of possible lines, and then hold an RFC that decides which one we'll use. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Johannes and CaptainEek.I just wrote a long essay of my personal views on this subject and my intent to no longer participate here as I agree with 99% of what Johannes just wrote. There are many problems with the article but I think BilledMammal's proposal is very important so I will hang in here a little longer and as requested, I will avoid Desertambition.I don't think there is a snowball's chance in hell of removing the problematic content from this page BUT if the reader could at least be alerted to some of the disputes, could we leave well enough alone?Here is a suggestion:Orania has repeatedly been described by notable sources as a "whites only" town". However supporters of Orania point to Government census data showing that the town has a sizeable non-white population significantly larger than other groups not accused of being 'white only" just as Finland and that the town has no policy of racial exclusion.I have participated on Wikipedia for less than 24 hours, I have no idea what I am doing with the user interface, please feel free to edit. Pat-From-Canada (talk) 11:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry it looks like my post ended up with no spaces after the periods, a bit hard to read... Pat-From-Canada (talk) 11:13, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I also made a serious typo, "just as Finland" should be "such as Finland" Pat-From-Canada (talk) 11:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I wish I knew how to delete my comments or edit them, here is another draft proposal.

Orania is an Afrikaner only town in South Africa. It has been described by numerous notable sources as a "whites only" town. However supporters argue that the town is a refuge for Afrikaner culture and that the town has a sizeable non-white population according to Government census data. Pat-From-Canada (talk) 11:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

The 2011 census recorded 17 coloured and 8 black african people. That is not a "sizeable non-white population". This May 2019 newspaper article was about EEF members who did not live in Oriana, but chose to vote there. This would not be allowed in some countries, but is evidently allowed in South Africa. I do not know if the same can happen with the census.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

This would not be allowed in some countries, but is evidently allowed in South Africa It's allowed in South Africa because South Africa doesn't currently have geographic electoral constituencies, and general elections are for provincial and national elections off party-lists. Since any resident in a province would be voting for parties contesting that province "at-large", which voting station one is voting at in a province is irrelevant. and the EFF voting at the Orania voting station is purely symbolic. This has no bearing on the census.Park3r (talk) 04:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

"I do not know if the same can happen with the census"

Do WANT this to happen when there is no evidence that it did? you seem a bit biased as if you want the Afrikaners to be racist.

The census data from 2014 shows only 893 people. The entire town is not "sizeable" at all. China could forget where they put a million people :)

97% is far less homogeneous than Finland as mention earlier but Orania is also less so than Japan, are the Japanese racist now too?

How can we show that the media overwhelming describe the town as "white only" when the Government facts do not support this? The Government facts are also notable. Pat-From-Canada (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

RFC Before

@Desertambition: I've temporarily removed the RFC tag; while one is likely to be needed soon and my preferred option is there, I believe we should give time for Pat and John to propose their preferred wording for inclusion in the discussion. If you reinstate the tag, I won't remove it again. BilledMammal (talk) 10:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: Sorry, didn't mean to remove your comment.

Edit summary comment so people don't have to dig: I am putting the tag back because CaptainEek specifically requested it. You are free to propose alternatives but I literally put your suggestion in there. Please stop. Desertambition (talk) 10:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Desertambition: CaptainEek, in the comment I replied to, is currently getting a group of possible lines to be included in the RFC, with the RFC to be opened once he has the lines. As I said, I won't remove the tag again, but I believe WP:RFCBEFORE should have been completed first. BilledMammal (talk) 10:18, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@BilledMammal:@CaptainEek:I did not see their comment above, apologies. However, I struggle to see what they would propose that would differ from what is in the current rfc.

Also, it's a little absurd we're still not acknowledging Johnmars3 is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. They literally wrote this a while ago: "I just read your 10 points, and I have to say that I am disapointed with your take. I thought that this was an article about Orania. But it seems that you want to turn it into the Mein Kampf of Anti-racism."

Plus all the other blatantly white nationalist nonsense and targeted editing. I'm not making a report or anything, just thought it was worth mentioning. Desertambition (talk) 10:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Possibly "Orania is an Afrikaner only town in South Africa", as an argument can be made that including "white" is redundant and as readers are not idiots we don't need to spell it out for them. The counter argument, which has currently convinced me, is that many reliable source have chosen to discuss the fact that the town is consequentially whites only, and it is appropriate for our lede to reflect that focus as WP:DUE, but just because I am currently convinced doesn't mean it isn't an appropriate option. I'm not sure of any other appropriate options, but it is possible that other editors have other ideas. BilledMammal (talk) 10:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@BilledMammal Afrikaners link to Afrikaners. Their racial mix is explained under the Genealogy section in that article. Johnmars3 (talk) 04:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

References

BilledMammal blatantly edit warring, breaking the WP:3RR, and ignoring both consensus as well as sources

Nothing to say besides expressing immense frustration. I can do nothing but post the sources which are already included in the MOS:LEAD. I would report it to admins but nothing would happen. Disengaging so I don't get blocked.

It is completely unclear what BilledMammal is even arguing by citing WP:REPEATLINK when they are literally rewriting the same link. WP:SOB can also be fixed by linking all the words together instead of rewriting the sentence entirely or proposing a change through discussion.

Sources repeatedly describe the town as "whites only":

Webster, Dennis (24 October 2019). "'An indictment of South Africa': whites-only town Orania is booming". The Guardian. Retrieved 8 January 2022. A community of 500 poor black and mixed-race squatters who had made their homes in the buildings left behind by the project stood between the new owners and their whites-only vision.

"'Whites-only' money for SA town". BBC News. 29 April 2004. Archived from the original on 8 January 2015. Retrieved 12 April 2015. A whites-only enclave is launching its own currency just two days after South Africa celebrated the 10th anniversary of the end of apartheid."

Additional sources for "whites only": Weinberg, Tara (2 January 2015). "The Griqua Past and the Limits of South African History, 1902–1994; Settler Colonialism and Land Rights in South Africa: Possession and Dispossession on the Orange River". Journal of Southern African Studies. 41 (1): 211–214. doi:10.1080/03057070.2015.991591. ISSN 0305-7070. S2CID 144750398. In order to maintain a whites-only town, the Orania group set up an entity called the Vlutjeskraal shareblock scheme (VAB), which approves who has use rights to property in the town (no one except the VAB owns property). Kotze, Nico; Schoeman, Ruan; Carow, Sanet; Schmitz, Peter (6 October 2019). Orania—24 Years After Apartheid: The Sociopolitical Reanimation of a Small Rural Town in South Africa. Key Challenges in Geography. Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp. 217–230. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-28191-5_17. ISBN 978-3-030-28191-5. S2CID 210732886 – via Springer Link. Thumbran, Janeke (2017). "Separate Development and Self-Reliance at the University of Pretoria". Kronos. 43 (1): 114. doi:10.17159/2309-9585/2017/v43a7. ISSN 0259-0190. In 2007, the University of Pretoria's office of community engagement arranged for a group of black women from a Pretoria township to travel to the whites-only town of Orania

Smith, Candace; Pitts, Byron (12 April 2019). "Inside the all-white 'Apartheid town' of Orania, South Africa". ABC News. ...the town was created during the last years of apartheid, where it was meant to be a safe haven for Afrikaners. They are the ethnic group descended from the Europeans who colonized South Africa. They speak their own language, Afrikaans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desertambition (talk • contribs) 07:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

The MOS:LINK issue is separate from the grammar issue, and the WP:REPEATLINK issue is due to the repeated linking of Afrikaner. My comment in #Article Presents Fringe Theories as Mainstream addresses the relevant aspects of the rest of your comment - the consensus is to use both "whites only" and "Afrikaner only", and the grammatically correct way to do this - and the form that was discussed when that consensus was agreed on - is "white Afrikaner only". BilledMammal (talk) 07:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

(Superseded)

What should the first sentence of the article be:

A: Orania is an Afrikaner whites only town in South Africa.

B: Orania is a white Afrikaner only town in South Africa.

C: Orania is a whites only town founded by Afrikaners in South Africa.

D: Orania is a white separatist town founded by Afrikaners in South Africa.

Desertambition (talk) 09:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I've WP:BOLDly removed the tag from this RFC for the moment, as discussion is still ongoing about what options should be included, though my preference (B, as it is the grammatically correct way to describe the fact that the town requires inhabitants to be white Afrikaners) is currently included. BilledMammal (talk) 10:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

  That leaves out an important point, which is that the vast majority of reliable sources emphasize the "whites only" part of the town and focus more on the white separatism and nostalgia for apartheid. The "only Afrikaners" idea is their own messaging, not what reliable secondary sources say. I view it similarly to neo-nazi groups proclaiming themselves to be composed of only pure "Aryans" or "Nordic" peoples when in reality the only real connecting factor is the whites only nature of the groups. Users are free to review the wealth of sources above. We clearly are not agreeing, thus the rfc. So I don't see a point in us continuing to argue.

  I reinstated the rfc because it was specifically requested by an admin, the option you are advocating for is already included, and any user is free to give their input. Desertambition (talk) 10:18, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

  That's not accurate; for example, the reliable source I linked describes it as it was set-up as an Afrikaner-only hamlet. CNN describes it in the same way, stating Orania, you might have guessed, is Afrikaner-only. And by extension, whites-only. Some sources, particularly when the focus on the article is not the town, only mention the Afrikaner restriction, considering that the key point, such as this SABC News article (At the time, Lesufi said the organisation was upset over his views on the Afrikaner-only town, Orania, in the Northern Cape.) and this New York Times article (The entrance to Orania in Northern Cape, a privately-owned Afrikaner-only community founded in 1990 by the son-in-law of former Prime Minister Hendrik Verwoerd, the architect of the apartheid state.)

  When I have time, I will make a proper !vote, and give my full explanation. Regarding the WP:RFCBEFORE issues, please discuss that at #RFC Before. BilledMammal (talk) 10:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

  Just like how "Aryan" only and "Nordic" only communities also happen to be whites only. Almost no white nationalist communities like Orania say they are just "white".

  Also see the discussion above for a list of sources copy pasted from sources in the opening sentence that explicitly use the words "whites only". This discussion is going nowhere and the only thing to do is wait for more input. Desertambition (talk) 10:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

  I am kindly requesting that when you return and make your case for an option that you combine it with your current comment rather than making a new bolded comment altogether. It just makes sense for clarity and cohesion to have your comments under one bolded response. Desertambition (talk) 10:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• This is not a neutral RfC. If you want this dispute to end for good, it has to be done right. That means a neutral RfC with a range of well thought out possiblities. All your answers include "white", which while I agree should be in there, is obviously the center of debate. I've removed the tag, and will probably collapse this section at some point. Please don't restore it. It's quite late here, but I will work on making a neutral RfC tomorrow. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 10:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

  I literally have no clue what you would want so please do. Desertambition (talk) 11:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Desertambition E: Orania is a predominantly Afrikaner town in South Africa

Because:

- Afrikaners are mixed race, not 100% white.

- The SA Government census shows that non-whites lives in Orania, so it cannot be whites-only.

- The whitest people in South Africa are English South Africans who came in 1820, however they are not encouraged to stay in Orania, in fact the opposite.

- The town's founders started Orania as a safe haven for Afrikaners, not for "whites". Johnmars3 04:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Johnmars3 is correct in stating that, as far as the people can run the town can get away with it, Orania is an Afrikaners-only town. People of other ethnic groups (whatever their skin colour) are not welcome to stay. Reliable sources describe Afrikaners as white - on the outside they look white.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@Toddy1 Which brings us to people's right to self identify no matter what they look like on the outside. We don't call transgender women men, because they are a vulnerable minority. Is it okay to label Afrikaners "white" when they reject that label? People who are also a vulnerable minority at only 5% of the population? People who are often tortured to death because of the way that they look? In a country where a recent president sang songs about killing them and the same president hired a British PR firm to stir up racial hatred against them and where the main opposition leader is "not yet calling for their genocide".

Another point to consider, is it ethical to call native Americans red Indians, Indians coolies or African Americans the N-word when they dont like it, but perfectly okay to call Afrikaners whites when they also reject it? Johnmars3 (talk) 09:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

This is a highly unconventional argument. Afrikaners are by widely accepted definition, and were legally classified under apartheid, as white (or "European"). They are descendants of Boers and the Cape Dutch, both white ethnic groups. Cape Coloureds speak Afrikaans, and are Christian, yet they aren't Afrikaners, nor are Cape Malays. The idea that there's a genetic continuum between mixed-race groups like the Cape Coloureds, Cape Malays and Afrikaners is quite likely, but the fact is that the distant Khoisan, Black and Indian ancestry of Afrikaners has never been part of the Afrikaner identity in any meaningful way. Afrikaners are white. There may be a rivalry between English and Afrikaans speaking white South Africans, but that doesn't change the fact that being white is a necessary (but not sufficient) attribute to be considered to be an Afrikaner, and that Afrikaner politicians legally defined the "white race group" in South Africa. Oh, and Malema isn't the "main opposition leader", it's John Steenhuisen Park3r (talk) 02:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Will you consider the words of the Orania Administrators?

My dad is from Ireland, my mom is a mixture of Irish and British. I am 0% Afrikaner and I have never been to S. Africa. I taught myself Afrikaans to help my children(long story). I have been curious about Orania on and off for a while but I wanted to make sure that they were not a white only organization that would reject my Filipina wife or our two bi-racial children. I am now certain that this is not the case and that the main steam media is lying, as they seem to do on the daily now.

To the point.... I can read and translate Afrikaans. I am reading a 40 page PDF they published right now. The town has > 2000 people. Is the town's own writings note worthy enough to consider? I could translate them for you if there was an interest but please don't put me through this if they are doomed because the BBC says so.

Pat-From-Canada (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

The rules regarding that kind of source are at WP:SELFSOURCE-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Toddy1.

I think I should just take short sentences from the Town's own writing. Here is something very important:

Om eie arbeid volkome te aanvaar, is om volledig met onetiese praktyke te breek,

to completely use our own labour is to break with unethical practices.

While Apartheid is literally about living apart, it carries the connotation of a master-slave arrangement. Could this statement be noted in the article to give them credit for rejecting and labelling these sorts of situations as unethical? I can send a link to the original document Pat-From-Canada (talk) 10:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Mystery deletions

I do not agree with the deletion of the following. Judging from the deleted statements, the so-called "town" is evidently a boring place to live in.

• The Orania Beweging (Orania Movement) is a local political and cultural organisation that promotes Afrikaner history and culture.
• Orania, a farming town, offers few amusements to teenagers and young adults, who miss the entertainment offered by city life. Things improved considerably with the opening in 2014 of the Ou Karooplaas shopping centre, which also houses a cinema, pizza parlor and DVD shop; and the Stokkiesdraai Adventure Park, which also has a pub and coffee shop.
• The congregation counts 145 members. The church is a prefabricated building.
• In 2013, the Sonskip / Aardskip earthship living museum construction started in Orania, designed by Christiaan van Zyl, one of South Africa's foremost experts on sustainable architecture. The building is open to the public as a living museum; it is the largest earthbag earthship in the world.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't call them "mystery deletions" as I provided detailed edit summaries. That information did not seem particularly notable. Could you please expand on why you think the information is notable?

The Orania Beweging part is not true, reliable sources strongly indicate that Orania is a white separatist movement and not a political and cultural organizations aiming to promote Afrikaner history and culture.

Information about various recreational locations opening and people being bored does not seem particularly notable.

Info about the church being prefabricated and information about the church congregation is not very notable.

The "foremost expert" on earthships has almost no information online and the "earthship" does not seem to be notable either. Desertambition (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

References

That is your point of view. There are other points of view. Reliable sources indicate that it is an Afrikaner-only town. So when you claim that "the Orania Beweging part is not true, you show that you do not understand what the sources say.

Regarding notability - notability is a Wikipedia concept for whether a subject deserves an article on it. I agree that there is no call for an article on the church in Oriana. But that does not mean that an article on Oriana should not mention it. That Oriana is boring, does not deserve its own article, but is worth mentioning in an article on Oriana. The same applies the earthship - it must be a really boring place for this to be one of the "attractions". We are trying to write an encyclopaedia, not a Persil-advert, so negative things about Oriana, like how boring it is, should go into the article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:NNC - The concept of notability does not apply to content within an article, only to whether a topic deserves a standalone article or list. Most of this seems to be the kind of bog standard "local shopping and attractions" type affair which is included in basically every town article. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

The focus on these businesses, opening of a pizza shop, only church with a steeple, etc. seems to be WP:UNDUE and not WP:PROPORTIONAL to the coverage of this subject in reliable sources. The sources overwhelmingly focus on the white separatism and the relations between the town and surrounding communities. Desertambition (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Those policies are not relevant to what we are talking about.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, I was basing it off of WP:NCC but I could be misinterpreting it.

"Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight, balance, and other content policies. For additional information about list articles, see Notability of lists and List selection criteria."

What policies should be applied to this article? I would like to apply them correctly. Desertambition (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree with Toddy1, due weight is a valid policy to consider when determine whether this level of detail belongs in the article, WP:MINORASPECT is probably the most relevant section. In my opinion due weight would tend to favour inclusion of most of this stuff though, the policy states that small aspects of a topic should not be given large amounts or excessive coverage, not that they shouldn't be covered at all. I don't see how 11 words of detail on the local church is an excessive amount of content in a 150kb article. Some of the bullet points needs rewording (the last bullet point reads like it's been lifted from a press release) but I don't see the argument for outright deletion on the basis of balance. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Lede lays it on a bit thick, with weak sourcing

My personal feelings about Orania aside, the sentence "in practice only Afrikaner residents are permitted; black people nearby fear they will be met with violence if they were to visit." uses a direct quote about violence when black people were evicted in the early 1990s as a citation about the situation in 2022. The Guardian source uses a few anecdotes, but given that it's the lede, it would be better if there was a more objective source: a story that reported on police statistics about racial violence inflicted on black people who enter Orania, for example. I would be fine if the article used the sentence with the citation from the Guardian, but not in the lede, where it screams WP:UNDUE. The problem with pushing an overt agenda in an article (no matter how well-intentioned) is that it sets off the BS detectors of readers instantly, and isn't encylopedic. Park3r (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Whoever cited the article quoted the wrong section. This is from the article in question published in 2019:

"Oranians claim the town is a cultural project, not a racial one. Only Afrikaners are allowed to live and work there to preserve Afrikaner culture, the argument goes.

The reality, however, is a disquieting and entirely white town, littered with old apartheid flags and monuments to the architects of segregation. While there are no rules preventing black people from visiting, those who live nearby fear they would be met with violence."

Apartheid is not that popular with black people in South Africa from what I can tell from the sources. Doesn't seem WP:UNDUE to explain why black people aren't common visitors in the whites only town despite official claims it is open to everyone. Desertambition (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I've tweaked the sentence to clearly attribute the statement. Park3r (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I updated the quotation and removed the qualifier "journalists have found" because that could probably be said for most claims on Wikipedia. What do you think? I think you were right to point out the inaccurate quotation so thank you for that, hope the article is clearer now. Desertambition (talk) 00:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

RfC: What should the first sentence be?

The first sentence of this article has been extensively fought over. This RfC aims to find a consensus and end the edit wars. What should fill the gap in Orania (Afrikaans pronunciation: [ʊəˈrɑːnia]) is . . . in South Africa.?

• Option A: an all-white Afrikaner-only town
• Option B: a white-Afrikaner-only town
• Option C: a whites-only town
• Option D: an Afrikaner-only town
• Option E: a whites-only Afrikaner-only town
• Option F: a racially segregated town
• Option G: a predominantly Afrikaner town
• Option H: an Afrikaner town
• Option I: a white town
• Option J: a whites-only town founded by Afrikaners
• Option K: a white separatist town founded by Afrikaners
• Option L: a town founded by Afrikaners
• Option M: a town

Please no other options or suggestions, this summarizes months of disputes and possibilities. If listing multiple choices, please list your choices in order, but list no more than three. Smooth sailing, CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• Option J or Option K - Although I believe "whites-only" should link to racial segregation rather than white people. There is no use beating around the bush and these are the most accurate options. Reliable sources consistently focus on the whites-only, pro-apartheid nature of the town and this gets that across while also mentioning the town being founded by Afrikaners, which many believe to be notable as well. Desertambition (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Desertambition: wouldn't White separatism be a better target? It's a bit more specific. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

  Either works honestly. If people feel white separatism is a better target then I have no issue with that. Desertambition (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. "Whites-only" is generally used to describe a town in which only White people can live rather than "White-only", as far as I can tell. I'm generally unfamiliar with the coverage of this municipality and it would take more time to evaluate which option is best, so I'll avoid !voting for now. But, I think that any option that solely has the construction of "white-only" could be marginally improved to be consistent with the common English phrase. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Corrected, thanks CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Looking in a bit more, I think that Options A, B, E, and J don't strictly hold up to scrutiny. The 2011 census (currently in the infobox) indicates that the town is not all-white (although it comes very close, so anything conveying that the town is solely made up of White Afrikaners just doesn't seem right. The same logic doesn't exclude mixed-race Afrikaners, so Options D, F, G, H, K, and L seem fine in that respect. Option I sounds rather strange, almost like calling East St. Louis a "Black town", which might be fine in colloquial speak but doesn't seem encyclopedic. Option H feels odd for similar reason It's evidently a town that was founded by Afrikaners, but the ethnic composition of the town seems to be so widely considered to be important, so I'd prefer something that indicates this in the first sentence of the lead; Options M and L are not the best way forward. Option F isn't specific enough (racially segregated town is true, but there's something more specific here). The claims that the town is either legally or actually Whites-only appears to be refuted by the census if taken in its strictest sense. I lean towards Options D or G (in that order), which best reflects the reliable sources that specify that the town is inhabited by Afrikaners (rather than other races or other White ethnic groups). It's a bit odd to describe a municipality as being "white separatist" (Option K), as we're giving an ideology to a piece of land, though mention of the separatism trends among the town's population should be prominently included in the lead. — Mhawk10 (talk) 22:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Census data is self-reported and almost every reliable source says the town is whites-only. Anybody can write anything on the census. It should be included in the article to be sure, but there's no reason to assume that the reliable sources are wrong. Desertambition (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Is the census not a reliable source? I don't doubt that >97% of the population is White, but I can't imagine that the town is literally 100% White in light of census data. There's reporting from around the time of the town's founding that indicates the existence of at least some mixed-race people who moved in to inhabit the town. That there's <3% of the ~2000 person municipality (a whopping 59 people) who might be multiracial or non-White seems reasonable in light of the census and other reporting. — Mhawk10 (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The census is a reliable source for census data but drawing conclusions from it that contradict reliable sources is WP:OR. Every source says that the town is literally 100% white. While I am sure they aren't racially pure, as race is a social construct and generations of close contact with black, colored, and Asian South Africans (some of the other main racial groups in South Africa) has inevitably led to some semblance of genetic diversity, they are white and maintain the ideals/goals of apartheid South Africa. It is an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim that black or colored South Africans live anywhere within the town and we would require multiple high-quality sources to prove so. Hope that made my position a bit more clear. Desertambition (talk) 04:55, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

The census seems to be a reliable source for saying that the town is not literally 100% white. I'm aware that drop-of-blood conceptions of race are utterly incoherent, but that seems to be the framework that South Africans are expected to follow when filling out a census. That being said, a census is quite possibly the best source for demographics that we can get in a municipality; unless a journalist in effect conducted a census in the town, there is no way that they'd be able to verify that there aren't <60 people who aren't white. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it is literally 100% white, as race is extremely inexact, the city exists to create a Volkstaat (a white ethnostate) that is racially separate from South Africa's black majority. That warrants inclusion in the lead sentence in my view. Desertambition (talk) 02:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree the existence of a privately run housing board whose purpose is to ensure that more or less only people from the Afrikaner ethnicity are allowed to move in is the primary reason for the town's extensive coverage and is the most notable thing about it, which certainly plays a role in my primary preference being Option D. Doesn't that the city exists as a part of a Afrikaner-nationalist mission to create a Volkstaat help to establish that the community is Afrikaner-only? — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources make it clear that it's more about wanting to create a separate whites only community more than it is about protecting Afrikaner culture and identity. Before it was Afrikaners it was Boers, before Boers it was the Dutch/British, and all of the previously mentioned groups attempted to create whites only communities within South Africa at one point or another. Orania is not just another town in South Africa where Afrikaners live, it is a town created with the sole purpose of maintaining a whites only community free of black, colored, and other minority South Africans. Sources repeatedly mention their monuments to pro-apartheid leaders and the racism within the community.

Yes, they maintain that the focus is only on Afrikaners, but what makes it so notable is the white separatism and white nationalism. Additional information, like people of color feeling unwelcome in the town, helps contextualize why it's important to emphasize the whites only nature of the town.

Orania: South Africa's whites only town

COVID-19 lockdown in South Africa's whites-only town of Orania

Orania a whites only settlement Desertambition (talk) 04:21, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

In what way does Afrikaner-only not contextualize the race of the town? Anybody who is mildly familiar with South Africa would instantly recognize it as a white ethnic group. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• Option K I thought I liked Option F more, but Option K is neutral and specific. SportingFlyer T·C 23:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
• Option D, otherwise Option B. This town, while functionally whites only, is whites only in the same sense that Nur für Deutsche is whites only; it is restricted to a white ethnicity, and white people of other ethnicities are not permitted. This can seen in reliable sources where the whites only aspects is described as a consequence of the Afrikaner only aspect; CNN states Orania, you might have guessed, is Afrikaner-only. And by extension, whites-only. The Afrikaners nature can also be seen in the description in many reliable sources, which focus on the "Afrikaner only" aspect and do not mention the "white only" effect, such as this New York Times article, this SABC news article, this news24 article, this The Citizen article, this Times Live article, and many others. Further, mentioning white is unneeded, as our readers are not idiots; just as they can understand that "German only" is functionally "white only" without us spelling it out, they can also understand that "Afrikaner only" is functionally "white only". However, if there is no consensus for D, then I would support B, as we need to mention that the town is restricted to Afrikaners only in order to avoid being misleading, and also mentioning "white only" would not be WP:UNDUE given its use in some reliable sources. BilledMammal (talk) 00:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
• Optioni G per Mhawk10's reasoning. The census data simply doesn't support "white[s]-only" or any variant that amounts to the same claim.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:25, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
• Option K This seems to describe what the town is actually about, and seems to be the most neutral. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Option G: a predominantly Afrikaner town

Is the most factual description. Johnmars3 (talk) 03:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• Option J followed by K or C in order of preference. Strong opposition to any option that omits the term "whites-only" or words that emphasize that aspect, since that is exceedingly well-cited and is central to the topic's notability based on existing sourcing, and no one has presented any coherent policy-based arguments why it could or should be omitted. I'm particularly going to formally ask the closer to entirely disregard any !votes that rely primarily on raw census data - that is unambiguous WP:OR to the point that an argument along those lines is not based on policy and cannot be given any weight; we flatly cannot use primary facts and figures to try and "disprove" secondary sources based on what an editor personally feels they mean and how editors personally define the terms involved (ie. an editor's personal opinion that a census listing 1% black population disqualifies a town from being described as whites-only is not a valid argument to respond to secondary sources that unambiguously say that the town is whites-only in as many words.) Anyway, these are in the article already, but since some people have asked and to make sure they're not missed, here's some of the numerous sources using whites-only or words to that effect:

Collapse with sources
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In 2007, the University of Pretoria's office of community engagement arranged for a group of black women from a Pretoria township to travel to the whites-only town of Orania. In order to maintain a whites-only town, the Orania group set up an entity called the Vlutjeskraal shareblock scheme (VAB), which approves who has use rights to property in the town (no one except the VAB owns property). Twenty-four (24) years after Apartheid, on account of the authority wielded by the village council to act as gatekeeper, Orania still has a whites-only population. But there is much more to this small Northern Cape town than the bucolic ideal painted by Kleynhans. Incredibly, 25 years after the fall of apartheid, Orania is a place for white people only. And Nico Kotze has outlined the emergence of Orania, the only ‘whites-only’ town in the New South Africa. None mention — at least at first — that they wanted to be around only other white people. Yet, that is exactly what happened. A whites-only enclave is launching its own currency just two days after South Africa celebrated the 10th anniversary of the end of apartheid. References

These sources say it in various different ways, but "whites-only" is the most common construction, and no secondary source that I've seen disputes it in the article voice. (Note that some are ones that people have tried to use to emphasize the Afrikaner aspect - but even those also emphasize the racial segregation as core to the topic, which suggests to me that the sources that would support omitting it simply do not exist; and even these directly contradict the personal feelings some editors above have expressed about what they think the census data means.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:34, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• Option H, followed by Option D, then Option B

Numerous sources describe the town as "Afrikaner-only", even when the headline of the article calls it a "whites-only" town. It would be very wrong to not mention it being an Afrikaner town, which is why I don't support options C, F, I, and M. I also don't support option A, as the census data seems to contradict the claim that it is "all-white."

I still believe that the article should mention something about the "whites-only" aspect of the town, but that can be placed later in the article or right after the first sentence. Emkut7 (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Option J or similar. (Summoned by bot) Strong opposition to any option that omits the term "whites-only" per Aquillion whom I agree with wholly about the census data. Census data is self-reported and should not be used as part of any argument that attempts to 'disprove' the main -sourced- descriptor. Whether there are in fact a few (technically?) non-white people or merely a sprinkling of people who don't fill out the census accurately is not possible for us to know, and doesn't invalidate the description. Sources say it in various different ways, but "whites-only" is the most common construction, and no secondary source that I've seen disputes it in the article voice. The various "Afrikaaner/cultural seperatist' claims made by the town should be included, but these aren't substantially different from the claims made by supporters of apartheid in its day, ie that the wish was to be "separate but equal", so it is not surprising if those from outside the town are sceptical about these claims. Pincrete (talk) 07:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• D, or A/B/other proposals mentioning Afrikaner. The proposals that do not mention the town is Afrikaner are odd; it's specifically an Afrikaner town. It also very due to mention it is set up to be effectively segregated. I have no strong objection or preference to noting that Afrikaner are considered to be white in the opening sentence, or later, or some other formulation, so long as the grammar is sensible, but to omit Afrikaner makes no sense. CMD (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• I would go with D, possibly with K.

Afrikaners can, by definition, only be white (Cape Coloureds are Afrikaans speaking people who are not white). At the same time, I also don’t think that “Afrikaner” is exclusively a dog-whistle attempt to create a whites-only identity…Afrikaners genuinely believe that they are distinct people from other whites, and their identity is as tightly (or more tightly) bound to their language than to their race. The linguistic affinity shows up in the somewhat more favourable treatment afforded to coloureds and Cape Malays historically by Boer and Afrikaner governments (although far below that which was afforded to whites).

This whole debate also misses the primary purpose of the town, which is that it’s a separatist project. There is a great deal of de facto racial segregation in South Africa. Orania isn’t particularly remarkable in the respect, except perhaps in the degree of segregation. What really sets it apart is the only de jure separatist place extant in South Africa, and it should also be prominently highlighted in the lede.

We aren’t entertaining new suggestions but an accurate lede would be:

Orania is a separatist town in the Northern Cape province of South Africa, populated by Afrikaners, a white ethnic group. Park3r (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't use separatist, as that would imply some sort of breakaway state, which Orania is not. I can't think of a good single word adjective for the mix of segregation and autonomy. CMD (talk) 04:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Mayor

@Desertambition: Do you have a source stating that Leonard Makena is the Mayor of Orania? BilledMammal (talk) 05:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I believe you are misunderstanding the South African political system. The mayor of the local municipality oversees all settlements within the municipality. I have provided sources in my edit but I will provide them again here.

EFF to meet with Orania leaders after taking over council

EFF mayor elected in Northern Cape municipality, which includes Orania Desertambition (talk) 05:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Both of those state that he is the mayor of Thembelihle Local Municipality, and do not state that he is the mayor of Orania. BilledMammal (talk) 05:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I do not believe you are understanding how the South African political system works and I do not see any use in continuing to debate it. It is what it is. Desertambition (talk) 05:25, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:V, you need a source stating that Leonard Makena is the mayor of Orania. As you have not provided that source, I've reverted your edit. BilledMammal (talk) 05:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

If you are going to do this you need to remove the mayors from Pretoria, Cape Town, and Johannesburg as well. Every single South African settlement lists mayors this way. It does not seem like you are understanding how this system works. Desertambition (talk) 05:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Ga-Rankuwa, Atteridgeville, Mamelodi, Onverwacht, Gauteng, and Refilwe - none of the articles I checked listed a mayor. However, that isn't relevant - per WP:V, we need a source that supports your claim, and we don't currently have it. BilledMammal (talk) 05:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Ignoring the examples I cited doesn't make them go away. Desertambition (talk) 05:42, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a source? Vague WP:OTHERCONTENT handwaves at cities that are the seat of their metropolitan municipality does not meet WP:V. BilledMammal (talk) 06:02, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

It's not vague at all. There are no mayors of South African cities in the American sense. You are straight up not understanding how the political system works and I do not know how to engage.

It is like removing Congresspeople from American cities pages because they do not technically represent the city, only the congressional district. People from Orania voted in the mayoral elections and they are subject to the local municipality, exactly like Pretoria, Cape Town and Johannesburg.

Also per your own cited essay (not a guideline mind you):

"While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this." Desertambition (talk) 06:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

American cities normally don't list congresspeople. And Pretoria, Cape Town, and Johannesburg don't have local municipalities, they have metropolitan municipalities - further, Orania doesn't just have a local municipality, it also has a district municipality, meaning there are two mayors we would need to chose between.

And your comparison isn't part of a cogent argument, your comparison is the entire argument - and I'm not really interested in arguing this. Do you have a source describing Leonard Makena (or John Lolwana) as the mayor of Orania? BilledMammal (talk) 06:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

What the sources say:

• EFF to meet with Orania leaders after taking over council, msn.com does not mention who is mayor. This means that it is not a source for the claim that Leonard Makena is mayor.
• EFF mayor elected in Northern Cape municipality, which includes Orania The South African says Leonard Makena, has reportedly been elected in the Thembelihle Municipality, which includes the whites-only town of Orania. So it is relevant for a statement that Leonard Makena is mayor of Thembelihle Municipality. It does not support a claim that he is mayor of Oriana. Local government can have many tiers, each with their own mayor.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

You appear to be misunderstanding the South African political system. South Africa does not have mayors in the American sense. The mayor of Thembelihle oversees all settlements within the municipality. Just like how Pretoria is governed by the City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality. If you are going to remove the information about the mayor from this article, you have to remove it from every article. Same goes for a supposed "failed verification". Desertambition (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research says that you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that... directly support the material being presented. The source supports the statement that Leonard Makena was elected mayor of Thembelihle Municipality. If the infobox explicitly says that, then fine. But saying just "mayor" suggests that he is mayor of Orania Town Council. There is no evidence for that. What you are doing is an analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. That is not OK. Please self-revert.

I cannot do so for 24 hours because I recently reverted two IP edits with dishonest edit summaries.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

@Toddy1 and Greenman: Do you both believe that the mayor should be removed from the Pretoria, Cape Town, and Johannesburg articles as well? If we follow this logic, there is no mayor of Pretoria, only the City of Tshwane. Desertambition (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the subject, because not looked at that aspect of those articles and the sources. But all articles are expected to comply with rules such as WP:NOR.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

They are quite different. For example, there are hundreds of sources referring to the Mayor of Cape Town, although the ambiguity about which Cape Town is meant could be discussed. Still, that's a case to be discussed elsewhere. The use of the mayor in the Orania example is like saying Geordin Hill-Lewis is the mayor of Khayelitsha, which would be quite misleading. It didn't give him much support, and is only a small part of the overall Municipality. Greenman (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

@Desertambition@Toddy1

A few things that might be helpful:

- Up to 1994 almost every town in South Africa had its own municipality.

- In 1995, existing municipalities became transitional representative councils.

- Then the ANC started combining different towns into larger municipalities, for example Kai !Garib municipality which now has about 20 towns and villages.

- In about 1999, Hopetown and a few surrounding towns (including Orania) became Thembelihle Local Municipality.

- However, Orania fought this in the Northern Cape Supreme court, which ruled that Orania could stay an independent "transitional representative council", the last one in South Africa.

- So, while they are technically within the Thembelihle Local Municipal area, they are not part of the municipality and govern themselves. The get zero services from Thembelihle, and pay zero money to Thembelihle.

I hope it helps.

Johnmars3 18:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@Htonl, Johnmars3, and Toddy1: Asked this to htonl as well but perhaps you can clear up some of my confusion. I am under the impression from reading the transitional representative council article that a TRC is meant to manage a separate municipal entity and that Orania was integrated into Thembelihle entirely. How does the TRC exist if there is no separate municipal entity to govern? If there is a separate municipal entity to govern as you are saying, what are the boundaries of their municipality? The lack of municipal services appears to be more due to their existence as an entirely private entity, rather than the existence of an entirely separate municipality. It does not seem like the government of South Africa officially sanctions or manages any elections for their TRC unless I am missing something. The municipal government also maintains jurisdiction over Orania for police and public health so that seems to contradict the existence of a separate municipality.

TL;DR: Does a TRC necessitate a separate municipal entity and if so, does Orania have their own municipality? If not, how does a TRC exist without a separate municipal entity to govern & who manages the elections/what do they govern? Desertambition (talk) 10:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@Desertambition

According to the Transitional Executive Council Act, 1993 [No. 151 of 1993] - G 15184

- these councils were set up in preparation for transition to democratic institutions in South Africa.

- the act covered any department of state, any provincial administration or local government body. As well as the Governments of the self-governing territories such as the Governments of the Republics of Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei.

- the act affirms the governance powers of these entities to exercise power and perform their duties. Section 7 goes into all the General powers of these Councils: "They can appoint from among its members office-bearers, open and administer its own financial accounts, shall identify categories of subjects in respect of which the Council shall itself take decisions".

- in 1995, Oranians elected its own transitional representative council. This council were to be abolished before the election on 5 December 2000, according to Article 12 of the Municipal Structures Act.

- In response Orania lodged an urgent application in the Kimberley High Court to stop the provincial government from abolishing the town's existing transitional representative council. The court ruled that Orania's TRC could retain it's status indefinitely, and that the council retained all its powers. . So, Orania is technically within the Thembelihle municipal area, but they are not governed by them.

- And Thembelihle municipality does not provide any services to the residents of Orania. Orania's TRC is responsible for their own potable water, sewage management, garbage removal, electricity, roads, clinic and security.

Which brings us to an interesting question. What will happen if Orania buys more adjacent land? Will that land also cease to be part of Thembelihle? Johnmars3 (talk) 03:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Johnmars3: The Transitional Executive Council Act was for the national-level TEC which existed in 1993-94. The relevant act here for the TRC is the Local Government Transition Act. In section 9C(3) that act provides:

A transitional representative council shall subject to section 10D (2) be vested and charged with the following powers and duties, namely-

(a) subject to the provisions of section 9D (1)(b) (i), to elect from among its members a person or persons to represent the council on the district council in question;

(b) to secure, through the said person or persons, the best services possible for the inhabitants of its area;

(c) to serve as the representative body of its area-

(i) in respect of any benefits resulting from the reconstruction and development programme; and

(ii) in the development of a democratic, effective and affordable system of local government; and

(d) in general, to represent the inhabitants of itsarea in respect of any matter relating to rural local government.

Incidentally your final question is answered by my comment immediately below; the area of jurisdiction of the Orania TRC was defined by proclamation so it would not change by the purchase of land. - htonl (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Desertambition: I'm not sure what you mean by a "municipal entity"? The TRCs were (and this Orania one presumably still is) municipalities and they had boundaries. To confirm this, over the last few days I did some digging and I found that the Orania TRC was established by Proclamation No. 65 of 1995 and its area of jurisdiction was defined as Remainder of Portion 2, Remainder of Portion 5, and Portion 8 of the farm Vluytjeskraal No. 149; and Remainder of Portion 1 of the farm Vluytjeskraal Annex No. 151. That's effectively the two areas marked "Vluytjeskraal" and "Vluytjeskraal 272" on File:Orania land map.svg.

The local government transition period went on for 5 years; in October 2000 the provincial government published Notice 30 of 2000, which established (amongst others) the Oranje-Karoo Municipality (later renamed Thembelihle). One of the things included in that notice was a list of the existing transitional councils that would be dissolved once the new municipality was elected. However the Orania TRC was omitted from that list, presumably by mistake. The provincial government published an amendment to add Orania TRC to the list, and it was this amendment that the Orania people challenged in court.

So then, as we all know, this result came out of the High Court in Kimberley that the TRC would continue to exist pending further action. So now there are indeed two councils which both have a claim to govern the same area. I don't think the judge could have intended that this messy situation would continue for 20+ years, but it seems it has not been in the interests either of the government or of the Orania people to pursue it.

Police are a national government competence, and health is a national/provincial competence, so those have no relevance to question of municipal jurisdiction. As to elections, that is a good question. The Local Government Transition Act (LGTA), under which the TRCs was established, doesn't make provision for further elections after the 1995 election. So I'm not sure what authority either the Electoral Commission or Orania TRC itself would have to conduct elections.

But this is getting to be besides the point since I am getting deep into WP:OR territory here. The simple answer is that reliable sources like the Mail & Guardian report that the TRC continues to exist, and therefore that is what we should report. htonl (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@HtonlVery freakin awesome work! Johnmars3 (talk) 04:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

MisLEADing

The lead of this article contains one misstatement and omits mentioning a really important point.

• The village was originally established to house people working on a large irrigation scheme under the jurisdiction of the then Department of Water Affairs (and its predecessors). It's "second life" as a conservative Afrikaner enclave came several decades later.
• The lead fails to state that the entire village is private property. Everything except the R369 road that runs through it is privately owned. Legally it is not actually a town. Its status is effectively the same as a farm or the many golf estates, retirement villages, lifestyle estates, and similar fully private millionaires housing schemes that exist on the outskirts of many of South Africa's larger cities. (Individual plots in such schemes are usually owned under sectional title.) This fact goes a long way towards explaining much of the village's peculiarity. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

This would help clarify some of its characteristics, so feel free to add with sources. Greenman (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

There are two ongoing deletion discussions related to this page that editors may be interested in contributing to:

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orania Representative Council
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ora (currency)

BilledMammal (talk) 07:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Ora request has been withdrawn. Although I plan to open a move request soon as "currency" is an inaccurate descriptor. Thanks for posting these. Desertambition (talk) 10:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)