Talk:AfriForum

South Africa Start‑class Mid‑importance

	South Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations Start‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on AfriForum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

Neutrality

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

Which sections are you referring to? I have found a similar issue across articles about race in South Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DumaTorpedo (talk • contribs) 06:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Precisely why Afriforum is a white nationalist group, this is undeniable. Wether they are radical or not would be political opinion. DumaTorpedo (talk) 09:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Removal of sourced content or edit war

@Cilinhosan1: If you are so keen to avoid an edit war, please articulate what the problem is. Blanket reverting and accusations of vandalism are not a solution to this supposed problem. Grayfell (talk) 19:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are trying to impose on this article that a civil rights organization is a white nationalist / white supremacist organization, this is a serious accusation, if you want to do so you need proof and reliable sources, which you didn't provide, both of what is there are opinion articles of WP:QUESTIONABLE sources. Cilinhosan1 (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So if "white nationalist" vs. "civil rights" is the specific problem, why bludgeon the process by reverting months of edits? As I said on my talk page, I'm not the one who originally added this, and there have been many edits since this change was made. Attempting to present this as a lone act misrepresents the situation. This was added in the beginning of March, and has been built on by multiple editors. The banner across the the top identifies a serious POV issue with the article, and cleaning this up is going to need a lot effort.

As for "civil rights organization", I contend that it's too vague, and is only sporadically supported by sources, which makes it a WP:EUPHEMISM. I don't care what the group calls itself, because Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion.

Looking through news articles to get a sense, there are several common descriptions, "civil rights group",[1] "civil rights organization",[2] just "rights group",[3] "farming group"[4] "lobby group"[5][6] just "organization",[7] and so on...

It looks like many news sources avoid any description. This is something news outlets can get away with, as they can assume that local readers will already have enough background to fill in this context, but Wikipedia doesn't have that luxury. What we need to do is provide enough information that an international readership will have a picture of what this organization does based on reliable, independent sources. I don't think any of these are sufficient for this. There is also the problem of WP:RECENTISM when using news sources.

Looking through book sources, the results are pretty similar, but it's harder to find a consensus, and more time-consuming to determine reliability. One that might be useful is Civil Society and the Zuma Government, which is (I think) indirectly published by the International Development Research Centre. This source refers to AfriForum as an "activist alliance", but of note is that the source describes their activities and positions. The source summarizes that they have opposed affirmative action and have been surprisingly influential in the ANC government. To me, this suggests that "lobby group" is a simple, accurate starting point that is agreed on by many reliable sources, and disputed by none.

Am I wrong? Does anyone have any better ideas? Grayfell (talk) 22:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresenting a civil rights organization as a white nationalist / white supremacist organization is not the only problem, and if you call weeks of edit war reverting the edits of any editor who didn't comply with your opinion as "building" an article, I have to disagree. If you say that an organization isn't what it is, you need to provide reliable sources saying the contrary, which you didn't, and of all the articles that you provided the majority of them call it either a "civil rights group", "civil rights organization", or simply organization / group, none of them call it a "white supremacist" or "white nationalist" organization. If you want to break the consensus of more than 3 years since it was stated in this article that it is a civil rights organization, complying with what the majority of sources say and what the organization itself says, an edit war is not the way to change this consensus.

As if the news you presented weren't enough to confirm, many books refer to AfriForum as a civil rights organization or group, such as South Africa and the Case for Renegotiating the P eace, Bridge Over Blood River: The Rise and Fall of the Afrikaners, Free Speech: Ten Principles for a Connected World, The Economist, Volume 384, Issues 8536-8548, Southern Africa Report, Volume 26, South Africa Survey, and many, many others. I don't know how you could not find any of those sources and instead come up with the only book that you could find that did not refer to it as a civil rights organization or group. I think that there was a reason it stayed in the article as a civil rights organization for more than 3 years before the edit war, and any person reading this can understand too.

Regarding the reversal of edits prior to the edit war, what was reverted were vandalism edits that were added for the sole purpose of discrediting the organization, and didn't bring any constructive value to the article, had no reliable sources, and were solely based on the opinion of the editor, and even false information. Cilinhosan1 (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since you merely copy/pasted your Google book search results, I can clearly see that you specifically searched for the phrase "civil rights". Do you understand why this is a problem? This search string actively excludes all sources which don't support your preferred wording. So what, exactly, was the goal in copying these search results? The point of the article is not to find sources which support your prior assumptions. Anybody can do that. The point is to neutrally summarize all reliable sources.

As I tried to explain, we need to evaluate sources for context, as well as reliability. The book source I mentioned above appeared to be reliable, and I explained why I thought it was reliable. It also provided context about AfriForum, and I tried to explain why I thought that was relevant.

As the first example you link, what is the African Sun Media publishing house? Is it reliable? Who are Pierre du Toit, Salomé Teuteberg, and Charl Swart? Are they recognized experts? I sincerely don't know, but the book you link contains a single passing mention which provides no context about the organization, and was selected based on arbitrary search criteria to fit a predetermined editorial preference. This makes this a weak source for any sort of summary of the organization as a whole.

The common thread among all substantial sources (not just the passing mentions that pop up with a lazy Google search) is that AfriForum is almost exclusively focused on Afrikaner advocacy. Is this a civil rights issue? Yes, but that's too simplistic, and ignores the context of what those sources are saying. Of those books you link, several appear unreliable. All of the three that seem usable are discussing the AfriForum#Shoot the Boer case and hate speech. If this is a "civil rights organization" in this context, it's surreal to consider this a "free speech" argument. Compared to the pre-Apartheid flag and statue issues they're previously been involved with their motives are especially obvious. According to them, free speech is only for Boers, I guess. Grayfell (talk) 02:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated before, these were easily accessible sources that mentioned AfriForum as a civil rights organization, which directly contradicts what you said that there were not enough reliable sources stating that it is, which is not true, I could go on and on and explain every single book of why it is reliable and find even more reliable sources, I could criticize the sources that you present as you did, but this will lead to nothing, since you're already determined on imposing your opinion on the article, regardless of the data that I present. Your opinion of an organization if it is simplistic or complex is not relevant, there's no source stating that it isn't a civil rights organization, on the contrary, the majority of the sources state that it is a civil rights organization, because that's exactly what it is. It doesn't matter if you agree with its cause, just because you don't agree doesn't mean you should go on and start vandalizing its article and start doing what I explained in my last post regarding the edits.Cilinhosan1 (talk) 03:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You do not appear to understand my point at all. The lede should explain, in neutral terms, what this organization is and why it is noteworthy enough for an encyclopedia article. The current article does not do a good job of this, and neither did the recent version. "Civil rights organization" is accurate, but it is not precise. "White nationalist" is much more precise, but it is not, necessarily, accurate. We need a compromise that is both. Civil rights organization is also WP:PEACOKery, since it sounds very pleasant and positive, but doesn't provide very much clear information. The goal is not to discredit them, but it is also not to "accredit" them. The goal is to explain to readers who they are, and "civil rights ___" doesn't do a very good job of this because it's not clear what such an organization would actually do.

Regardless of what I might think of the organization, there is nothing wrong with specializing. The problem is that we should not misrepresent the focus of this organization. AfriForum only (again, according to sources you, yourself have presented) focuses on civil rights for Afrikaners. Compare the first sentence of the lede to other Category:Civil rights organizations and there is a mismatch. Even though it is obvious what The Gay Straight Alliance Bermuda (GSA Bermuda) does simply from the name, the lede describes it anyway without resorting to bland vagueness. Likewise, Committee for Civil Liberties and Legal Aid mentions victims of the Jatiya Rakkhi Bahini. Ban the Box mentions ex-offender, and so on. A good lede explains the topic. This is not a good lede because it is euphemistically mentioning activities in terms the organization itsell would chose. This isn't acceptible, because Wikipedia isn't a platform for advocacy or advertising. Grayfell (talk) 04:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that there's anything partial about stating that a civil rights organization is one in the lead of its article page, like many other organizations have stated in their articles that they are a civil rights organization. You say that the term is not precise, but in the lead itself it is stated that they are a civil rights organization that "promote Afrikaner and other minorities", which gives the proper explanation to the reader, and again, you are still trying to push your personal opinion on this article stating that it is a "white nationalist" organization, which I've already explained in my previous posts, please, stop. Regarding what you said about WP:PEACOK, I have to disagree, since many other articles on civil rights organizations state in their lead what they are, to give an example among many others, the Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Los Angeles specifically states civil rights organization in its lead, plain and simple, without issue. If you want to make changes to the lead, that we can discuss, but insisting that it is a "white nationalist" organization will lead to nothing, and this was already discussed in the previous posts. Cilinhosan1 (talk) 06:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]