Talk:Volkstaat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Volkstaat was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake.

Date of review: 3 October 2006

1 Archived discussions
2 Good Article nomination
3 Failed "good article" nomination
4 GA status
5 Copyright Violation
6 Flaws section

[edit] Archived discussions

The following link refers to closed older discussions of this article that has been archived:

[edit] Good Article nomination

Refer to Wikipedia:Good article candidates for instructions with regards to this nomination. -Gemsbok1 11:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of September 26, 2006, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Fail

2. Factually accurate?: Fail

3. Broad in coverage?: Fail

4. Neutral point of view?: Fail

5. Article stability? Fail

6. Images?:

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far. --Deon Steyn 09:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not a good reviewer for GA. I'm going to list this article back to WP:GAC to maintain the quality of GA status, because the reason of failing is not enough by just shouting fail, fail, fail. Give your reasons in deep reviews of why those 5 items are fail. — Indon (reply) — 09:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

To explain further:

Does not cover the topic broadly, including serious differences to other "nations" seeking self-determination, such as:
1. Doubts about existence or number of ethnic group referred to as "Afrikaner".
2. No suitable geographical region historically linked to "Afrikaners"
3. No geographical region with majority "Afrikaner" population
Citations aren't according to the Wikipedia standard (reference to footnote: after punctuation).
Spelling and grammar needs correction
Factual inaccuracies (statements such as Pietersburg and Potgietersrus—had their names changed, often in the face of popular opposition to the change. No proof that there was "popular opposition", in fact opposite can be argued).
Duplicated sections, especially noew relation to "study performed by the Institute of Race Relations".

--Deon Steyn 09:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

My apology. We were in the edit conflict then. All right, I refrain from delisting. — Indon (reply) — 09:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

To add to the concerns already listed, the article content is not very well balanced either: excluding references only 20% of the article is dedicated to the concept and background, while about 40% only lists reasons "Afrikaners" are unhappy and the reaming 40% describes "current situation" and "south african government" (both less than ideal sub heading titles). I would think the balance should shift towards the concept and the background (preferably with a comparison to other cases of self determination). --Deon Steyn 10:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, adjustments have been made. This article is relisted as a candidate, an independent review (someone other than Deon Steyn) is requested for an opinion. --Gemsbok1 16:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You have not addressed all his points. The article is about a distinctive area within a country that will be governed by Afrikaners, yet you only provide examples of where it may be. To refer to Deon Steyn's points again: "No suitable geographical region historically linked to "Afrikaners"" "No geographical region with majority "Afrikaner" population" You cannot call an article good without providing more information about at least the above. --WickedHorse 19:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The issue is adressed in an entire paragraph dedicated to it, named Afrikaner presence in South Africa. This paragraph also contains a link to the Afrikaner article where the demographic spread is discussed. The paragraph on the Boer republics gives plenty of information about geographical locations historically linked to Afrikaners. --Gemsbok1 09:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Lead needs to summarize the whole article and footnotes go right after the punctuation with no spaces. Rlevse 12:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, the lead has been expanded with an overview of the content and the footnotes have been corrected. -Gemsbok1 08:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Gemsbok1, again I urge you to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policy, in this case, the guidelines governing Talk pages, specifically the one thats tates it is unacceptable to edit other's comments: Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable

Fortunately, you also do no have a say who can and can not review an article. The changes you have made since the rejection are only minor and hardly address the original concerns or shortcomings; it still does not cover the topic broadly, specifically any critical points of view. --Deon Steyn 06:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't be so belittling, Deon. It was not me who first struck through the posting made by Indon, and if it is unacceptable, why is the strike-through function there in the first case? I did not alter any word you posted. I do believe that your personal political bias does not allow you to present a fair and objective review of the article, but I did address your concerns raised. According to Wikipedia policy, there is nothing wrong with asking for another opinion if you are in dispute with someone. Go and wag the textbook at someone else. --Gemsbok1 09:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

May I ask why the previous discussions were archived 3 minutes before you (Gemsbok1) submitted this article for Good Article? --WickedHorse 10:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course you may ask. It was done in order to clear the page. --Gemsbok1 12:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I wish you would just bother reading "the textbook" Gemsbok1, it clearly states you should not edit another contributor's post on a Talk page, but you are allowed to edit your own postings (within certain limitations and guidelines). If you had bothered checking, you would see that Indon edited his own post (by striking it out) when he realised it was in error. You are however not supposed to edit another's post. Again I reiterate, please read the guidelines it makes for a much smoother process (Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines. --Deon Steyn 12:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a volunteer project, not the military. I therefore suggest that you relax or you may very well suffer a stroke or something. Which of your postings have I altered in such a way that other readers would not know what you had written, or what have I removed, in order for you to be so very upset?-Gemsbok1 12:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Precisely because Wikipedia is "not the military", we should all abide by the rules and the rules state you should not edit other contributor's posts on Talk pages. In this case others following these rules could assume that I wanted to remove my own comments, which is not the case. --Deon Steyn 07:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA status

This is a difficult topic to cover. So making a good quality article on this subject is doubly hard. I am afraid some more work will need to be done in order to bring this article to GA level.

1. It is well written

Fail

I list below some of the weaknesses of the article.

The article needs a copyeditor for spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc.. One example of spelling errors include “seperate geographic area which could be sustainable independantly”.
The article needs to be restructured (criterion 1b). There are ~~two~~ too many one-paragraph sections making it appear almost list-like when just one whole section would be sufficient. But then the writing will have to tie these sections together into several paragraphs. Here is where we need some compelling prose. Related to this, the one-sentence paragraphs should also be folded into the new text.
The lead section should be more of a summary of the article and reduced to two to three paragraphs.
There are several incidences of WP:WEASEL words: “The proposal is in line with similar movements”, “generally increased”, etc.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

Weak pass

References are cited but I would expect that, given the history of the Afrikaners, there would be good sources (i.e., books) that advocate the self-determination of Afrikaners and the Volkstaat model. If these exist and are cited, then the article would be more defensible.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

Fail

Important historical background is missing. Although links are provided to the Boer Republics, it would be interesting to understand the source of the desire of a Volkstaat with more information on the Voortrekkers and the Great Trek. As a purported motivation is the preservation of Afrikaner culture, some statements on the culture would be desirable, i.e., what ties them together (examples, the Afrikaans language, Calvinism, Afrikaner history, etc.). At the same time, information must be provided on why a Volkstaat is not supported (see next).

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

Fail

This is where I see some major problems.

The article does attempt to be NPOV, but it still appears to be written from Volkstaat-supporter’s point-of-view. This is implied in a subsection which mentions that even liberals and non-Afrikaners support the concept. It gives several motivations (or negative incentives) such as the rise in crime, reduction of power, etc.. However, not much information is given on those non-Afrikaners or even Afrikaners who would not support the concept (although racism is mentioned only in the lead section). Given these negative incentives, why do 66% of white South Africans oppose to the idea? Another indication of POV is the “Crime in general” subsection. Although assault and murder rates are nicely cited to a source, this fact would be more relevant to the article if someone who advocated the Volkstaat quoted this. If the article itself points this out, then it appears the article is pushing the Volkstaat’s POV.

5. It is stable

Pass

6. It contains images

Pass

In summary, here are the main points: 1) restructure the article, 2) give historical and cultural background, and 3) provide better balance showing why the majority do not support a Volkstaat. This is a difficult subject, but in my opinion, it is possible to make a quality article on this topic. And it is definitely of interest! But before nominating the article again, please make certain of the conformance to the GA criteria. RelHistBuff 15:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the review, I will work on the suggested improvements. --Gemsbok1 15:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright Violation

I have removed sections that were verbatim copies (or very close in some cases) of the following material: [1]. Please see Wikipedia:Copyright problems. --Deon Steyn 13:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flaws section

I am happy with User:WickedHorse moving criticism to the end of the article. We explain what it is, first. Wizzy…☎ 11:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Unfortunately, the same editor that created the section and decided that it must be located nearly at the top, just after the lead section and before the history section, has already reverted it back again to the top, after I moved it to the bottom. The editor exhibits a certain preference when it comes to which "Critisism" or "Flaws" sections belong at the top or bottom of certain articles. If studied closely, it can be argued that the editor maintains a certain POV through these subtle placements. --WickedHorse 13:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

No adequate reason was given for moving that section in the first place, so I returned it with a more explanatory edit note. This section puts the concept of a Volkstaat into perspective against other forms for ethnic nationalism and follows naturally on the intro describing it as a form of self determination. The concepts it is based on (ethnic nationalism, self determination) has to be put into context first. I didn't create this section either, but merely gave it a sub heading title and expanded on it, so it has always been in this position. And arguing that a paragraph remains in it's original position is hardly relevant to POV, whereas trying to hide a balanced critique of the fundamental premise on which the concept is based, as the very last paragraph is clearly not neutral. I will return the paragraph to the top, please take this full explanation into account and show how it is not central to the concept before moving again. --Deon Steyn 08:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The reason we have a talk page is so there is no edit-warring on the article page. We don't start the George Bush article with a criticism section. It is POV to start with its 'flaws' - it presumes that is the most important aspect of it. The people who want to set up a Volkstaat have their reasons, I don't think we should be bashing them at the first opportunity. Wizzy…☎ 09:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

We could suggest alternative names for the section, but the fact remains that previously there was only a sentence stating that the concept was the same as other cases like Chechens which clearly it is not. In order to put this into a neutral perspective I added comparisons to other cases, showing that it was not so simple to equate this to Kurds or Chechens to bring the article in line with a neutral point of view. No one is bashing anyone, the article is about an "Afrikaner homeland" and that very concept is up for debate, because it is based on several assumptions and these should be discussed right up front before considering various aspects or technicalities thereof. --Deon Steyn 09:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the Historical context is a good place to start. Perhaps the 'flaws' section could be named 'Comparison with other self-determination efforts' or something, but I think discussing the History of the Boer republics is more relevant than comparisons with Chechnya. The support section is quite long, and already has subsections. Perhaps after that section ? Wizzy…☎ 09:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

A very adequate reason was given for moving that section down to the bottom, and it is now still the exact same reason why that section belongs at the bottom. Read the reason again. Nothing has changed. Yes the section does puts the concept of a Volkstaat into perspective against other forms of ethnic nationalism, but so does the History and most of the other sections too. The History section leads also well from the intro, and I cannot see any reason why the Flaws section must be jammed in between. Intro and History are two classical sections to begin with, and it is imperitive that the user have an understanding of at least the History leading to the creation of the Volkstaat Proposal, before reading about its Flaws. The (3) concepts in the Flaws section that is put into context with other forms of self determination (length of historical occupation, minority speaking of language and constituting a major population an an area) are essentially concepts for which a background is first needed, therefor the Flaws section must be placed later in the article. The reader must first read and understand the details of the Afrikaner's historical occupation, minority speaking of language and constituting a major population an an area, before being able to understand how that is relevant to any flaws in the proposal. Even the summary sentence of the last paragraph of that section, which makes it clear that the case for self determination is weaker than that of other forms in other parts of the world, merely quantifies the strength of the Volkstaat case and I cannot see how such a quantification bears any importance on "critical understanding of the entire concept" which is rather a qualification concept, superceded by much other more important sections of the article like the History section, to name one. I will not move the section back to the bottom right now, but allow for other comments here, and then we take it from there. Also bear in mind that one other user has already also agreed that the section must be at the bottom. --WickedHorse 09:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You are being blinded by the title alone. I have changed it to a more neutral title of "Self determination", because this is the primary concept behind a Volkstaat and is what this paragraph describes – and what it has always described before getting a heading. And yes, to quantify the strength of the case for self-determination compared to others is in fact critical, because the case for self-determination is fairly weak compared to others. It is obvious to any neutral observer that the MOST critical aspect of the Volkstaat is the fact that it has almost no support, completely impractical and no substantial historical merit (as outlined in this section) and I would say these is a fairly important point to make up front. Some readers might not read to the end and then miss the final paragraph explaining how the entire concept borders on fantasy with very little support, impractical future or historical basis. --Deon Steyn 11:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with the previous title being removed (in fact I welcome it), but your new title for the section is poor, it is meaningless. I am sure someone can come up with a better title but right now I have no alternative suggestion. Nevertheless, I think you can be assured that this discussion is not closed, and there will most definately be other users that will raise the same issues raised here. --WickedHorse 11:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"I would say these is a fairly important point to make up front" - That may be an important point but I still fail to see the strength in your argument that that section should be up front, especially when seen in the light of your following sentence: "Some readers might not read to the end and then miss the final paragraph explaining how the entire concept borders on fantasy..." It seems that you are obsessed with making sure everybody reads that section and that is why you want it placed up front, and your calling it "fantasy" exhibits a POV from deep inside. The original name you gave to the section was "Flaws in the proposal" which you admitted yourself to be non-neutral (or at least less neutral than the current section title) adds to this suspicion. Also WikiWizzy has summed it up pretty well: "We explain what it is, first". Care to comment on that? Give a very good reason why the History section is, from a background perspective, less important than the Self Determination section. --WickedHorse 13:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Deon, although I utterly sympahtise with your POV here, we cannot write an article like that. I suggest adding a line or a short sentence to the lead paragraph to address your concerns, and then putting the para in dispute further down the article again. How does that sound to you? --Guinnog 13:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

We must remember that the idea of a Volkstaat is only about 10-15 years old and therefore the validity of the idea as an example of self-determination is at the very heart of the matter, which is exactly the point of: "We explain what it is, first". It is too large to form part of the intro, but it should at least follow it directly, because it shows that the "Volkstaat" idea is a fairly new construct with a very weak foundation, before showing the minute details. Remember also that previously this paragraph WAS part of the intro. I did not put it there, but merely added NPOV and heading as it was completely non neutral by comparing it matter of factly to the Chechens and Kurds when this is clearly not as straight forward. The concept has to be put into perspective before delving into the finer details and timelines so that the reader goes into the details with a neutral point of view. --Deon Steyn 07:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to clutter the page, but I also feel I should point out that I have been editing this page since Sept 20, while User:WickedHorse has only made one contribution and that was to move the section I edited to the bottom of the article following a difference of opinion on another article (2010 FIFA World Cup). I don't know if this constitutes some form of "wiki stalking" or what type of recourse I have, but I just feel other editors should see his remarks in this context. --Deon Steyn 07:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I still do not agree that that section should be at the top. You did not add a NPOV heading at the beginning, you changed it only later after you first gave it a POV heading (when seen in the light that the section was at the top). This action, as well as the fact that you called the proposal "bordering on fantasy" disqualifies you (in my opinion) from any viewpoint and suggestions you might have on the article in terms of NPOV. But let's take myself out of the equation, if you like, then you still have two other editors (Wizzy and Guinnog) that have both suggested that the section must rather reside at the bottom of the article. The question is whether your argument, seen in the background of your own subtle POV as explained above, carries enough weight to convince them (and potentially others) otherwise.
Nevertheless, I do agree with you that the original content (in the lead section, before it was in your "Flaws in the Proposal" section) was POV, but through your placement of the section at the top of the article, the initial name you gave the section, and possibly the current content of the section, you have shifted the former right POV over the neutral border and all the way to the left of the POV side. And through this, seen in context with your POV comments on this Talk page, there can be no doubt that your NPOV and neutral interpretations and intentions with regards to this article are questionable. --WickedHorse 09:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This is wasting everyone's time, by repeating false accusations:

"your placement of the section at the top of the article"... I merely counter balanced a biased sentence expanding it into a section WHERE IT WAS... the first time it was moved, was by you, WickedHorse.
"first gave it a POV heading"... I'm assuming you mean to say I gave it a "non neutral point of view" heading. The wording of the heading is a minor issue open for debate or suggestions.
As per my preceding post, your first and only contribution to this article was to move a section I worked on and this after a dispute on another article. I would say your motives are more questionable: either to antagonize me or protect the current unbalanced article?
NPOV, this section is the only one putting the concept into perspective and without it, or by hiding it at the bottom the article would indeed be less complete or perhaps even biased.

How do we move on? Let us please keep the debate to this section's position in the article and the reasons for and against. --Deon Steyn 10:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, let's keep the debate to the point. So currently there are three editors against one that the section should be at the bottom. In fact, I have tried to include more editors to assist with this debate, and Guinnog has helped. Have you tried to get help from other editors too? If so, where are they? In any event, I think we should set some sort of a date when, in the absense of more arguments (from different editors) for your case, we move the section to the bottom as per majority request and consensus. --WickedHorse 12:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Currently one editor has remarked on the section title and another (Guinnog) suggested a sentence in the intro and moving para "further down", this does not constitute consensus by any stretch of the imagination, especially since the other contributors were not yet aware of your dubious motives for your one and only edit to this page, something you consistently avoid answering, instead attempting to drown out debate with laborious quasi intellectual rhetoric. I believe my reasons for keeping the section at the top where it started is more compelling than reasons for putting it at the bottom... in fact someone has yet to present such an argument.

Reasons for keeping:

This is where the section started
It pertains to the heart of the matter of how strong a case of self-determination this really is
It provides a context to evaluate finer detail in the rest of the article.

Reasons for moving it to bottom

To antagonize one editor (Deon Steyn)???

You seem to have spent most of your short time on Wikipedia in debate on Talk pages instead of contributing. Still awaiting an explanation for your actions. --Deon Steyn 14:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

So, how many more times are you going to suggest that we "move on" and "stick to debating the section at hand", and then right afterwards go against your own suggestion and clutter the page with your theories of antagonization?
One editor (Wizzy) commented that he was happy with the section being moved to the bottom, and another (Guinnog) suggested a closing line in the lead section as well as the section moved further down. It is as simple as that. So at the moment there are three editors (including myself) that are of the opinion that the section must at least be moved further down.
Nevertheless, differences set aside, I think it is time for Request For Comment; hopefully some more editors can contribute to get this dispute resolved fairly and that a neutral viewpoint can result from the article/section (which may be to move the section to the bottom, leave it as it is, or edit it), so I have listed this article here. Editors, please comment your opinions here below. Thanks in advance. --WickedHorse 20:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It isn't a "theory of antagonization", it is a fact clear for anyone to see that you have made no contributions to the article (a fact you are now trying to cover up with some trivial edits, including incorrect corrections and once again altering/removing edits of mine). And you have yet to explain your behaviour, once again trying to skirt the issue and deflect attention from it. I don't think your requests, opinions and poor quality edits hold much water on this page anymore. --Deon Steyn 09:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of personal nature ("campaign against you") continued on Deon Steyn's Talk Page to avoid cluttering up this page further. Let us keep at the relevant issues at hand, namely the disputed neutrality resulting from the placement position of the Self determination section. The article is still up for Request For Comment here. --WickedHorse 14:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Again you avoid the issue of your suspicious behaviour, which is not a "discussion of personal nature", but relevant to your edits of this article. I am also still awaiting your explanation ON THIS PAGE, because it is relevent to the discussion. You have still to explain why your first edit to this article (16:06, 15 October 2006, [2]) was merely to move a section I worked on and this directly following a difference of opinion the preceding days on Talk:2010 FIFA World Cup#Readiness for the tournament section. --Deon Steyn 06:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I shall not enter into any personal discussion with you here on this page. We may do so on your Talk Page. The fact of the matter is that at least two other editors agree that the section must be at least moved lower down. If I were the only one that wanted to move it down, OR if you also suspected the other two editors also of having suspicious reasons why to move it down as well, you would maybe have had a point. As it stands, I decided to re-read your section and decided to move it down, and other editors agree with me. The section will be moved again down soon, after a lapse of time specified by the Wikipedia guidelines, and pending other editors' comments regarding this issue. The number of editors agreeing that the section should be moved down outweighs your circumstantial accusations of suspicion, so please allow for a clean, civil Talk Page and a good NPOV article and its sections. --WickedHorse 09:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You are still avoiding the question. The only comments from other editors were before they were made aware of your suspicious actions AND before the section's name changed AND before I had a chance to explain the section's position and context. So there can be no claim of anything even approaching consensus. You also keep making subtle changes to you position, first it was the bottom of the article, now it is only "lower down". STILL awaiting an explanation for you actions on this page. --Deon Steyn 09:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is still up for Request For Comment here and the section will be moved again down soon, after a lapse of time specified by the Wikipedia guidelines, and pending other editors' comments regarding this issue. That is my final word on this. Thanks. --WickedHorse 09:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I was perfectly aware of WickedHorse's reasons for moving the section when I first commented. Please assume good faith. I have explained why I think the section should be moved. You say :-

Reasons for keeping:

This is where the section started

This has little relevance.
It pertains to the heart of the matter of how strong a case of self-determination this really is

I do not think so, and I have explained why above. It is relevant, but not overwhelmingly so.
It provides a context to evaluate finer detail in the rest of the article.

I also disagree.

Reasons for moving it to bottom

To antagonize one editor (Deon Steyn)???

No, adequate reasons have been given above, and your sensitivity is yours alone.

Please skip all mention of 'antagonisation', 'personal discussion', 'suspicious behaviour', or take it elsewhere. Wizzy…☎ 09:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for some fresh input Wizzy. I just thought other contributors should be aware of my "history" with WickedHorse and his history with this page. The section is now called "self determination" and the extremely weak case/support for a Volkstaat is an important aspect of the concept as a whole. At least we have now balanced out the original sentence equating it to the Kurds and Chechens. I suppose it belongs with the section "support for the proposal...". I will move it there and perhaps only leave a short sentence in the intro as per Guinnog suggestion. --Deon Steyn 10:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. That sounds acceptable. Wizzy…☎ 11:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Some comments:

Please refrain from exhibiting POV by using ~~strong adjectives or~~ poor form by describing the case/support for a Volkstaat ~~"extremely" weak or~~ "bordering on fantasy". This does not belong here.

*You balanced out the original sentence, not we. It was a sole act (albeit correct) from you, not a group effort.

*You refer to Guinnog's suggestion, but you in fact did not exercise it. I don't see any short sentence in the intro (yet?).

Thank you for moving the section down, albeit a bit. I am satisfied with the move and new (better) title. If there are no other objections from other editors after a while, I will remove the article from Request For Comment. --WickedHorse 21:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that "extremely weak" is not a point of view, but an objective neutral observation, because this is the weakest case for a separate homeland or self determination (admittedly a vague area) that I am aware of. Furthermore, this is a talk page, we are supposed to discuss the article and edits to it and editors may even (likely) have different points of view that they then consolidate/compromise into a balanced neutral article from a neutral point of view, please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. This the "we" I am referring to as Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and as a new member we welcome your input. --Deon Steyn 05:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You just cannot live with the fact that the section is moved further down, can you? You had to amend to your sentence (added to the lead section) with a forward link to the "Self determination" section, indirectly but effectively making sure your section stays at the top (albeit via a forward link). There is also a spelling mistake and the grammar is poor. I will give you the opportunity to improve the sentence(s). Start by removing the forward link, it is after all not Wikipedia guideline for lead sections (please read Lead Sections): "Avoid links in the summary--users should be encouraged to read the summary, and the article, before jumping elsewhere." --WickedHorse 08:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I did look at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, the very first sentence states, "A talk page is research for the article, and the policies that apply to articles also apply to talk pages. Research and debate should meet the same standards of verification, neutral point of view and no original research.". Calling the Volkstaat proposal "bordering on fantasy" is not NPOV and repeat, does not belong here. --WickedHorse 08:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I added the intro sentence, because you complained that I did not "exercise Guinnog's suggestion". Admittedly it is quite difficult to understand what is meant by exercising someone's suggestion, but I assumed you meant for me to implement or follow his suggestion (of a short sentence in the intro)? I also do not understand what you mean by "amend to your sentence", as I created it (at your prompting) in a single edit without amendment. I was not aware of that one should avoid linking to sections and I will correct this (as well as the obvious and accidental spelling mistakes). Can you please be more concise in your Talk page postings (and try and limit edits to them) as per the very same guidelines you refer to, as an example stating that the forward link should be removed would have been sufficient and keep in mind Wikipedia's rule of civility. --Deon Steyn 09:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)