Talk:Orania/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

RfC: What should the first sentence be?

The following discussion 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.

---

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)

  I consider J and K unsuitable, because they suggest that the town is not Afrikaner-only, and is instead just founded by Afrikaners. BilledMammal (talk) 00:27, 1 May 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)

Separatism: the belief held by people of a particular race, religion, or other group within a country that they should be independent and have their own government or in some way live apart from other people:[1] Seems to be an exact fit for Orania. Some citations from WP:RS with the word “separatist” describing Orania: [2] [3][4][5][6] etc Park3r (talk) 11:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• I believe that Option K is the best choice here, followed by Option J. It succinctly describes the town as well as the rationale behind its founding. It's the most informative, while also leading readers to understand more about it. I think adding a sentence after to explain the fact that it is segregated and whites-only would help support this point. As others have mentioned, what makes this town distinct and of note is the fact that it's a separatist project within South Africa. I think it's preferable to something like Options B or E, which not only are an awkward constructions, but are less informative about the history of the town. Quetosfh2489 (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
• Option K. Followed by Option J and Option A. These seem to be the best descriptors for the town's purpose, functionality, and history. I don't know much about this region, so if you told me this was an an Afrikaner town or a predominantly Afrikaner town I probably wouldn't think that much of it (and honestly probably thought anyone could move there if they wanted to). According to even the rest of the article's lead, this is explicitly not the case. Picking those options would 100% bury the lead here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

  As for why Option D does not suffice, I think people are inclined to sometimes forget (like me), or simply to not understand, Afrikaners are inherently a white ethnicity. The article Afrikaners isn't particularly helpful regarding that fact because its lead does not clearly follow Wikipedia:Summary style (which I just tagged).
  Quetosfh2489 makes some other great points above as well. Options B and E are pretty awkward constructions that are less informative overall as a result. They are still slightly better than some of the other alternatives, but that doesn't say much.
  Finally, another reason against Option G is that the census data is a primary source. We should trust that WP:RS are aware of it and are still using "whites-only" descriptors for a reason. To make our own analysis of the census data is steering a little too close to WP:OR for my liking. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

• Option K makes the clearest sense to me and provides the most information. (Option A as a second choice) Option J is similar, but I dislike it for it's easter egg-y link of white. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 22:54, 30 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.

Afrikaner Separatist v. White Separatist

In my recent edit, I labeled this as an Afrikaner Separatist town rather than White Separatist. I agree with the sentiment that it is a separatist and ethno-supremacist town, and tied to the concept of a Volkstaat but just that there has been a huge amount of friction between English and Afrikaans-speaking White South Africans, especially concerning the Boer War. I think it would be more telling to label this Afrikaner separatist, especially concerning their ethnic nationalism in the country, as opposed to White Supremacism in General. Also see this article on how historical tensions have led Afrikaners to dislike the English language in general https://www.news24.com/w24/archive/afrikaners-cant-speak-english-20120207. Harshalrach (talk) 22:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Archiving

Currently the archive bot is set to archive topics on this page if the last post was more than a year old (365 days). Does anyone object to me changing this to 3 months (90 days)?-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Since there were no comments, I made the change.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

You're either being disingenuous or you genuinely don't understand that Afrikaners are essentially exclusively white. There are supposed to be a handful of black people who identify as Afrikaner. However being Afrikaner in the sense that Orania means it is not simply about speaking Afrikaans, but includes all the other aspects that were traditionally associated with Afrikaners like being white, conservative Christians. 102.65.54.41 (talk) 15:49, 31 October 2022 (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)

By that logic, I don't like non-whites because I don't share a residency with them? That is stupid logic. Not that it matters at all, but I have more non-white friends than white ones. Not living with them on my property doesn't mean I don't like them. You should drop your racial prejudice and learn that freedom of association and self determination are both human rights. Obviously freedom of association comes from both sides... I have to want to associate with the community and the community has to want to associate with me. If I'm not a Christian Afrikaner, they wouldn't want to associate with me. Loving your culture doesn't mean hating the culture of others. This isn't rocket science! Or maybe it is and I'm just smart. Now mind your language next time you post on here. 197.229.1.54 (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2022 (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 [7][8] - 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)

  You could use your eyes and just look at the census data to know it's factually not a white's only town, does not matter how many sources you reference. 169.1.95.57 (talk) 15:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

The town is very clearly intended as a place specifically for white Afrikaners, hence it is de facto whites-only. In South Africa the term Afrikaner refers to white people who speak the Afrikaans language among other things. In the past they were also most likely to be conservative Christians too. The origin of the name is irrelevant to its real world use for at least a century.

The DNA aspect is irrelevant. Unless you can show that Orania requires submission of DNA results to move there.

Hard to know if you actually expect your claim about the word white to be taken seriously. 102.65.54.41 (talk) 16:19, 31 October 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.^[9] @Desertambition: has re-added information about Volkstaat^[10]

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)

that is not factual as a Afrikaaner that is not white would be allowed to stay there. 169.1.95.57 (talk) 15:59, 15 August 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)

  Oh please... I guess this would go for anyone claiming to be female when he is born a male too. Why let the person define himself and be potentially self-serving when there are sooooo many scientific sources showing that not to be the case right? I can agree with that yes. 197.229.1.101 (talk) 12:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Local census

@Johnmars3: You changed "A local census carried out in 2020, found 2,066 inhabitants in 831 households." to "A local census carried out in 2021, found 2,377 inhabitants." But the only source cited for this is: "Orania Sensus 2019" (PDF). Orania.co.za. Retrieved 10 February 2022. I do not see how a 2019 local census supports either set of data.-- Toddy1 (talk) 03:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Their last census was in 2021 which found 2377 residents. I just changed it back to 2020's numbers for now until I can get a link to the new census document. Johnmars3 (talk) 00:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

List of census documents:

• "Orania Sensus 2019" (PDF). Orania.co.za. September 2020.
• "Orania Sensus 2020" (PDF). Orania.co.za. September 2021.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I found video evidence for the 2021 census results, which came out to the 2377 residents you spoke of. In a YouTube video by the organization AfriForum about Orania: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV_-0TWtQl4 at the 8:22 marking of the video. The information is given by The Head of Planning and Development of the Orania town council, Kobus Pretorius. Jan200203 (talk) 20:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)