Jump to content

Talk:Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Flag

Thanks to DO'Neil for putting up the AWB flag in the article. Thanks also to Quiensabe for the additional information on the NP and Bophuthatswana debacles. Finally thanks Findlay McWalter, MDCore, and Chris 73 to other improvments. -SeamusRedux

"resemblance to the natzi party flag? granted, that was one of the first things i thought of, but it's an irrelivant opinion nonetheless isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.73.207 (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not an opinion - it's a reliably-sourced fact. Whether it's relevant is up for discussion, but as you said "that was one of the first things i thought of." I'm open to discussing it, but I think it is relevant. --hippo43 (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Past tense?

Why is it in past tense (i.e. they were an extremist group)

It's because they are no longer in existence. 69.118.97.26 18:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

But they are in existence! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.172.14.80 (talk) 08:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

They are sometimes refered to in the present tense Shreder 02 (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

'Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging' vs. Afrikanerweerstandsbeweging

I have moved 'Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging' to Afrikanerweerstandsbeweging. If the latter is the proper name, then we should use it. If there are no protests, I will also proceed and change the wikilinks to avoid redirect. --Ezeu 17:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Umm, no, the original name is the proper name. You can also see this on their own website. It is improper in Afrikaans to contract the name into one word, and should be two. I suggest you move it back and revert the wikilinks you changed. dewet|™ 16:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I asked here, and waited a few days before editing the wikilinks. I concede that I should have given it a litile more time, since I (apparently) was mistaken. I will revert my erroneous edits. But since Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and the accuracy of this article does not rely solely on my shoulders, I suggest y'all pitch in. --Ezeu 13:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved. I confirmed that both the AWB website and the Afrikaans wikipedia use the name in two words, as Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging. So I moved the page from Afrikanerweerstandsbeweging, but I stupidly messed up by moving it to Afrikanerweerstands Beweging - putting the gap in the wrong place. Slip of the keyboard, and a rather public mistake. I have now moved all the content back to the right place, including this talk page. Unfortunately the history is now hidden on the page I incorrectly moved it to - [1]. I don't know if an administrator could move the history back to the right place. Humble apologies for this error. Zaian 22:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to CesarB, this is now sorted out. Thanks Ezeu and Dewet for letting the admins know about the problem. Zaian 23:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
No problemo. Sometimes, the Wikimedia software can be a nightmare to sort out seemingly simple problems ;) dewet|™ 07:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Bop coup?

I have a strong feeling the events described here were in 1990, not 1994. Can anyone help? Guinnog 23:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

He railed against the lifting of many so-called "Petty apartheid" laws such as the law banning interracial sex and marriage, as well as the larger and more important steps, such as limited political rights to Indians and Coloureds (though the AWB had several Coloured members)

Is this really true? Did and does AWB have coloured members? Dr.Poison 20:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Source?

"and wished to drive all English-speakers into the sea " Is this true and can we have a source for this and could somebody also confirm that AWB had coloured members? Dr.Poison 23:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

For real?

This article says that The Afrikanerweerstandsbeweging had backing from the American Government? that can't really be true... Stevo D 14:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I lived in Pretoria at the time and had connections to the US Embassy. I hadn't heard that they were giving aid to the AWB, but given many of the other bizarre things they were doing it wouldn't have particularly surprised me.
I can say that I know for sure that they were making a practice of hiring the children of ANC officers to work in the Embassy, a practice that put these people pretty much off-limits to the South African Police. As well, I am almost certain that they provided substantial logistical support to the ANC in their dust-up with Inkatha in Natal.
You have to sort of understand that US foreign policy is often schizoid in nature in this sort of situation. For example, the US made sure that the South Africans got the Bull designed 155 mm cannon which kept them in the game in Angola. Plaasjaapie 13:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The reference on page 96 says that in 1870 the US recognised the sovereignty of the Transvaal Republic. It's not saying that the USA supported the AWB in the late 20th century. Zaian 19:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

"that can't really be true... " why exactly can't it be true?, you think this would be out of character?

actually never mind, i'm sure if you don't like it you guys will just ignore it until it goes away, like you do with the rest of your history, that kind of "america would never do that" attitude makes me so mad :/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.73.207 (talk) 13:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Boers or Afrikaners?

Okay, I've mildly addressed the issue of whether or not they were fighting for the Boer people or the Afrikaners in general (thus including Cape Afrikaners), Terre'Blanche refers to himself as a Boer, however the name indicates that they are pro- Afrikaner as well. It seems more likely that they were a resistance movement for the Boer people (considering that there was a lack of Boer- represented political organisations during the Apartheid era and the National Party seemed to have Afrikaner and English- speaking Whites' interests at heart over the Boers).

A lot of their rhetoric was directed at the farming man, they had a firm belief that they had been sold- out by DeKlerk and that the Boers had had no chance to pose their views before the Reform Process was begun.

Either way we need some solid proof to prove who they were an organisation for, the fact that non- Boer whites related more to the Boer resistance to the ending of Apartheid than they did to their own people doesn't make a difference, we need to have the ethos as set out by ET. 82.14.85.58 17:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

======

Please forgive me if I am not following proper protocol - don't do this often. The answer lies in the semantics of the word "Afrikaner". This describes someone who is Afrikaans-speaking and is descended from the Dutch, German and (sometimes) French immigrants of the country's past.

The Afrikaans collective term for those who speak the language of Afrikaans is "Afrikaansprekendes" - literally, "Afrikaans speakers". This includes anyone who speaks the language as a mother tongue.

Therefore, "Afrikaans nationalism" is the drive to promote and protect the language within the South African cultural and political context, whereas "Afrikaner nationalism" is the effort to protect the white, first language Afrikaans speaker. The latter is typified by a measure of conservative ideology, as is the case with the AWB.

"Boer" is literally translated as "farmer" but is often used to mean either "Afrikaner" or "Afrikaans speaker", as defined above. Bear in mind, that those who use the term about themselves in the sense of "Afrikaner" usually subscribe to the corresponding ideology. On the other hand, people often use the term pejoratively against Afrikaans whites, which is to be expected, I suppose.

Thanks / dankie / enkosi ---Nick 26 October 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.62.97 (talk) 13:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

========

POV

This article is unbalanced in that it explores very little of the violence committed by AWB members: see for instance -

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Suidafrikaan (talk • contribs).

A few missing facts, does not constitute bias or non-neutral, please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If you feel that additional information should be added to the article, then do so, but do not restore this tag on the grounds of this missing information. Furthermore, it is up for debate whether the two cited examples would contribute anything to the understanding of the organization, because it refers to abhorrent violent conduct of some members, presumably not condoned by the leadership. Aside from that, the article already describes various incidents of violent protests and actions including the Bophuthatswana coup, the Battle of Ventersdorp and the Storming of Kempton Park World Trade Centre which should make their official/organized violent abundantly clear. --Deon Steyn 11:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The balance is actually very much against the AWB- and the then-government. For instance the statement that "whilst not officially endorsed" it was regarded as a fringe group, and able to operate unhindered. Why imply that the government supported the AWB. There are a lot of fringe groups operating unhindered in the USA, does that mean the the US government unofficially endorses them? Or is it suggested that the group should have been banned? What about opposition to the banning of terrorist groups, like the ANC? There needs to be less of this covert bias.124.197.15.138 (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Bias

"British war crimes led to the illegal take over of South Africa in the early 1900's. He and other Boers continue their struggle for freedom of the mounting surpression and persecution of their people."

Hardly neutral, IMO. Josh 18:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we can change the sentence to something like "He and other Boers continue their struggle for freedom of, according to them, the mounting surpression and persecution of their people." I am not a fundi in English, so I dunno if that sentence would be correct.41.243.32.195 (talk) 10:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Use of the word "boers" is a problem in itself. It is widely regarded to be an ethnic slur by most white South Africans. The problem is that the AWB members/supporters use it with pride as a "self identifying" term. Roger (talk) 12:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
All of my family members in SA, as far as I know, hold to being proud of being called Boers because of the Boer history, not because of the fringe group AWB. Invmog (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Bophuthatswana coup

There should be at least 1 paragraph in this article, not just a wikilink to Bophuthatswana coup - maxrspct ping me 19:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

As the AWB didn't actually get involved in any fighting in Bophuthatswana, they didn't kill any soldiers, much less hundreds. However, while leaving the country, some AWB members were murdered. The cold-blooded killing of three unarmed injured AWB members was hardly a triumph for liberty or justice. And it certainly didn't mark the end of white supremacy. The AWB did not represent the power structure or order in South Africa. RSA was a relatively liberal democracy until 1994. The AWB were a fringe group, nothing more.124.197.15.138 (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently they did engage in fighting, but not with the Bop army, but looters bussed in by the ANC. The three people killed were indeed AWB members, but it's not clear that there presence was related to politics. Apparently at least one of them had a shop in that area. With a paid up membership of more then 80.000 they were hardly a fringe group then. --41.151.108.133 (talk) 07:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The youth...?

"18 - to 35-year-olds to join the party's youth wing"

18 - 35 years old ppl are considered "youth" from when...?! I though that "youth" is under 18. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.133.206 (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

In South Africa, political youth wings often go up to age 35. Zaian (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Under 18 is a child. Roger (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
or minor--judas (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

AWB logo section

This is what the article said about the AWB logo:

"It has a strong resemblance to the Nazi flag, likely due to the historic admiration for Nazism among the far right in South Africa."

Just because AWB chose a poor logo makes all far-right South Africans Nazi supporters?

I think not. Although I think they could've picked a better logo, the Nazi accusation is unsourced. Although it's true that some South Africans wanted to join the Germans in both world wars it was a minority and according to Wikipedia they wanted to get rid of the British after the Boer Wars, not promote Nazi-style national socialism and military tyranny and eugenics. In fact, South Africa fought against the Nazis. And so it because of the lapse in logic shown in the quote and it's general unsourcedness that I'm removing it for now, feel free to discuss this or find references for it. Invmog (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced? Not only does the AWB use a logo which bears more than a passing resemblence to the Nazi swastika flag, their members often wear brownshirt uniforms at rallies. Furthermore, the AWB often uses Reichsadler eagles in the background of its rallies. I have amended the section to say that the AWB logo bears a resemblence to the Nazi swastika, which it does, without editoralising over the significance of this.94.173.12.152 (talk) 08:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Removing the comment. your first source from the AWB website states nowhere that it resembels a nazi symbol nad your second is a point of view news artical. nowhere do you see a swatsika in the pictures and the arm raised soloute has been used by Afrikaners for years. and has nothing to do with the flag —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottykira (talk • contribs) 20:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


While it is true that not all South Africans are Nazi supporters, there is a history of support: the National Party supported non-involvment in WW2 because of it, some South Africans fought on behalf of Nazi Germany, etc. The sentence does not imply that all South Africans have Nazi leanings, it states only that, historically, there has been support for them "...among the far right in South Africa."
Might help if you READ the sentence, make at least a passing attempt to UNDERSTAND the sentence, and then, most of all, file that chip off your shoulder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.62.97 (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

"Political organization"?

Why is it not mentioned once in the entire article that the AWB is a terrorist organization? Or paramilitary if you will, the meaning is the same. The article reads as if it were just another political party.--87.162.3.142 (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It is currently a political, not a terrorist or paramilitary organisation. Jim Michael (talk) 01:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
It has never been designated a terrorist organisation by any competent government or judicial authority. It's paramilitary "wing" has been defunct for years. It is not a political party because in South Africa an organisation aquires the status of political party only if it is registered by the Independent Electoral Commission. It is simply a civil society organisation with a political aim. Roger (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging → Afrikaner Resistance Movement — Afrikaner Resistance Movement is the most common English-language name, per WP:Naming_conventions_(use_English). hippo43 (talk) 18:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Evidence? WP:NAME states "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name." Unlike "Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging", it is the English-language name! Are there any alternative English-language names? A Google search for English-language sites gives 272,000 for the Afrikaans version - many of the top results are Wikipedia mirrors - and 1,760,000 results for the English name. --hippo43 (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes terms are used commonly in English-language publications in their original untranslated form. If it's more commonly used in English in that form, that is an English form - there's no English academy setting "proper" usage, so English is as English speakers do, and our policy has little time for linguistic prescriptivism. As the guardian.co.uk link shows, the untranslated form has at least some use - if you can demonstrate that the translated form is used more, we will move to that however. Knepflerle (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I entirely agree with your view on linguistic prescription - for me, this is only about what EL sources actually use, not what anyone should use. A google search for English results with the Afrikaans version returns about 270,000 hits. Searching for the English version gives me about 1.76 million - more thazn 6 times as many. This seems compelling to me. --hippo43 (talk) 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Google counts are pretty weak evidence for doing anything, it's far more convincing to give examples from reliable sources. What do news outlets use? Academic journal articles? Political histories? Other encyclopaedic reference works? Knepflerle (talk) 12:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Search engine tests are explicitly recommended by the policy, and when the difference is so marked, their weaknesses are less relevant. Obviously it's more difficult to accurately survey a more select bunch of sources, and easy to find examples to support either view. I will post links later, but a quick look at the biggest international news sources suggests "AWB" or "Afrikaner Resistance Movement" are usually used first.
Anyhow, the naming convention does not differentiate between different quality reliable sources in the same way that WP:V does, and like you have above. In fact, the instruction to use the most common EL name does precisely the opposite in many cases, mandating more informal titles rather than what might be used in academic sources, for example. --hippo43 (talk) 14:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
"the naming convention does not differentiate between different quality reliable sources in the same way that WP:V does" - it's not entirely clear what you mean here, but WP:NAME reads essentially the same as it did when I had a large part in writing it. The nutshell version is "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources.". Google is a survey of anything and everything on the internet, including the misspelt, incorrect and entirely bot-generated. It is not a survey of reliable English-language sources, that's why I suggested the more intelligent and nuanced search. The idea is not to cherry-pick isolated sources to support either or both positions; rather the idea is to take a representative sample of reliable sources and examine what they use. Knepflerle (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm aware of those weaknesses of Google, but can't see that they would explain the huge difference in numbers. My point re a survey of reliable sources is that it is difficult to be authoritative, and easy for editors to fall victim to a confirmation bias. --hippo43 (talk) 23:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Its most recognisable title is AWB - even for Anglophones, though most pronounce it with dutch letters. I am not an Afrikaans speaker, but I recognise "AWB" before "Afrikaner Resistance Movement". There are precedents - see Ivory Coast. However, I would never type this title - I would come from AWB probably. For the majority of people reading the en wp ARM makes more sense. Wizzy…☎ 11:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, the abbreviation AWB is certainly one of the most recognisable terms. {The vast majority of Anglophones, however, live outside SA, and use the English pronunciation of the letters.) In any case, AWB means some other stuff as well, so is a disambiguation page. --hippo43 (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
'Recent news overage' isn't the most important measure - and citing one example is hardly convincing. What do reliable EL sources in general use - overwhelmingly, and not surprisingly, they use the English language version, which is consistent with our policy. The huge difference in Google results is pretty compelling. --hippo43 (talk) 00:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose If it wasn't for "recent news coverage" there would be practically zero non South African sources anyway. You can't have your cake and eat it. Practically all English news media in SA use "AWB", (pronounced "ay double-yew bee" in the case of radio and television). Roger (talk) 11:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Not true at all - the AWB has received a huge amount of coverage internationally, particularly since the late 80s and early 90s, in good quality international sources. Without any evidence, I'm not sure that you're even right about English media in SA. And, again, recent sources worldwide, which must be considered according to policy, primarily use the abbreviation or the English version.
While South African news sources are not the determining factor here, according to policy, AWB is already taken - it is, inevitably, a disambig page. "AWB" might (there's not a significant difference via a search engine test) be more widespread than "Afrikaner Resistance Movement", but there's no doubt that both are far, far more widespread than "Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging". I'd certainly support using a good disambiguated title here - something like "AWB (Afrikaner Resistance Movement)". --hippo43 (talk) 12:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Hold on! South Africa is a country where English is widely used and is a national language. National varieties of English therefore comes into play. A global Google search, or indeed, global English sources, are irrelevant. What we need to know is what the organisation is known as in reliable South African English sources. So far, no evidence has been produced to justify a move on those grounds. Skinsmoke (talk) 03:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
That's not how I understand WP:NAME - it allows for the most appropriate form of English spelling to be used ("All national varieties of English spelling are acceptable...") However, Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging is not the South African English spelling of Afrikaner Resistance Movement. The SA English spelling of Afrikaner Resistance Movement is Afrikaner Resistance Movement.
As far as I can tell, nothing in WP:NAME allows or compels us to check only local sources for usage. In particular, WP:UCN simply says "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article" and does not restrict this to the local English name. WP:UE, part of the same policy, makes no distinction between local sources and international sources. If there is something that I have missed, that compels us to check only South African EL sources, could you point it out? --hippo43 (talk) 10:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
WP:ENGVAR is supposed to take precedence everywhere that spelling differences are merely down to different standards in different countries. Hyopthetically, say that the untranslated form were predominant in South Africa, but the translated form predominates everywhere else; in this case we would use the untranslated form as this is an article with strong regional ties to South Africa. In this case I expect that usage is mixed both inside and outside South Africa and that this will not be the deciding factor, but a survey of reliable sources will make this clear. Knepflerle (talk) 12:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
WP:ENGVAR is part of WP:MOS, and is only a guideline. WP:NAME is a policy so takes precedence over the manual of style. I totally agree that the content should be written in SA English where there are differences, but I can't see anything in WP:NAME to support using the Afrikaans version of the name as the title. --hippo43 (talk) 12:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Recourse to policy/guideline hairsplitting is nearly always a sign of utterly missing the point and spirit of both, as it is here: WP:ENGVAR is included in WP:NAME. It is an integral part of it. Knepflerle (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
No, WP:ENGVAR is part of the Manual of Style; it is not a part of WP:NAME at all. I can't see anything in WP:NAME that would support using a non-EL name when a widely-used English version exists. WP:NAME supports using local English spellings, but this isn't an issue of spelling - "Weerstandsbeweging" is not an SA English spelling of "Resistance Movement". It also says "In deciding whether and how to translate a foreign name into English, follow English-language usage. If there is no established English-language treatment for a name, translate it..." In this case, there is a clearly established English-language treatment for "Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging" - it is "Afrikaner Resistance Movement". --hippo43 (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
"No, WP:ENGVAR is part of the Manual of Style; it is not a part of WP:NAME at all.": nonsense. Wikipedia:NAME#National varieties of English. Knepflerle (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:NAME#National varieties of English is not WP:ENGVAR. The naming convention links to WP:ENGVAR for 'further information' but WP:ENGVAR is not a part of WP:NAME. It's really not complicated. --hippo43 (talk) 23:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment It all depends on what South Africans are happiest with. It is not up to the rest of us to impose an Anglo-American style on what is their Wikipedia as much as it is the United Kingdom's or the United States's. The article is a specifically South African topic. We have had enough problems recently with American editors trying to impose English or invented English names on Irish organisations, much to the disgust of Irish editors, who know them purely by their Irish name. Let's not fall into the same trap here in South Africa. Skinsmoke (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
This is nothing to do with "what South Africans are happiest with" - that has no basis in policy at all. This depends on what is the most common English name - i.e. what reliable English-language sources use. Nobody is trying to impose "an Anglo-American style" on this article. I don't know what Irish articles you're talking about but I don't see how that issue relates to this case. --hippo43 (talk) 19:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
But if there is regional variation, it has everything to do with use in reliable South African English-language sources. If South African English predominantly uses the name taken untranslated from Afrikaans, then we use it too per WP:ENGVAR. Knepflerle (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I think it is fair to say that ARM is not colloquially used at all within South Africa. Wizzy…☎ 12:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
So you recommend a survey of reliable sources, do nothing about it and then become a 'strong oppose' because my understanding of the policy doesn't match yours? From your comment above about writing the policy, it sounds like you may have ownership issues over its meaning. Either way, you don't seem to have an opinion on the issue itself, and have taken a position that isn't based on your view of the sources, but on your disagreement with me, which seems petty and pointless.
Anyway, there seem to be three sections of WP:NAME that relate to this issue - 'Common names', 'Foreign names and anglicization' and 'National varieties of English'.
'Common names' states "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article." The most common English-language name is Afrikaner Resistance Movement; Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging is the Afrikaans name.
'Foreign names and anglicization' states "In deciding whether and how to translate a foreign name into English, follow English-language usage. If there is no established English-language treatment for a name, translate it.." There is an established EL treatment of the Afrikaans name - 'Afrikaner Resistance Movement'.
'National varieties of English' states "All national varieties of English spelling are acceptable in article titles ... An article title on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the variety of English appropriate for that nation." This is not an issue of spelling differences, and this section makes no reference to how to treat foreign language names. 'Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging' is not South African English, it's Afrikaans. While 'Afrikaner' is an SA English word, 'Weerstandsbeweging' is not a word that is at all widely used in SA English outside this context - see this Google search, for example. --hippo43 (talk) 23:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. UE does not say "use the English name, and make one up if none is forthcoming", it says "use the form found in English sources", which overwhelmingly refer to this as "AWB", not "ARM". Occasionally, they point out what the name means, but direct reference is almost exclusively to the Afrikaans name or abbreviation. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 00:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
WP:UE does not say "use the form found in English sources" at all - among other things, it says what I quoted above. The English name is not made up - it is the English name used by the AWB in the title of the English pages of its own website. No one has said EL sources refer to "ARM". In English language sources, direct reference is most often to the AWB (pronounced as in English), then Afrikaner Resistance Movement, then Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging. AWB would be my preference as a title for this page, but it is already in use. AWB (Afrikaner resistance Movement) would work for me. As you point out, "Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging" is the Afrikaans name - it is not an English name. --hippo43 (talk) 00:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Are you sure about that? It says "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage". I think I paraphrased it pretty accurately. "The English name" and "the name most commonly used in English" are not necessarily one and the same. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 02:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes - it says "The choice between anglicized and local spellings..."
Whether to use "Besançon", "Bisanz" or "Besanzón" is an issue of spelling. "Weerstandsbeweging" or "Resistance Movement" is not - they are not different spellings of the same word. --hippo43 (talk)
Point missed in spectacular fashion. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"unrecognized"

I took out "unrecognized" (first sentence) -- I don't even understand why it was there in the first place. While the AWB's claims might be unrecognized, no such group needs recognition for its mere existence. If whoever put this in meant something different, please explain. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Source

All AWB officail website sources have to be changed as the English version of the site has been removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottykira (talk • contribs) 20:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Afrikaner_Weerstandsbeweging/Archive_1&oldid=1136500675"