Talk:Cape independence

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted from this draft on 30 August 2021 by reviewer Greenman (talk · contribs).

Politics

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Limited recognition

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Limited recognition, a WikiProject dedicated to improving the coverage of entities with limited recognition on Wikipedia by contributing to articles relating to unrecognized states and separatist movements. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join our WikiProject by signing your name at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.Limited recognitionWikipedia:WikiProject Limited recognitionTemplate:WikiProject Limited recognitionLimited recognition
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Africa Low‑importance

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

South Africa Mid‑importance

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

False claims within this article

this entire article seems the paint the entire movement as something widespread with massive support all over South Afirca which just inst true and even claims that John Steenhuisen of the DA supports a referendum even though he has corrected these claims or backtracked on his statement, regardless of whether he did or didnt support a referendum as it currently stands the DA does not support a referendum, and parties that have shown they initially support a referendum like the FF+ have seeked to join the current government of national unity which seeks to maintain stability in South Africa as a whole. Wiki kyliekyliekylie (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible bias

I think there is a little bit of bias here, maybe unintentional bias and a result of the article's current structure. For every anti-secession argument raised, the article provides a response from pro-secessionists. But the same approach is not taken with the pro-secession arguments: the counterarguments against those are not included. I'm not sure I will have time to add the necessary balance myself but perhaps someone else can. Jlalbion (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article Has Massive POV Issues

This article reads like an ad for Cape Independence. This movement is clearly right wing in nature and does not seem to have significant support even among Afrikaners, who seem to be the largest supporters of this movement. This article does not make these things clear. There has also been significant criticism towards this group to the point that it should be mentioned in the first paragraph and throughout the article. Might come back to fix stuff later. If another editor could make some changes that would be great. Desertambition (talk) 06:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.iol.co.za/capeargus/news/idea-of-a-western-cape-secession-dismissed-as-unrealistic-dangerous-18d980c1-03e9-45ad-8f38-c5aad8931727

https://www.news24.com/citypress/columnists/mondlimakhanya/mondli-makhanya-return-separatists-to-the-fringe-20210926

https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2020-08-12-fringe-talk-of-western-cape-secession-is-reactionary-and-unachievable/

Added some sources so I can add more tags to article. Desertambition (talk) 11:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Desertambition: Salaam, I tried to construct the article to the best of my abilities; I copied the formatting and style of the Scottish and Catalan independence pages. Every sentence and paragraph is supported by references of significant pages. Note, those references you have are already included and it is mentioned in the criticsm page. Furthermore they are all opinions. Is the article somewhat biased? Probably, but your reaction is could also be claimed of being biased as can be seen from your edit history. Your claim that it does not have significant support is an opinion that does not hold inlight of the quantitative evidence (further increasing the probability that you have potential bias as well). The claim that it is 'fringe' is an political opinion. What is your evidence that the article is right-wing? But yes, in the interest of neutrality it is probably best that a third party (non-Southern African) editor looks at this. Suffy69 (talk) 11:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References (opinions) in support of not fringe idea:

https://www.news24.com/citypress/columnists/mondlimakhanya/mondli-makhanya-return-separatists-to-the-fringe-20210926 (This one says "Return to finge! Which implies isn't fringe)

https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2019-10-22-dreaming-of-a-cape-republic-secession-may-promise-liberal-salvation-but-faces-high-hurdles/

https://www.thesouthafrican.com/news/da-afriforum-cape-independence-referendum-power-provinces/

https://www.biznews.com/premium-signup?mepr-unauth-page=943384&redirect_to=%2Fpremium%2F2021%2F10%2F12%2Fcape-independence-global-trend-front-centre

https://www.timeslive.co.za/sunday-times/opinion-and-analysis/2021-08-29-a-serious-kernel-in-the-risible-idea-of-secession/

https://www.politicsweb.co.za/opinion/viva-a-cape-republic

https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2020-11-10-our-future-lies-in-an-independent-western-cape-says-corne-mulder-of-ff/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suffy69 (talk • contribs) 11:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the 2021 election outcomes, we can safely say that Cape Independence is a fringe movement.

You're also using a bunch of opinion pieces instead of actually linking the "quantitative evidence" you have. Ibbuk (talk) 06:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ibbuk Quantitative facts:

In total, pro-independence parties (CIP, CCC & FF+) achieved 5% of the WC vote in 2021. This is a factor of 50x bigger than the previous election cycle where only 1 party Cape Party supported it and achieved ~0.09% of votes. In addition, of the 24 local municipalities in the WC 9 of them have a pro-independence party (FF+) in coalition government, i.e., 37.5% of all local municipal governments in the WC have some form of pro-independence (coalition) government. See: 2021 South African municipal elections#Results#Western Cape Suffy69 (talk) 06:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are in coalition not because their support increased drastically, but because the DA lost support. It's also not clear that the surge in FF+ voters was due to their secessionist beliefs and not the resurgence of identitarian politics (or any number of other reasons) - the same is true for the CCC. Also, considering that only 1.5 million people voted in the WC in 2021, that 5% translates to 75,000 people. Ibbuk (talk) 09:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well the DA (in the WC) didn't lose votes to the ANC (who also lost votes) but to localist and pro-independence parties. The fact remains that discussions on autonomy/federalism/independence are becoming more and more frequent. Besides the above evidence there has been a marked increase in online articles and discussion regarding the topic, Google trends show a marked increase in search results on 'Cape independence' in the last five years in the WC:

Not to mention polling data (46%) and the CapeXit signed mandates (825k. which corroborates with polling data if you count percentage of registered voters) .

All in all, the evidence points to it being a substantially growing political movement within the WC. While you might not agree with the politics, it's not factual to claim the movement as 'fringe'. You would have been right three years ago, but the data suggests otherwise now. Suffy69 (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know that the other parties lost voters "to" any of the other parties. We don't know how many "switched sides" or how many were first time voters or whatever.

Google trends shows an increase in search results and the media jumping on stories about a fringe political party with racist rhetoric to back them up. Colour me surprised.

I am shocked that this would happen. Shocked.

Not sure which polling data or signed mandates you're referring to. But both their polling and support numbers have been called into question for being severely flawed.

You may like their politics, but that doesn't mean it's not a fringe political party. Ibbuk (talk) 07:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide a source for your claim that there are stories about "a fringe political party with racist rhetoric" ? It seems you're making emotional claims over factual ones. 105.212.100.98 (talk) 09:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On non-racialsm in the introduction

Salaam @Desertambition

RE: Your claim that the paragraph "Supporters of the independence state that it is a non-racial movement in character, where race based laws and racial dialogue are excluded from the discourse, seeking instead to create a rainbow nation.[9][10][11][1] However, critics of the movement argue that it has certain racial elements to it.[12]"

is non-neutral we can talk about it here.

You may have missed my edit summary: "Perhaps it is still relevant but the version you are proposing is still non-neutral. There is significant criticism based on alleged racism and connection to the Volkstaat concept, not "racial elements". One of your sources is also an opinion piece. I suggest proposing an alternative on the talk page so we can come to a consensus." Desertambition (talk) 06:48, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Desertambition Okay, where is your evidence that it is a 'volkstaat concept?' Considering that the Cape is the most diverse region in S. Africa (perhaps of the entire world.) A volkstaat by definition is a ethno-state aka Japan. No where do I see proponents or reasonable critics argue that it wants an ethno-state. For example in the recent 3rd party piece (which includes critique) https://www.capetownetc.com/news/were-just-different-pictograph-lands-ciag-in-hot-water-over-perceived-racism/ we see the claim of non-racialism by a proponent even when being accused of wanting 'seperate development'. Now, historically, those that wanted a volkstaat said so upfront. Historically, that was a call from white Afrikaners (of whom the majority of are in and around Gauteng.) Cape Independence has support - as seen in polling data and by the political parties and groups that support it - from all racial groups. Yes, it is weighted towards 'Coloureds' and Whites more. So what? National government has always been almost exclusively Black, historically they called for non-racialsm, but no one seriously claimed that they wanted to make a Black ethno-state as a result? Furthermore, demographics are relevant, it is true that the demographics of the WC have been shifting significantly in the last 20 years. Estimates put it at roughly 1 million largely Black semi-grants to the WC. Now, it is not controversial to say that those who have recently moved there will very likely have different political and cultural viewpoints to those who have been in the WC for generations. So naturally, political views won't match up with the latest demographic numbers.

Also, you must realise, that the 'Coloured' population is ill-defined in of itself. I myself am Cape Malay and share a totally different culture to other 'coloureds' like Griquas or 'Cape Coloureds' etc etc. So how would it be even be an ethno-state? It's literally impossible in the Cape. Suffy69 (talk) Suffy69 (talk) 07:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that the movement spearheaded by a white property millionaire with vague promises and no clear policies, in one of the most segregated provinces in the country will benefit all people equally, then maybe you should go vote in the US elections and stay out of ours.

Thinking the Cape can't become an ethnostate because you have a different culture to Griquas is like believing that South Africa in the 70s couldn't be a white supremacist state because there were black people in it.

Being fed up with the ANC is one thing, purposefully yearning for usury and bondage is wild. Ibbuk (talk) 07:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

this acusation of race is ridiculous the majority of cape is non white coloured and khoisan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.181.152.104 (talk) 22:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the racism argument again? @Desertambition you really should do some more research before trying to skew the Wiki page, the Cape is by far the most diverse place in SA and the entire Cape movement is supported by people across every race, so really not sure where you're getting your "facts" from. 105.212.100.98 (talk) 09:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The demographics of people who support the Cape Exit delusion aren't representative of South Africa or any of the Cape Provinces. Ibbuk (talk) 07:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[citation needed] 45.222.26.230 (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://uploads-ssl.webflow.com/5ea6a2f170b50534c84aecfe/611515c3bf09051a77c53296_CIAG%20Poll%20Results%20Summary%20-%20July%202021.pdf

Lol, try harder Ibbuk (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bias removal conclusion

It is proposed to remove the bias removal header as:

1. The article has been extensively reworked by numerous authors. Removing bias language and adding opposing viewpoints.

2. No talk on the topic has occurred since Q3 2022

If no objections are given this quarter, it will be removed in Q3 2023 Suffy69 (talk) 09:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Separatist movement

The term separatist movement is the accepted standard to describe a group that wants to cecced from a country, calling it a political movement is misleading CmsrNgubane (talk) 03:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]