Talk:Afrikaans Language Monument

[Untitled]

Thinking that maybe that should be "Afrikaaner poets" rather than "Afrikaans poets" but unsure if this distinction applies with these terms, or if Afrikaaner can even be used as an adjective. Do these words have the same person/object relationship that Scots/scottish and Asian/oriental have, in which you wouldn't want to call a person scottish, oriental, or (perhaps) Afrikaans?

Generally, "Afrikaans" refers to the language (or any of its speakers), while "Afrikaner" refers to the ethnic group/culture. So, "Afrikaans poet" emphasises that the poetry is in Afrikaans (without necessarily saying anything about the poet's cultural background), while "Afrikaner poet" emphasises that the poet is an Afrikaner (without necessarily saying anything about the language they write in). --Piet Delport 14:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Other language monuments?

Mikkerpikker recently removed the statement "The Afrikaans Language Monument is the only monument in the world dedicated to a language." from the article, explaining that it isn't. I searched for another example, but i could only find the Shaheed Minar, or "Martyr's monument", which, while it is closely associated with the Bangli language, is dedicated to the martyrs who died in the Language Movement, and not strictly to the language itself. So, what other language monuments are there? --Piet Delport 08:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Piet, my edit was based mainly on Talk:Afrikaans#Taal_Monument. Mikker ^(...) 19:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I responded there. So far, i still believe the monument is unique in being dedicated purely to a language, instead of just being associated with one. Unless i can find a counter-example, or someone objects, i'll restore the statement to the article. --Piet Delport 15:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I saw your response, but I find Gareth's counter-response more convincing. That said, if you think it is terribly important to have the "only language monument" language in the article, I won't object (unless I can find a specific and clear counter-example; but I'm not going looking). I simply thought it was a simply factual mistake, if it isn't, restore the original language by all means. Mikker ^(...) 17:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Andy 12:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The article don't mentions the name of Jan van Bijl who built the monument.

WP:SAFRICA assessment

I've assessed this article as C-Class. Could do with better referencing to get it higher. Ron2K (talk) 20:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed "controversy" section

I've removed the following paragraph which has virtually nothing to do with the monument. If it belongs anywhere (which is debatable) it might be in the Anton Rupert article, or perhaps the article on Afrikaans, but definitely not here. If anyone wants to move it somewhere else, here it is:

Controversy

When the British design magazine Wallpaper described Afrikaans as 'one of the world's ugliest languages' in its September 2005 article about the Monument, South African billionaire Johann Rupert (chairman of the Richemont group), responded by withdrawing advertising for brands such as Cartier, Van Cleef & Arpels, Montblanc and Alfred Dunhill from the magazine. The author of the article, Bronwyn Davies, was an English-speaking South African living in Tamboerskloof, in Cape Town, although the comment was made in a caption next to a picture, not in the article itself.

Zaian (talk) 09:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Good call --NJR_ZA (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

References

The Opening Ceremony

Would anyone like to add anything about the ceremony which accompanied the dedication (or presenting) of the monument in 1975? Invmog (talk) 15:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Height?

Anyone know the exact height of the monument? I tried looking online but found nothing? :S Bezuidenhout (talk) 12:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Article here says the main column is 186 feet (57 meters), confirmed by http://www.gozuidafrika.com/nieuws/nieuws_detail.php?newsID=2502. 17:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firefishy (talk • contribs)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604111627/http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/2005/05111709451003.htm to http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/2005/05111709451003.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on text for renaming (controversy section)

Can we please discuss the text around the renaming section rather than just removing it.

If the wording, objectivity, references etc need adjusting then great, but surely no-one can suggest that removing any reference to 'Afrikaans' from the 'Afrikaans Language Monument' has no political context.

How and why it happened are critical components in the history.

How, for example, can you delete a statement by the official opposition (and provincial government where the monument is located) on the renaming of the monument itself. Likewise a similar statement on whether Afrikaans is an indigenous language? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiCapeAdv (talk • contribs) 07:53, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Have reverted to original text - deleting the whole section not appropriate.

There was an earlier suggestion to remove the last paragraph which may have merit (I addressed it initially by adding the appropriate links). I also looked at the Afrikaans section as suggested but content fits much better here. I cannot see how statements by the party of provincial government specifically on the renaming of the monument don't belong on the monuments page.

As previously requested, if there are issues with tone or subjectivity, can we not address those rather? A unilateral blanket deletion does not seem reasonable. I am definitely not opposed to changing the content, but assert it should be there in some form. The renaming is inherently a political act, we must add the context. WikiCapeAdv (talk) 15:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

(a) I think the article should be about the ALM, and not about Afrikaans. The article therefore cross-reference to Afrikaans, where people can read more about the history of Afrikaans, controversies about Afrikaans, language politics, etc. The only "politics" relevant here, i.m.o., is politics regarding its erection (e.g. against the background of Afrikaner nationalism), its opening (e.g., a few months before 16 June 1976), critiques (positive and negative), transformation in the 1990s, re-purposing in the 2000s, and the latest controversy about the name. It should be about the ALM, not Afrikaans. Therefore, the last three paragraphs of the section should rather be moved to the page about Afrikaans, or otherwise to a new topic.

For comparative purposes, see for example the article on Dachau concentration camp. Everything in that article is about the concentration camp, and not about the Jewish people, about the Nazi's philosophy on and agenda with Jews, etc. These themes are all discussed in linked topics.

(b) Wording like "a wider cultural ASSAULT on Afrikaans by the ANC government" (whether true or not) does not reflect an objective, encyclopaedic style. My suggested edit of the last sentence is: "This was done without public consultation, and resulted in a public backlash from within the Afrikaans community. As of May 2022, the matter has not yet been resolved." gerhardvanh (talk) 05:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the engagement. I am relatively new to Wiki and am open to guidance

1. The page on Afrikaans is dedicated entirely to linguistics and this content does not fit there. Neither does it necessitate a page of its own.

2. The renaming of the monument to remove the reference to Afrikaans is clearly significant to the history of the monument. Why is then an essential component of the story. You couldn't for example write the page for WWII and not mention why it happened (hyperbole I accept).

3. The renaming is taking place in a wider context. I can understand changing wording like 'wider cultural assault' to a more neutral tone.

4. Its not just about a backlash from the Afrikaans community (I am not Afrikaans for example)

Can we find a way of including the political controversy (which is inherently linked to current politics and coincides chronologically with an attempt to have Afrikaans declassified as an indigenous language)?

If a page later emerges which discusses the 'cultural battle for Afrikaans' then this content can be moved there and linked on this page WikiCapeAdv (talk) 08:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

How about an additional section entitled something like 'Political Issues affecting the monument' which can then link to your 'backlash' comment, and which section would then be easier to move if a better location opens up? WikiCapeAdv (talk) 08:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)