Talk:Congress of the People (South African political party)

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

Redirected for a reason[edit]

I had blanked and redirected this article to the original one precisely because of the party name issue (no official statement from the party, possibility that the IEC would reject it due to a previous registration, etc.). I know that the press is going with this because they're sick to death of saying "party-with-no-name-launched-by-ShiKota" as they have since early October; I understand and I sympathize. But if this article is going to stand until the party re-registers under a new name or assimilates Kennedy's own party for a matter of convenience, at least create a separate article on Samuel Kennedy's SADECO as well, even though it doesn't have parliamentary representation. --Toussaint (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry about it too much at the moment. It will soon settle down. The article was moved after the name was officially announced but before the duplicate name emerged. Zaian (talk)
I agree, we have nowhere to move this article to for now so it might as well stay put, they are meeting today, (4th), to come up with a new name. We will redirect once the new name is official. FFMG (talk) 06:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A new name has been announced: Congress of the People. It is probably worth waiting a little to ensure the new name is fully official before moving this page to a new location. There are also disambiguation issues to sort out because there are already a couple of pages with that name. Zaian (talk) 20:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just saw that, we can't even use Congress of the People (South Africa), I don't know what the default is in cases like that. FFMG (talk) 21:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation[edit]

If the name Congress of the People sticks, then we will need a disambiguation page. I propose:

Zaian (talk) 06:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only real problem I have is about consistency, Congress of the People (Trinidad and Tobago) only has the name (country) and it should be the same for South Africa
Maybe something like :
The current Congress of the People (South Africa) is only a stub really and we could add a header/link at the top of the new article to link the visitors to the Kliptown events page. FFMG (talk) 06:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you're saying, but I think Congress of the People (South Africa) is ambiguous in that it could refer to either the party or the event, and name consistency with the Trinidad and Tobago party is less important than clear naming of the two South African pages. Zaian (talk) 09:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guys let's finalise this, I would like to put in a requested move but we need to decide on what to name the article in light of the disambig issues. Time is also paramount in order to get this article onto the In the News on the Main Page. I think using 1955 for the movement and "South Africa" for the party is good enough for now, we can sort it all out later if needed. Let's get tthis article to the right place so that we can get in on the main page. Zunaid 10:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I don't think the announcement of the new name is the right moment to go to In the News. A better moment would be when the new party launches, i.e. on 16 December. The name still has some hurdles to go through: it needs to be accepted by the IEC, and the ANC has said they will challenge the new name. Right now a page move would be premature. I would wait a bit longer. Zaian (talk) 10:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Zaian, we should wait a little. A mistake was made once and, in my limited experience of African politics, something else will probably go wrong.
Having said that, I also think we should use Congress of the People (South Africa) for the new article. The 1955 events, (Congress of the People (1955)), is just a stub and we have to consider where/what/how users are likely to search for it. FFMG (talk) 11:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It may be a stub but it was a watershed event - clearly more significant historically than the new party, although that might change over time if the party proves to be significant over a longer period. Ownership of the name is also in dispute - ANC supporters will say (with some justification) that it belongs to the event, not to the new party. Taking all of that together, I think the disambiguation between the event and the new party needs to be very clear from the outset. I don't think Congress of the People (South Africa) should be the page name for the party. At the moment I'm still sticking with my original proposal. Zaian (talk) 11:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support Zaian's proposal. Congress of the People (South Africa) is ambiguous. Congress of the People (South African political party) is perfectly clear. It may be a little long-winded, but I can't see a better alternative. The 1955 congress was an important event, worthy of a good article in its own right, as well as being the motivation for the naming of the new party. Greenman (talk) 18:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is current...[edit]

I see that user Yellowdesk removed the {{Current}} tag. But looking at the guidlines for that article, I see that they were mostly written by that user and that there is still some discussion as to what the template should actually be used for.

Although the article is not edited by 100s of editor a day, (I don't know of any that is), I still think it is current, we need to tell the readers that the article is not quite complete yet because it is current.

So I propose that we re-add the tag {{Current}} to emphasize that the article is still evolving, what do you guys think? FFMG (talk) 05:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I was the one that originally added the tag. The article clearly documents current information: we KNOW that there will be further developments in the coming weeks (IEC registration, preparation for the election campaign etc.) which will necessitate substantial additions and changes o the article. I'm putting it back. Zunaid 16:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then, as long as there is a consensus for the template. FFMG (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time to move?[edit]

They still haven't actually registered their name, although they say they are doing it this week. Meantime the ANC has threatened to challenge the name when they do register it. In the mean time, the name is officially announced and in use in the media, and South African Democratic Congress is definitely out of the picture. It may take weeks or months for the name dispute with the ANC to sort itself out, and in the mean time the current page name is wrong. I think it's now time to move this page to Congress of the People (South African political party) and make the necessary disambiguation changes elsewhere. Comments? Zaian (talk) 15:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do it. —Nightstallion 18:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are going to register the name tomorrow, (Friday), so maybe we could wait one more day.
But I don't think it really matters either way.
The ANC will probably only really challenge the name closer to election time to confuse the electorate. FFMG (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The IEC will confirm or reject the name within the next two weeks - so it may still change. Meanwhile I have noticed that they are using the acronym "COPE" rather than "COP". BTW an organisation is only a political party if and when the IEC says it is, so to call it a political party now is premature in the strictly legal sense. Roger (talk) 13:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have moved the page and tidied up all the links and redirects. I also created a stub at South African Democratic Congress for the "other" party, Sadeco. Zaian (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Idiology, or... Policy[edit]

I'm all in favour of quoting from reliable sources but the information itself must also be useful. A political leader saying something about their broad-spectrum idiology in a non-investigative newspaper report is likely say things that are (a) general and (b) puts the party in a overly positive light and (c) puts its main enemy in an overly negative light. In the current Idiology section, it says ...and removed from the Marxism that had long influenced the ANC's ideology since it first allied with the South African Communist Party in the 1950s during the anti-apartheid struggle. Well, the Marxist influence on ANC policy has been very slight for several years now. It also says ...party would be willing to ally itself with the Democratic Alliance... but isn't that logical? The DA is the official opposition, after all. -- leuce (talk) 08:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's some economic policy here, tariffs on mineral exports, an expressed desire to increase manufacturing but no specific policies mentioned They seem to imply that fostering black owned small and medium sized enterprises is preferable to positive discrimination as a means to improve racial inequality

http://www.congressofthepeople.org.za/congress_of_the_people_policies_economic_growth.asp

There seems to be a big emphasis on making positions such as president more democratic, so maybe describing the ANC as Marxist is more a description of the internal hierarchy being Sovistesque as opposed to ANC economic policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.139.253 (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References from the Afrikaans press[edit]

Okay, I used a lot of references from the Afrikaans press. If you can find references for those facts from the English press, be my guest. Keep in mind in your searching for sources that the South African English press typically has a different political view than the Afrikaans press, so some facts may not be so easy to find in the one or the other. -- leuce (talk) 10:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zille's coalition claims[edit]

I see someone added the episode about Zille asking COPE to state whether they will have a coalition with the ANC. This is reported on here: [1] From the report it seems that Zilla had no proof or reason to suspect a coalition except for the fact that COPE had not explicitly ruled it out. Zille published her opinion in her own little newsletter. The COPE leader then responded to it on his Facebook page. I find no reference that COPE was "forced" to speak on the issue. IMO this episode is just electioneering. I'm removing it, but if you know of more references, go ahead and add them. -- leuce (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would call it trivial - delete it. Roger (talk) 08:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist?[edit]

Is COPE socialist? As I see it they are moderately left of centre and have explicitly renounced Marxism when they split from the ANC, so I'm not at all sure that they can be clearly labelled as socialist. Roger (talk) 14:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From an IP[edit]

"This page is so out of date and historically false in so many areas I recommend it is deleted until such time an historian can write a proper account of this party. The links to the party websites no longer work. Many of those cited as supporters have since left the party."

Why don't you do something about it instead of just condemning the work that others have done so far? Roger (talk) 10:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Congress of the People (South African political party). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Congress of the People (South African political party). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Congress_of_the_People_(South_African_political_party)&oldid=1206130450"