Talk:2024 South African general election

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

South Africa: Politics Start‑class High‑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 articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the South African politics task force.

Infobox

Number 57 Here we can start a discussion rather than reverts back and forth. ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, always happy to discuss when people follow WP:BRD. The splitting of the infobox is simply unnecessary IMO. Please could you stop forcing it back in? Cheers, Number 5 7 08:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Multi-Party Charter should be shown somehow/somewhat in the infobox. The way I did it I think is best (especially since its been done in other pages like the 2022 Italian general election), but if you have any other ideas/suggestions. I'm open to hear it. But leaving it how it is now I think doesn't suffice. ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 22:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it needs showing in the infobox. The Italian example is different because the alliances actually ran as a single unit in the FPTP element of the elections. Cheers, Number 5 7 08:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Independence edits

Cape Independence is not even relevant to this page considering the absence of other special sections regarding the other political parties. Considering there are more relevant parties too than Cape Independence, it doesn't belong here and it's obviously being posted for propaganda reasons. 165.73.64.6 (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure of the relevance for other reasons, but the reason you state here and the edit summary for your last edits are not good reasons for the removal of sourced information. The fact that other information is not present is not a sufficient reason to remove something else. Beach drifter (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter, look at the content of the entire article and tell me that belongs there. This isn't about the Western cape, nor is it a relevant movement. You can look by simply seeing any traction they have too. 165.73.64.6 (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It matters in that it is sourced content and you left an edit summary that does not describe sound reasoning for its removal. It does not help your case that you are making near identical edits elsewhere. Your post here is more on track, articulate your reasoning as to why this information is not relevant to the article, do not edit war! Beach drifter (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant of what I done elsewhere. This page is about general elections and anything that is deemed relevant. Tell me with a straight face that it warrants it's space when there's far more relevant ones and no other in it's place. It's simply propaganda. 165.73.64.6 (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are repeating the same argument about the lack of other info. Just add that other info.

On the issue of it being "propaganda", this is a repeat of the issue with some of your edit summaries where you accused another editor of "using this page to push your agenda". Please do not do that. Editors on Wikipedia are required to assume in almost all cases that everyone else is operating in good faith. Another editor probably just has a different view to you on what is and isn't an interesting topic for the article. Most people just want to improve the encyclopaedia. Few things are propaganda campaigns. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article as it stands is indeed a bit on the short side. Hopefully it can be filled out a bit. But the section on cape independence strikes me as perfectly fine; it's sourced, and is in connection to topics and parties which are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia pages. To me that plainly means it is relevant.

If you are concerned that there are other issues which are more relevant than it, I am not going to disagree with you. You're probably right. But the solution to that is simply to expand the page; other things being more notable doesn't make this not notable. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You do not make that judgement call. If you wish for someone significant to come and sort this out then so be it. 165.73.64.6 (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@165.73.64.6 I do not get to make that call. I didn't say I did. We are having a discussion and I am adding my opinion to that discussion. Wikipedia works by consensus. AntiDionysius (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is heavy bias in this article towards the national ballot, at the expense of the nine provincial ballots. By your logic all of the content relating to the national ballot should also be removed because there is hardly any mention or any special sections about the nine provincial ballots. The simple thing is that this article is very sparse compared to what content can reasonably by included here, and all wikipedians who are interested in expanding the article should do so responsibly. That means adding relevant and well sourced sections. The section on Cape independence is definitely relevant to the topic of the article, and it is adequately referenced. If you have any additions to make that would help remove the bias of this article, feel free to do so, making use of relevant and adequate sources. Janneman27 (talk) 08:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging @Janneman27 as this involves them. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Independence is a movement, not a single political party, that could affect the results for the Western Cape provincial legislature. General elections are used to determine national and provincial legislatures. So the issue seems to relevant for the coming general election. Look, like others said, if you want to add more electiom issues that are relevant to a general election, go ahead. But the movement is legitimate, the sources are legitimate, and it is a legitimate issue for the 2024 general election. Janneman27 (talk) 06:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so I have just added an entire paragraph that should make it more clear how this is a relevant section on this page. It should provide clear evidence that this is not some fringe fantasy, but a serious local issue.

Before anybody goes and deletes anything, can we please have a civil discussion here and come to a consensus before anybody goes crazy.

And if anybody has any other Issues they would like to add to the page, feel free to do so as long as you do so responsibly.

Janneman27 (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I disagree with the hostile nature of the edits, Jannerman, you are leveraging a highly significant page a head of this year's elections and upon reading it, I think it needs to be a lot more adequate in how it's represented. They are correct of how Cape Independence is represented, so I suggest you cut down a lot on the paragraph and keep it more brief so that it is in line with how significant it is publicly to avoid any confusion. A quick change right now would be to move it at the bottom of the "Issues" title or better, make a "Political movements" section and add more than just Cape Independence as this is a country wide election. 105.245.162.213 (talk) 05:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusin General election and National election. Read the previous comments. Provincial parliaments are being elected during the coming General election. This is an issue that relates directly to the election of the Western Cape parliament, which is happening at the 2024 general election. When the section was added, it was at the bottom, but other sections were added subsequently. Currently there is not enough content on issues of provincial prominence to make a complete subsection for it, but over time, as people add more relevant information, that would definitely make sense. I don't think shortening the section much is possible. It already paints a fairly concise picture of the movement. But I will see what I can do. Maybe try to expand other sections to make them more reflective of reality. Janneman27 (talk) 06:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is about confusing about what election it is. I assume their point being made is simply about being more represetitive of the country and not local politics. I'm sorry but I yet to see any significant news coverage on this that warrants such a significant section on this page and asking for "proof" is just counter intuitive, of course there's no proof as there's little information other than a select few media sites that aren't even mainstream.

The issue that is paramount is concerning how important this election is and it is our duty to be ethical and not misrepresent details. This page is going to be highly trafficked and you run a risk of inflating a lot of it. I would also argue that you have a bias to keep it lengthy due to the edits you have contributed and it is fair to assume that you are an Independence supporter. I would like someone else who is influential to actually put a hand on this to keep this kind of stuff in check considering how sensitive this election is. Also pushing others to "add more" tells me you don't really care about the sensitivity of it. Do your duty to not warp this. Danivalkyrie (talk) 07:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of accusations. I am editing in good faith. I understand your concerns for ethics, but this is an encyclopedia that also has rules and guidelines. The section does, as far as I know and has been discussed at length above, conform to all of these guidelines. By all means, have an impartial third party verify this, but this exact thing has already been done twice. Media coverage is not the only qualifier for content relevance. Have a look at the main Cape independence article for more clarification and additional sources. But from what is shown in the source material, it is a significant (read relevant, not large) issue in the Western Cape and by extension an issue that would affect the General election. Not agreeing with content is not the same as having a right to remove content. Several users have been griefing this page, in contravention of Wikipedia guidelines, and I am seeing to it that that does not happen again. If you have contributions to make to the page, feel free, but do so responsibly and according to Wikipedia guidelines. Janneman27 (talk) 07:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which details are being misrepresented how, and what is your source for this misrepresentation? Is that argument maybe not already made on the Cape independence page and properly sourced there? Does it make sense to repeat such arguments on this page when a prominent link is already given to the [Cape independence]] page where the discussion can be more thorough? Please do due diligence before proposing something. This is not a platform for individual opinions and bias, but democratic consensus. Janneman27 (talk) 07:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about individual opinions. It's simply about presenting the facts correctly if you do not understand that I don't feel that talking to you directly will have you understand that. Also considering there was already an edit war over this I find that this topic has already proven itself to be a sensitive topic and that we should bring upon a 3rd party. @AntiDionysius if you could chime in on this please. Danivalkyrie (talk) 07:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three separate third parties have already had no issue with the section, including @AntiDionysius, but feel free to get as many opinions in as you want. Janneman27 (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three seperate parties have vetted an edit war, not so much the context content of what you posted. I'd like to see that happen. The point I'm trying to make here is a simple one, I too can add anything to this page if I feel like it's relevant to the elections, at the end of the day it's how you present it that what warps the reality. I agree, there is a need for more information, but as it stands, I believe there needs to be a correction or even some far more heavy scrutiny on the things being added as I have said how sensitive things are for this year's elections. I believe I made myself clear and I'd like more third party input. Danivalkyrie (talk) 07:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to make the edits that you feel are necessary. But be aware of the Wikipedia guidelines and please use proper referencing. Simple. If your edit is good and acceptable, by consensus, then it will form part of the article. Janneman27 (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't misunderstand, this isn't about just adding whatever I want without reference. It's the action of adding information and appropriately representing it. I'm not suggesting that the information you've added is incorrect or fake. I believe there's a duty to be made on how you presented it. You have shown to not understand or wish to discuss that on the terms of requiring more information to be added and I believe you're just doing that to kick the bag to someone else to not do your own due diligence. Danivalkyrie (talk) 07:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are now purposefully misrepresenting me. Do you know what due diligence is? Look at my reply below, and please answer my questions. What about the section is presented worngly and how? Please answer so that I can fix it. Or fix it yourself. But please be specific. Janneman27 (talk) 08:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's already been specified on what changes can be made, I think one of the anonymous posters said. I agree with them but I also think there should be more scrutiny to new additions, I'm not sure if that's possible. Danivalkyrie (talk) 08:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That user was blocked for edit warring and griefing. If you want to contribute constructively in the discussion, please see my reply below this one and answer the questions directly. If there are any obvious changes to be made, feel free to make them or to let me know what they are so that I can make those changes. Janneman27 (talk) 08:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've clarified Danivalkyrie (talk) 08:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified what? All the points you have made have been addressed. If you are being obtuse on purpose, I can't help you. Janneman27 (talk) 08:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was regarding shortening your additions and/or moving it to a new section that more adequately fits. Danivalkyrie (talk) 08:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shortening it any further would remove context. The facts are being presented as concisely as I can write it, in a neutral tone, and directly from the referenced sources. How can it be made shorter?

It is already in a section relating to election issues. Is this not an election issue? What section would you recommend it be moved to? Janneman27 (talk) 08:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about "the facts" is not being represented "correctly". The section is written in a neutral manner, gets it content directly from the sources/references, and presents a concise summary with a prominent link to a more thorough discussion. As per the Wikipedia guidelines. Janneman27 (talk) 07:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of expansion required

This article requires a lot of expansion still. Currently the focus is overwhelmingly on the National Assembly, whereas for a general election the National Assembly as well as all nine provincial parliaments are elected. The article needs lots more info on provincial election matters. I can only add some of the relevant info, but will not have the time for adding much any time soon. As always, I will assist in fixing minor typos and rewriting sentences where necessary, as well as checking for reference quality. Please help by adding provincial content where you can. Thanks in advance. Janneman27 (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry with provincial content as much. Convention is that each province has a corresponding page on their respective election, for example, 2019 Western Cape provincial election. Topics of national interest include immigration and healthcare (the possible introduction of the National Health Insurance). Looking at the 2019 South African general election, I'm sure most if not all of those issues can be replicated - and then updated with new information. GoldStingray920 (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]