Talk:Cape Independence Party

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

I reverted part of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cape_Party&oldid=344604421 and changed another part. Two issues:
1. I accept that the portion of the country that the Cape Party considers distinct in terms of population is larger than the Western Cape, but "the Cape" is a very vague geographical term, and little known outside of its use as an outmoded colloquialism. Hence I reworded.
2. Adrian: your assertion that the Cape Party might be better compared to the Scottish National Party is, I'm afraid, original research. I know you work for the party and might resent the comparison to the BNP, but it's a comparison that was made. If you can point me to a source where someone either official or prominent has raised an objection, and proferred the alternate comparison, we can note that comment. But we still can't phrase it as though it's unquestionably true, as you have. 168.210.100.5 (talk) 13:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Made the following changes: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cape_Party&diff=347265052&oldid=347254867
1. Someone had completely blanked the criticism section. I reinstated it.
2. The party platform section had been vandalised with first-person POV statements ("Together we are INSPIRED by a vision of the Cape Nation once again a free and independent country..." etc). I removed these.
3. I changed the word "overlook" to "reject" in the section on the IEC name controversy. I accept that Cope was not yet registered when the Cape Party raised their objection, so "strike down" was the wrong word, but "reject" is better than "overlook".
4. In the same section, I reworded POV statements about the IEC's decision, removing phrases like, "which the Cape Party rightfully protested" and "the IEC have yet to give a valid reason" -- but retained the editor's additions stating that the IEC regulations do not allow names that may cause confusion, and that the Cape Party's registration preceded Cope's.168.210.100.5 (talk) 09:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cape_Party&action=historysubmit&diff=347270259&oldid=347267088
1. Again, I reinstated the criticism section. Please don't remove it again without discussing it here -- it's sourced and relevant. If it's removed again, I won't revert (as that's clearly not working), but will undertake some other dispute resolution procedure.
2. Information was added to the head about the way the party is run (via a committee system -- the edit describes the party as leaderless). I removed this information, as it conflicts with the information currently in the article (the party has a leader -- Jack Miller). The information currently in the article is sourced and the new edits are not sourced. If there are sources for the new information and they're provided, I'm happy to let the edits stand.
3. Information was added to the head about the party's belief in direct democracy. I slightly reworded and moved this information to the platform section, where I think it belongs. Also added a fact tag -- it needs a source, please.
4. I removed information from the head about the party not conducting elections outside of the Western Cape -- this information was already present elsewhere in the article.168.210.100.5 (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:168.210.100.5

To whom it may concern,

The current introductory and 'criticism' information is not only biased, it was COPMPLETELY inacurate. I have no problem with any criticism but the Cape Party is NOT in any way associated with the right wing BNP in the UK and to use such a description because of one irrelevent persons remarks is unfair and totally unacceptable. Also, I see you have kept the previous starting information and I would like to know why? The last description i entered which stated what the party stands for is exactly that, I have not overexagerrated anything. Would you like proof? I ask you again please to change the current description as this is in bad taste. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.145.157.110 (talk) 1:49 pm, Today (UTC+2)

First, I am the other IP editor -- I'm logged in now. The introductory text and the criticism is sourced. The introductory text comes from the party's own website, and the criticism section is merely reporting sourced criticism levelled against the party. It's not making any kind of value judgments. Achmat is a prominent political commentator, and his remarks are notable. Almost all of your previous introduction (regarding how the party wants to contest elections in the Western Cape alone) is already in the article. I retained the information you added about direct democracy -- I just reworded slightly and moved it out of the head and into the platform section, where I think it belongs.Oldernews (talk) 12:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]



Questions moved from: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oldernews. Please continue the discussion here and not on my talk page.

To the IP editor,

Could you please change the following information for the Cape Party as it is incorrect:

1.) Jack Miller is not an actor anymore, he works full time for the Party. If you would like proof, I would be happy to email you a signatured letter.

Miller's profession isn't vital information, but I'm loathe to remove relevant information from an article -- and I think the fact that the party's leader at the time of the last election was a part-time politician probably is relevant. The actor statement is sourced -- how would you feel about a reword to something like, "The party is led by Jack Miller, who left his career as an actor to take up the position"? My argument principally comes down to sources: the current information is sourced, and signed letters are not reliable resources. (For information about this, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources)

2.) The territories that you have listed as part of the Cape Nation of which the Cape Party wants independence for is an outdated one and therefore incorrect. It is a symbolic picture of the Cape nation that is shown encompassing thos areas you mention, nothing more. The Cape Party only contests in Western Cape elections, it is at present working towards gaining autonomy/independence for this region alone. The northern Cape is to be worked on at a later stage.

Again, this is a question of sources. The sources we're citing (the Party's own website and other news sources) claim that this is the party policy. I think this is vital to the article, and I'm not happy with the idea of accepting unsourced assertions.

3.) We are not only 1000 members strong. The first election results for the Cape Party showed a result of 2552 if you must know. This number is irrelevent as membership is continually growing. To state that the Party has a membership of 1000 is an insult.

No one means to be insulting here -- again, I'm happy to change the article to state that at the time of the election, the figure was approximately one thousand, and even put the name of the source for this in the article. But the information is sourced. (The election results and the membership are two separate issues -- the article references the election results, and the total number of votes is available at that source. If you'd like to add the total number of votes to the article, I have no objection.)

4.) I would again like to inquire as to why there is an entire section devoted to 'criticism' while the other political parties in South Africa you mention do not have such a description. I can gaurantee you that there is much more criticism to be found regarding the ANC and the DA for ex, than what you will find for the Cape Party. You will also find that 'Achmat' is not such a reliable source for this.

There are two points here: first, the fact that that the articles on other South African political parties are less well-rounded than this one is no reason to omit the section here. Second, as I've mentioned, Achmat is a prominent political commentator and his comments are notable. The article doesn't say that what he said was correct -- it just reports what he said. (As an aside, Wikipedians are sort of torn on whether criticisms should ever have their own section, or always be worked into the body of the article. If you'd like to work the section's content into the text, feel free -- but I don't think we have a good reason to remove it.)

Also could you please add something which mentions the following, it is a stated fact that comes from the Cape Party's website:

"In 1948 political power shifted to the extreme right-wing Afrikaans Nationalist Party, an extremist group whose interests were invested in the Transvaal. The NP government was quick to implement the race based politics of Apartheid.

Until that time the Cape Province had been the only province that had allowed coloured representation in parliament, but in 1951 the Apartheid government abolished this right. In 1953 the NP government removed Cape Coloureds from the ‘Common Roll of Cape Province’ and Coloureds were only allowed to vote for four white parliamentary representatives.

This was met with outrage in the Cape and an organisation called the ‘Torch Commandos’, led by the acclaimed fighter pilot Adolph “Sailor” Malan, launched mass protests against the government. At the height of the protests the Torch Commandos comprised 250,000 white members all demanding an end to the governments racist policies and that voting rights be returned to Coloureds. The Cape Party wishes to revive the spirit of the Torch Commando's.

Please Be Bold -- if you have sourced material that says the Cape Party models itself after the Torch Commando, add that information in the platform section, and cite it. A word of advice: the three paragraphs you've provided here strike me as too long and too POV. But if you were to say something like, "The Cape Party claims that it is modeled after the Torch Commando, an organisation that protested against the Apartheid government's removal of suffrage from coloured people in the Cape Province", I think that would improve the article

I hope you will see where we are comming from and will edit your piece. If you have any questions please feel free to email me on (redacted).

Thankyou,

John —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.145.157.110 (talk) 12:17 pm, Today (UTC+2)

Preceding indented responses are mine. One final word: there have been a couple of editors over the past while who clearly work for the party. If you want to change or add to this article, your information needs to be sourced. Unfortunately, just because you work for the party, that doesn't mean you don't need verifiable sources. For information about what is a verifiable source, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources Oldernews (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]



Regarding this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cape_Party&action=historysubmit&diff=347490864&oldid=347270259
I am going to reword the information regarding the Torch Commando, but would still like a source. I've let the other changes stand for now, as I hope we can develop some consensus after the above exchange. I'm going to wait a day or so before making any changes to the information about Jack Miller and the party's leadership structure. If there's no further discussion by then, I'll reword/revert.Oldernews (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's been no further discussion of this subject in two days. I've tried to engage the editor concerned and have left messages on his talk page, to no avail. I'm going to make the following changes:
1. In the head, I am restoring the cited information that it is the party's policy to "seek independence for the Western Cape, Northern Cape, six municipalities in the Eastern Cape, and one municipality in the Free State."
2. I am inserting my proposed revision regarding Jack Miller's profession, taking cognizance of information provided by the other editor.
3. I am reverting any information about the party's leadership structure that contradicts the information in the cited sources.
4. I am restoring the membership count from the cited sources, but will also include the total number of votes in the last election, and not just a percentage of votes.Oldernews (talk) 09:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section[edit]

I think, due to the above discussion it is important to note that I am not a member or supporter of the Cape Party nor of any other South African party. The criticism sections appears to be very poor.

The Cape Party has been criticised in the press as a narrow, single-issue party without substantive policy (where in the press?). Commentators (who?) have alleged that its platform is racist, and particularly vilifies migrant workers from elsewhere in South Africa, who work in the Western Cape.[8](This source link does not lead to a current, working website) Because of these policies (which policies? None are mentioned, although some are alluded to), political activist Zackie Achmat(I think it would be important to say Zackie Achmat is a member of the ANC, who appear to be a rival to the Cape Party) has compared the Cape Party to the far-right British National Party.[citation needed](I think a citation here is essential, as after a Google search, I could not find any comments made by Zackie Achmat about either the Cape Party or the British National Party. In addition, I think criticism included should be of a certain level of prominence to be worthy of inclusion here)

This section really does need to be better written and better sourced. I am sure there is more than enough criticism there on a political party to do it properly. I would like to suggest a complete re-write from scratch. There is not a single working source here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.6.53.146 (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter if you're a supporter of the party or not -- Cape Party supporters aren't disqualified from contributing; they just have to cite their sources like everyone else. I see that your principle concern is cited sources, so I think we're in agreement. :)
On the criticsm section:
1. Broken link: You're right that the only link in the criticism section is broken. There seems to be some issue in the PHP code on the site. I hope that it will be corrected soon. For now, you can access Google's cache of the site here: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:bH6a6Y54sZ0J:ctglobalist.za.org/2009/04/cape-independence-before-the-second-coming-2/+http://ctglobalist.za.org/2009/04/cape-independence-before-the-second-coming-2/ -- If the site is not restored, though, I don't know how appropriate it is to use an old Google cache as a source. (I've seen it done elsewhere, and also seen citations to the Internet Archive, but I think we should discuss it.)
2. Clarification of policies: I agree -- the policies should be listed concretely. I'll work on an amendment.
3. ANC member: Achmat is a member of the ANC, and I suppose this disclosure is important, although his affiliation with that organisation is largely historical, and he's known to be very critical of the party. I'll include this.
4. No source for Achmat statement: I did have a source for Achmat's quote -- clearly I didn't include it. I'm happy to have the offending line removed until I can dig it up.
5. Level of prominence: I think commentary by someone as prominent as Achmat is notable enough to be included. He's a very well-known political commentator.
More broadly: you criticise the Achmat quote as insufficiently prominent, and you also assert that "there is more than enough criticism there on a political party to do it properly". There isn't really. This is a very small, fringe political party, and there aren't a lot of papers who are going to devote column inches to criticizing it. The only reason I think it even meets notability requirements is that it's contesting elections. Almost all of the information that we have in the article (with respect to policy) comes from the party's own press releases. The information from reputable, third-party sources (the SABC, IOL, iAfrica, etc.) is almost exclusively basic information about the party's date of founding, its election results, and the hacking of its website. I agree that this leaves much to be desired. What I don't want to see, however, is settling for an article that quotes party policy from its own website, and has no balanced commentary from the opposing side. If that's where we're headed, I think we'd end up with a more balanced article by removing much of the platform/policy stuff entirely, as party press releases are not adequate sources in this case, and they're particularly inadequate with no criticism to contextualise them.
Having said that, I agree that the section needs improvements, and I'd appreciate your help improving it.Oldernews (talk) 13:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New additions[edit]

I'm going to change a couple of things after new additions to the article (diff):

  1. Remove the number of members in the infobox. (It's currently listed as 0, and we don't have a realistic current estimate.)
  2. Unlink a few things in the infobox, as they either don't make sense (linking to the article on "None"), or don't link to what we want them to (that's not the right Jack Miller).
  3. Reword the introduction slightly -- I'll place the bit about IEC registration a little further along. I think it flows better.
  4. Restructure the section on legal support -- it's not formatted properly, and goes into detail I don't think we need, like actually quoting large tracts of the documents it refers to. I'll make those documents available as proper citations instead.
  5. A couple of other minor clean-ups.Oldernews (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Some more new additions ([1]):

  1. Mentioned that the party grew out of a Facebook group.
  2. Added information about the 2011 election campaign, including the missing posters.
  3. Added additional economics-related quotes by Miller.
  4. Changed "Legal support for cause" to "Process of secession", as there's now more stuff in there.
  5. Added Pierre de Vos's opinion that secession is impossible.
  6. Added that the party will seek consensus with the DA, and the DA's response.
  7. Mentioned that the party denies accusations of racism, and added Sylvester's quote about Orania. Oldernews (talk) 12:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note[edit]

the number of members in the info box on other party pages refers to members in the national assembly, not the number of registerd party members —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottykira (talk • contribs) 12:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Sorry. I think I figured that out and then forgot. I'll put it back. Oldernews (talk) 08:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Cape 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 16:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cape 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, 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: 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) 14:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

I am moving some comments from my talk page to here, where they can better be discussed. Greenman (talk) 08:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

Hello Greenman,

I am still awaiting your response in the cape party issue the current version is not Neutral , its negative and in order for it to be neutral the opposing version must be stated, if you do not agree to whom can I escalate this complaint?


Hello Greenman, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.224.90.215 (talk) 07:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC) I agree with you that submissions hereto must be nuatral its for that very reason that I edited the current page to give both sides of the coin is that not a common principle ? to hear both sides?[reply]

This is what will make the current one sided article , nuataral when both sides is presented and not just one side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.224.90.215 (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The current version only gives the critism but not the answer to that are the reader not entitled to hers both sides and then dedice instead of only been given a one sided version?

I did not delete the negative date I simply put the Cape Parties ansswer to it is this not the correct manner to do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.224.90.215 (talk) 04:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, and thanks for your interest in the article. You're quite new here, and have only been editing this one article so far, so take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for some things to be aware of when contributing. It can be quite difficult for someone involved in a topic to step back and see what's neutral or not. The article seems reasonably neutral to me. There's a small criticism section (about the same size as a section about an insignificant defacing of the party's website). However, the main problem is that some of your edits were not at all neutral. For example, your additions But this allegation is nullified by the fact that the local community are increasingly feeling the harsh consequences of the Democratic alliance and the national government’s affirmative action and BBBEE policies... and These policies have had devastating consequences on the social-economic circumstances of the local inhabitants. are neither neutral nor encyclopaedic. Another change, removing (0.1% of the Western Cape vote) seems only aimed at making the party's results look better, while actually removing something that puts the results in context (raw numbers mean little, the percentages are more important). Also, the only way to properly present the party's views is by incorporating a Reliable source rather than just adding a response to the article. And the new membership figures should be cited (they're not currently, so even the existing figures could be challenged and removed) - if there's a reliable source with these figures, that can be added to back up the numbers. Generally I suggest making smaller edits, and discussing on the talk page. Sometimes a big edit can get reverted because of particular problems, and then some smaller, less controversial changes that may have survived would be reverted at the same time. Greenman (talk) 08:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Table[edit]

Hello, the table should be updated to reflect the post recount votes. Also it should display provincial percent (not national), or perhaps both. As the party only contests in a single province its misleading to display only the national percent, even if they won every possible vote in the province this would only place them at like 10% nationally... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.222.26.230 (talk) 06:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Official party membership[edit]

I recently updated some parts of the article that incorrectly stated figures for party membership, removing those figures. This was done after the following actions were taken:

(1) a thorough and comprehensive read of the tagged source

(2) a cursory scan of all the reference material of this article

(3) a thorough search on the Capexit party website and publically available social media accounts

No mention of official membership numbers are made anywhere.

I subsequently even contacted a Capexit party representative who told me that the party does not publish its official membership numbers, and mentioned various reasons for this decision.

It should be clear that - unless this changes at some stage - official Capexit party membership numbers are not made public.

Janneman27 (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cape_Independence_Party&oldid=1210462888"