Talk:2014 South African general election

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mmcnichol.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

poll[edit]

Is there any poll?81.58.144.30 (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Issues[edit]

Need mention of the nkandla spending.(Lihaas (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

DA picture[edit]

I have changed this to Ramphele who is their new presidential candidate although Zille seems to still be the leader. I don't have strong feelings about it so let me know what you think. Details are still unfolding in the media.HelenOnline 09:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The caption says "Leader", and being the "presidential candidate" is an unoffical status, so I'd be inclined to keep Zille up there, though I also don't feel particularly strongly about it. Perhaps we should do a collage image with both leaders. It does seem that the parties are merging so I agree with your decision to remove the separate Agang spot from the infobox. - htonl (talk) 09:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I changed it back for now. If someone does make a collage, please use a different picture for Zille. The current one is not great, although I know our options are limited with a collage we can be more creative. HelenOnline 09:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It has been changed back. HelenOnline 16:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The leader is the one running for president. Another "party leader" is not going to call national shots over the president. This is also precedent on WP.
Conversely, speculation was cited for its removal: "seem that the parties are merging", well they havent. The RS source has cited her as the candidate of the party. If there is a counter source then add that, as opposed to editorial opinion of WP editors.
This is also speculation athat is unsourced. At any rate, one party having more than 1 candidate? why would they even name one then?
Also more speculation...and what does an "unofficial idea" mean? Its the sourced nomination of the party.Lihaas (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The presidential candidate is only one of a party's Parliamentary candidates in a general election (see e.g. news articles re ANC's list of candidates). The section heading did not specify Presidential candidates so I thought it necessary to specify it in the text (one or the other would work). DA only announced Ramphele's presidential candidacy as it is related to her joining the DA and DA joining forces with Agang which is big news they would want to capitalise on. Along with most other parties they probably haven't finalised their full list of candidates yet. HelenOnline 06:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed this sentence again as the 2012 ANC leadership challenge is not relevant to this article. It is covered at 53rd National Conference of the African National Congress and is undue here. The ANC has not announced its list of 2014 election candidates yet. HelenOnline 06:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I readded the merger note with two reliable sources quoting both party leaders in an official context. HelenOnline 07:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored Zille's picture as per the talk page discussion above. Zille is still the DA party leader and it is factually incorrect to call Ramphele the DA party leader (which is a BLP issue for both Ramphele and Zille). Anyone changing it back is ignoring talk page consensus (unless that changes). HelenOnline 07:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the difference between a presidential candidate and a leader, per your own source Ramphele is a "figurehead". Incidentally the chances of DA winning the election overall and Ramphele becoming president in this election are negligible. HelenOnline 07:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lihaas, in South Africa we do not vote for presidential candidates, we only vote for parties. The party (or coalition) which wins a majority then gets to appoint the President. So most parties do not nominate "presidential candidates" at all, because the party leader would become President if the party won. The DA is unusal because it has specifically stated that the party leader would not become President if the party wins. The caption in the infobox says "Leader", and we would be telling a lie if we claimed that Ramphele is the leader of the party when she specifically is not. - htonl (talk) 09:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying htonl, being South African I took it for granted that this was understood by anyone editing an article about South African politics. HelenOnline 10:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking that is not entirely accurate. According to President of South Africa, after the general election, when parties have been allocated their seats and the members have been sworn in, the Assembly (lower house) elects the president from among the members. The National Council of Provinces (upper house) does not participate in the presidential election. Any party (which has MPs) is free to nominate any MP for the presidential election. Upon election the president resigns from parliament and the vacant seat is filled by the next-in-line on the candidate list of the president's party. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Photo again[edit]

The photo of Zille currently in the infobox compares poorly to the photos of the other people. The downward tilt of her head and the fact that her eyes are not visible is negative body language. There are better photos available on Commons that are more like the others. It's not acceptable for WP to (even unintentionally) treat the people in the infobox unequally - particularly as the article is about an upcoming election. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I thought it was the best one available on Commons. This one would be better if the background wasn't so dark. Perhaps we can have a poll on which is the best one? HelenOnline 07:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded another free one from Flickr and extracted a headshot. Let me know if you prefer it. HelenOnline 07:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good one, thanks. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures[edit]

I was just wondering, why do we have pictures for parties like EFF and Agang with no seats and no track record and not for others who actually have seats at the moment? HelenOnline 08:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be quite possiblr (based on the opinion polls) that EFF is going to come out of this election as the third-largest party, which is I think a reason for including it. Agang, I agree, is more of a dubious proposition (especially given recent developments) and I don't mind if you want to take it out of the infobox. - htonl (talk) 09:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I don't mind if there is a rationale to justify it. The other party that features in the poll is ACDP but we don't seem to have a picture for its leader. HelenOnline 09:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Subsequent to the above discussion, I added ACDP without a picture, then later removed both Agang and ACDP based on previous election results and poll results. Tennisace101 has added Agang back and I removed it for now. Please can we reach consensus on infobox inclusion criteria so that we do not appear biased. I don't think having a free picture should be a criteria for inclusion (although not having one reflects how minor they are). HelenOnline 07:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have also reverted this edit by Ekhaya2000 in the absence of any discussion or consensus as requested above. HelenOnline 15:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bold changes[edit]

Sorry, I know I am making a lot of bold changes but with recent developments this article had become really messy and I got a bee in my bonnet to tidy it up. I am happy to discuss any objections. HelenOnline 08:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding developments to the Alliances section as they happen but I expect there will be a lot of reshuffling in the coming months and the section will eventually be simplified after the election is over. HelenOnline 08:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[]>> South Africa Budget Woos Voters While Easing Ratings Pressure[]Lihaas (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Seats in the National Assembly" section[edit]

What's the point of the "Seats in the National Assembly" section? All it shows is the results of the previous election. - htonl (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add it but I think it is a useful comparison point for old and new results. HelenOnline 14:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it will be a useful comparison once the election happens and new results are available. But until then, I suggest it would be better to just have a list of parties contesting the election. (Hopefully the IEC will release the official list soon.) That list could optionally be divided between those already represented in Parliament and those that are not. - htonl (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that essentially be a duplication of List of political parties in South Africa? HelenOnline 15:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That page includes a lot of parties that aren't actually contesting the election, though. - htonl (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We could just separate those out there? I would rather link to that article than repeat most of it here. HelenOnline 15:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that seems like a good idea to me. - htonl (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Links[edit]

>> S Africa's Zuma criticised for home upgrade>> City of Cape Town bars ANC from meeting>> Malema woos South Africa's poor ahead of vote>> ANC ends campaign with huge S Africa rally >> S Africa's Zuma plays down corruption report>> Why aren't South Africa's born frees voting? (Lihaas (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

New poll[edit]

The numbers quoted for the new Sunday Times poll add up to more than 100%. It is not clearly set out in table format unfortunately. I will go through the article again with a fine toothcomb and see if I can make more sense of it. HelenOnline 13:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers published most prominently were based on the assignment of 7.4% "doubtful voters" to specific parties based on their other survey answers, which goes some way to explaining the discrepancy between the current and previous poll results. I have included both sets of results in the table for now, what I can glean from the article anyway. HelenOnline 14:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some more apples (moderate voter turnout scenario in previous poll without assigning doubtful voters), which further explains the discrepancy. HelenOnline 10:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Listing provincial parties?[edit]

The IEC now has specimen ballots up which indicate which parties are contesting the provincial elections. Should we list these in some way? If so, how?

Of course, once the results are in we'll have a table for each province (like the ones in the articles on previous elections) but at this point should we have a list for each province? - htonl (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we do list them, I would just add another column to the lists of parties saying something like "contesting all provinces except..." HelenOnline 08:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would make sense if all parties are on the national ballot but actually there are parties contesting only provincial elections. I think we could do something like:
These parties are contesting the national and all provincial elections:
  • Party One
  • Party Two
  • Third Party
  • etc.
The following parties are only on the stated ballots:
  • Party 27 - Gauteng
  • Twenty Eighth party - Western Cape, Eastern Cape
  • Twenty Niners - National, KZN, Mpumalanga

Or we can have a table:

Parties are contesting the following elections:
Party National GP LP MP NW KZN FS WC EC NC
Party one Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Party two Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Party three Yes Yes Yes Yes
Party four Yes Yes Yes
Party five Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of the way I've set it up? - htonl (talk) 09:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like it, it's a more elegant implementation than my proposal. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks htonl, I just tweaked it a little. HelenOnline 07:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Voter registration posters[edit]

FYI my photographs of voter registration posters have been nominated for deletion, on the grounds that the IEC logo and/or other imagery passes the threshold of originality (which I am contesting). HelenOnline 08:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If they are rejected at Commons I believe a very strong fair use claim could be made - the posters are iconic illustrations related to a notable unique event in the past. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but I think this can be a good test case especially before the elections so we will know what to do then. Relying on fair use could restrict future usage. I think I have a strong case :) HelenOnline 09:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANN7 poll[edit]

I made this revert because it had totally messed up the article layout. I will see if there is anything worth salvaging during the day. HelenOnline 07:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will post the new sources here. The first source only relates to Gauteng. The national figures that were added to the poll table do not seem to be in the new sources, perhaps they came from a TV screen? (We would need an actual source for the figures.) I don't think there is anything worth keeping at this stage, especially if the poll figures are going to change every week if I understand correctly. Please let me know if I am missing something. I will try watch the show next Thurday evening (ANN7 DStv channel 405 @20h00).
"DA won't capitalise on ANC vote loss – poll". The New Age. 27 March 2014. Retrieved 28 March 2014.
"Innovative way to predict poll results". The New Age. 27 March 2014. Retrieved 28 March 2014. HelenOnline 08:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
New TNA article up today:
"SA Decides poll methodology". The New Age. 28 March 2014. Retrieved 28 March 2014. HelenOnline 09:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both The New Age and ANN7 are explicitly ANC owned/aligned thus they are not Reliable Sources for this topic. I would strongly prefer exclude anything that only they publish. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We now have an online source for the national figures added earlier:
"SA is heading for change". The New Age. 28 March 2014. Retrieved 28 March 2014.
The poll was commissioned by ANN7 but appears to have been conducted by an independent polling organisation CVoter International. I am aware of the impartiality controversies around TNA and ANN7 but I think we need to be careful about assumptions of bias here. HelenOnline 12:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From the little bit I caught on TV, it seems the poll may not be representative yet (I understand the results will be updated weekly as they poll more people in more areas). In the meantime, other newspapers have reported on the poll today:
van der Merwe, Jeanne; sama Yende, Sizwe (30 March 2014). "Agency hired by ANN7 to poll election caught in sting". City Press. Retrieved 30 March 2014. HelenOnline 15:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
van Onselen, Gareth (1 April 2014). "SA Decides: a joke, inside a farce, wrapped in chaos". Business Day. Retrieved 2 April 2014. HelenOnline 12:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's no compelling reason for us to use this possibly unreliable poll, there will be others from uncompromised sources that we can use. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If that BusinessDay article is correct and the ANN7 sample is just "people we bumped into in the street" then it's definitely not a reliable poll. - htonl (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did get the impression it is not geographically representative, not yet anyway as they are working their way around the country. Not sure it's representative in any other way either. HelenOnline 12:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign litigation[edit]

Should this be covered in the article? HelenOnline 10:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a further DA campaign development and I will add a new section on campaign litigation/controversy when ICASA has responded to the DA's complaint re SABC censorship. Parking sources here in the meantime:

Opinion piece by DA's Mmusi Maimane (incidentally, I noticed that Daily Maverick is now including Wikipedia links for its writers):

ICASA to hold public hearings on Thursday 17 April:

"Campaign controversies" section added, please let me know if you have any comments. I am not sure about using litigation in the heading as I don't think the ICASA complaint is litigation per se. The DA has implied they will go that route if they do not get a favourable response from ICASA which is a regulatory body. HelenOnline 16:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see from today's news that they have taken it to court already:

Provincial Articles[edit]

Just throwing this out there, but would anyone find it unreasonable to have a main article for the election followed by nine articles that deal specifically with the different provinces (including national assembly results for that province, provincial results, parties contesting in each province, premier candidates, and elected members)? Tennisace101 (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern is that such articles receive sufficient long-term attention. There are too many neglected articles about South Africa. HelenOnline 06:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a bad idea in principle - certainly the topics are notable enough, and other countries have separate articles for each ballot in an election held simultaneously (e.g. US presidential/Senatorial/congressional/state elections). But I agree with Helen that there may be a lack of long-term attention. - htonl (talk) 11:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Such a split should only happen if this article becomes too long, looking at our coverage of previous elections that seems rather unlikely. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomura "poll"[edit]

This FM article used as a source in the opinion polling section refers to a Nomura "poll" which was criticised by Africa Check. I was wondering whether to include this poll in our table, but it doesn't seem to be a poll at all, rather a prediction per BD source cited below? This explains why this comment in the FM article makes no sense: "This poll predicted that the ANC would get 56% and the DA 27% but then also acknowledged that 'given a total lack of publicly available, detailed polling data at this stage, the margin for error around these forecasts is clearly quite large'."

BD source: Marrian, Natasha (7 August 2013). "Sharp fall for ANC expected in 2014 elections". Business Day. Archived from the original on 10 August 2013. Retrieved 1 May 2014. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help) HelenOnline 10:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How many COPE MPs have defected?[edit]

This BD article dated 30 April says 19 and this one dated 28 April says 23. Which one should I use? HelenOnline 11:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The later article doesn't say 19, it says 19, followed by the subject of the article and four others, but is a bit ambiguously worded. Googling, most other sources say 19; others differ, but it's probably changing all the time, and some seem to count only national MPs and others provincial as well. I'd go with 'the majority', or 'more than 80%' instead of a specific number: http://www.citypress.co.za/politics/cope-coping-despite-19-defections-says-mosiuoa-lekota/ http://mg.co.za/article/2014-04-28-defectors-unemployable-outside-politics-says-cope http://www.thenewage.co.za/124123-1127-53-Mass_defection_from_Cope_to_ANC http://www.enca.com/elections-2014-south-africa/lekota-not-concerned-cope-mps-defection Greenman (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Greenman. I made some more changes before I saw your comment. I added this City Press source, which lists 19 names (Ngonyama is not one of the 19, so the BD article is wrong on that count). They are only defections to the ANC, which I have also clarified. HelenOnline 13:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The New Age adds another two names to the list so I am up to 21 now: Smuts Ngonyama, Thozamile Botha. HelenOnline 13:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have left it at "over 20" for now. HelenOnline 14:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ipsos poll May 2014[edit]

There seems to be a new Ipsos poll out but the details published are sketchy and I am not very comfortable adding it on the basis of the sources currently available:

I have added it to the best of my ability. Please let me know if you have any comments or find any better sources. HelenOnline 12:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Google Doodle Link[edit]

Comment below moved here from my personal talk page for wider consultation:

Hi HelenOnline I believe that the reference to the Google Doodle on Wikipedia is important as it directly relates to the South African General Elections 2014. South Africa Election Day 2014

  • It was an official Google Doodle Relevant to the South Africa Elections Day 2014
  • Due to the large influence Google have on the internet, it's significance can be amplified.
  • If you do not like the link I placed up, I suggest finding a link to the official Google Doodle for "South Africa Elections Day" and work it into the article to make it more Wikipedia Acceptable.
  • On a personal note - I am very involved in these kind of things and have been part of the official journalists for many events in the country... eg. Nelson Mandela's Funeral etc.

Gerald Ferreira (talk) 08:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gerald Ferreira. I have added it to List of Google Doodles in 2014#May with a more acceptable source. I am not sure whether it should be included here, or where in the article, and would like to hear the views of other editors first. HelenOnline 08:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary results[edit]

Please don't post the results until the final count is released. IEC is releasing live updates so a preliminary vote section will not be viable. I hope you understand and continue to contribute. Thanks. Nathan121212 (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there's no point in posting results until all the voting districts have reported. In the Northern Cape and Mpumalanga, all VDs have reported their count, so we could report the results for their provincial legislature elections. I have put together {{Northern Cape provincial election, 2014}} for the Northern Cape and I'll do Mpumalanga (and any others where the count has finished) later this evening. - htonl (talk) 17:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wholly disagree that this section is "not viable". Preliminary results are widely used on election articles. See Panamanian general election, 2014 and Afghan presidential election, 2014 as contemporary examples. What is the actual reason for not having them? Number 57 17:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would draw a distinction between results that are preliminary because not all the votes have been counted, and results that are preliminary because all the votes have been counted but the results have not been declared to be the official final results. Until all voting districts have reported in, the vote totals are going to be changing every few minutes. I don't think that we should keep out results until the IEC declares them officially on Saturday, but I do think we should wait until all the votes have been counted. - htonl (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are right that the totals will keep changing, but as long as it's clear to readers what proportion of votes have been counted, I really don't see the problem. My experience over the past few years is that election commissions are either really slow (like Panama), or are reasonably quick at counting, but then never reach 100% - from memory the last Georgian election was on 99.97% for a week or two for some reason. In both cases, it means that we would have had to wait ages before publishing the results. Number 57 19:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if there's a substantial pause in counting, then we could include incomplete preliminary results. But as long as the counts are still flooding in, it's going to be a futile effort to keep it up to date. For example, the table in the article currently shows a total of 12 million votes, whereas the live results are up to nearly 16 million. - htonl (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to be kept up to date though - as long as it's clear what stage the count was at. Personally as a reader, I would be coming to this page looking for results, and would be surprised if there wasn't something here. Number 57 08:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Page views It does seem that readers are interested in the results, look at the huge spike after election day. Nathan121212 (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vote totals[edit]

(Copied discussion from User talk:Htonl - htonl (talk) 10:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, I've reverted your changes to the table. My reasons are that (a) this is how results tables are usually formatted, and (b) having "Valid" as the row title is inappropriate given that it contains the number of seats (there is no such thing as a Valid seat). "Total" is clearly a preferable heading for this sort of row.

What do you think about using this layout instead? I believe it would solve both our concerns. Number 57 09:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried that solution out on the article now. See what you think. Number 57 09:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(End of copied discussion)

Yes, I think that layout satisfies both of our concerns. Thanks for finding it. - htonl (talk) 10:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent :) Number 57 10:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Results Table[edit]

Surely the results table should be in the same format as the one used for the elections back in 2009?Guyb123321 (talk) 10:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think the 2009 table is awful. The current one is far clearer. Number 57 10:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National Parliament seats[edit]

Are we still waiting for the allocation of parliamentary seats to be declared? If so, does anyone know when we can expect it to be announced? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand the electoral system correctly, it will be ANC 249, DA 89, EFF 25, IFP 10, NFP 6, UDM 4, VF Plus 4, COPE 3, ACDP 3, AIC 3, AGANG SA 2, PAC 1, APC 1, based on IEC 'final' vote totals. RodCrosby (talk) 12:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct, according to my calculation and that of Business Day. I believe the IEC is making the official announcement tonight. - htonl (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand it correctly the NCOP seats are allocated by a similar calculation on the provincial results. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NCOP seats are calculated the seat allocations in the provincial legislatures (which are calculated by a similar calculation on the provincial results). I calculate the numbers in the NCOP to be ANC 61, DA 19, EFF 7, UDM 1, IFP 1, NFP 1. If you consider only the 54 permanent delegates, it'll be ANC 35, DA 11, EFF 6, UDM 1, IFP 1. I'll have a proper table up in the article soon. - htonl (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to briefly explain the distiction between "permanent" and "special" members. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a source if we still need one (not really keeping up here). HelenOnline 18:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Post-poll violence[edit]

Should we cover the post-election violent protests in Alexandra in this article? Sources: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think so. There are also other things I want to add, such as international votes from 4 countries that were not counted (!) but I am waiting for better sources and the dust to settle here. :) HelenOnline 12:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source?[edit]

Is this News24 page a reliable source for the international vote statistics?[7]. I can't find an official IEC results page. Nathan121212 (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I would say so, but that does not mean it won't change. You can get overseas results from the IEC here. Select all provinces and download the pdf file which has a column for "out of country". HelenOnline 17:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Or download it directly from this link. :) - htonl (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks guys. Nathan121212 (talk) 18:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help at related article[edit]

Since we're all here, could I please get some help at List of political parties in South Africa? Somebody has seen it and tagged it heavily, needs an update on seats etc. and sources. Thanks. Nathan121212 (talk) 19:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aligning[edit]

tooltip 1
tooltip 2
tooltip 3
tooltip 4
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
ANC
DA
EFF
ACDP
Agang
COPE
IFP
  •   Ipsos/Sunday Times April 2014 poll
  •   Actual results

This is a graph for poll results vs actual results, if anyone knows how to align it to replace the svg file I have added please assist. Nathan121212 (talk) 13:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cartograms etc.[edit]

Hey User:Htonl, I hope you can supply this article with the amazing catrograms and percentage up/down maps we saw in the 2009 article. That stuff is amazing. Thanks Nathan121212 (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's on my to-do list, I'll probably have a chance to make some maps this weekend. In the meantime, you may be interested in an interactive results map which I developed. - htonl (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've put some maps in commons:Category:2014 South African general election maps of party vote percentages by ward for the top 5 parties. 2009-2014 vote change maps to come later this weekend. - htonl (talk) 13:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The 2009 vs 2014 vote change maps (for ANC, DA, COPE and IFP) are available in that category now. - htonl (talk) 11:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Winner by ward cartogram
And the cartogram. - htonl (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work user:Htonl, please add them to the article. You'll be able to provide the most accurate explanations of how the maps and cartograms work ;). Nathan121212 (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Htonl :) I love your maps sorry I've been looking at them to even thank you. I shall be adding them to Afrikaans wikipedia soon. Bezuidenhout (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath[edit]

I'm thinking of adding an Aftermath section. Does the Lindiwe Mazibuko resignation count as a result of the election? Nathan121212 (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. The resignation of various ANC MPs that were not given Cabinet positions might be relevant to such a section but Mazibuko resigned before any changes were announced by the DA. It may still be relevant to the article, just not described as a result of or aftermath. HelenOnline 16:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the section on the Alexander township violence you wanted to add would fall under Aftermath though. Nathan121212 (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA nom?[edit]

I think this article is ready for a GA nomination. What do you think other editors? Nathan121212 (talk) 15:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sandbox: poll table[edit]

IPSOS Source Provincial poll IPSOS.

Party EC % L % NW % M % KZN % FS % G % NC % WC %
ANC 71,4 67,2 63,5 63,4 56,6 55,4 45,5 42,7 27
DA 8,6 7,4 6,4 9,1 11,2 24,9 22,6 45,9 54,1
EFF 4,6 11,4 12,7 6,8 0,3 2 7,3 1 1,8
ACDP - 0,5 3,1 5,0 0,,1 0,7 2,2 - 0,6
Agang SA 1 3 - 4,6 0,5 - 3 - 1,2
COPE 2,5 0,4 - 0,8 0,4 7,3 2,2 5 1,6
IFP - 1 1,9 0,8 9,8 - 0,2 - -
Africa Muslim Party - - - - 0,2 - 0,4 - 0,2
Azanian People's Organisation 0,3 0,7 - 0,7 0,2 - 0,4 - 0,3
FF Plus 0,2 0,7 1,1 - - - 1,8 - 1,6
Minority Front - - - - 0,9 - - - -
New Labour Party - - 2 - - - - - -
PAC - 0,5 - - - - 0,4 - -
United Christian Democratic Party - - - - - - - - 0,4
UDM 1 - - - 0,2 - 0,2 - 0,2
NFP - - - - 1,5 - 0,1 - 0,2
Other results
Other 0,7 - - 5,7 1,3 - 3,5 - 0,4
Not voting in election 1,6 2,8 4,7 - 3,8 - 2,4 - 1,3
Did not answer survey 4,4 1,2 2,6 1,7 11 - 3,6 1,6 6,2
Don't know 2,7 3,2 1,1 1,4 2 9,5 3,8 2,2 2,5
Not registered to vote 1 - 0,9 - - 0,2 0,4 1,6 0,4
Source: IPSOS Archived (6 October 2014)

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:South African general election, 2014/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 13:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to review this.

From a cursory look at the article, it looks complete and well-referenced, which is what I would expect from an article detailing a modern political event. One of the problems I see is that a lot of the pose has obviously been added in real-time by editors, so we're left with list that read "On [date], [event]. On [date 2], [event 2]". For a good article, this will need to be copyedited to be more easily readable to someone looking at the election in a historical context. I don't think this is an insurmountable problem, though.

As you're on break, I'm happy to put the review on the back-burner and work on it in the background, with the idea that it will be finished awaiting feedback on your return in the New Year. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

* Normally I'd say "it'll be worth an explanation of who 'x' is", but in the case of Nelson Mandela I'm going to assume the reader knows exactly who he was, so that isn't relevant here. * The article body lists many controversies and public reactions. I think it would be good to put a sample of these in the lead, though I'm not sure myself which are the most important.

Comments on the body will follow. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lead section adequately summarizes the contents. The infobox uses the 5% rule, and the results of the election are clearly and succinctly laid out further down the article. RoyalMate1 21:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
However, the lead should not "tease" the reader into requiring to read the article to discover it was more controversial than would appear to be the case from just that opening. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral system[edit]

* "Two hundred members are elected from national party lists" - this fact is not in actually in the source given at the end of the paragraph, though I suspect nobody with a reasonable knowledge of South African politics would challenge this * The remainder of information in this section is unsourced. Again, this likely to not fall into the "information challenged or likely to be challenged" for a South African, but it probably does for foreign readers not familiar with the system. A citation to the basic makeup of politics would be useful for a reader to learn more.

Will take a look at the electoral commission's website. They should have this info. Nathan121212 (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that looks like an acceptable source, I was suspicious of the domain name but I checked it and it's an internationally recognised body, so it checks out okay. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Political parties[edit]

* The first four paragraphs are unsourced. A similar problem to above - this really need citations * "33 parties had registered candidates for the national parliamentary election" - the source also says that this was a record number of parties, a fact which would be worth including

New parties[edit]

* This section contains several entries that are not obviously sourced

Alliances and defections[edit]

* "NUMSA plans to establish" - I think for consistency, using the past tense would be more preferable here * As I hinted above, this section reads too much like a bulleted list eg : "On 6 February 2014" ... "On 11 March 2014" .... "On 12 March 2014". For a long-term encyclopaedic view, you probably don't need the exact dates. I would cut out the dates and list the facts in chronological order, ideally combining individual sentences together

Endorsements[edit]

* "A Financial Mail editorial published on the same day, which cites ... state" - this should use past tense. Same problem with the next sentence.

Changes to electoral legislation[edit]

* This section can probably be merged with the "Electoral system" section above

Voter registration[edit]

* "On the weekends of 9–10 November 2013 and 8–9 February 2014 all voting stations were opened for new voters to register and for those who moved residence to re-register in their new voting district." - this claim doesn't appear to be cited in the next inline reference (in the sentence after) * "approximately 2.3 million new voters" - why then, does the Business Day live source say it's about 1 million. If sources contradict the figure, use "between 1 and 2 million" or some variation, including all figures listed in sources. * "and are aged 18 or older will be eligible to vote for the first time" - should be past tense, the election's been and gone * "The following table shows the largest voting stations abroad" - per WP:LIST, this would be better represented in prose. I'd pick off London as being the most significant place for ex-pat voting, include Dubai and Canberra, and group the remainder as "other". WP:CALC says you're on safe grounds adding up individual figures given in sources as long as it's clear that the information can be verified and recalculated by anyone.

Opinion polling[edit]

* There's too much whitespace at the start of this section. I'd put the table inline with the prose, using the "thumb" parameter

  • The footnotes for the table should go in a "Footnotes" section right at the end of the article

Done Nathan121212 (talk) 21:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it would be worth briefly explaining who Africa Check are and why their opinion is relevant here. I was unsure of this until I looked at the source.

Done Nathan121212 (talk) 21:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure about the "Provisional ballot" section. It's still an opinion poll, and unless it has extreme prominence above and beyond all others (and it doesn't appear to), I'd probably just get rid of this section. Now, the actual result is more important.
It's actually the provincial ballot. The one with 9 tables of results so I think it's a bit of a big enough deal to keep in this article. Nathan121212 (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign[edit]

* The "Debates" section should be rewritten as prose

  • The "Controversies" section really needs to be cut down in size and reformatted, as it still looks a bit too much like a list of "On [date], [x] happened". I think the information about public marches and violent protests is important and should be included, but I think things just need to be copyedited down to give a general view of things. If you can get rid of all the mentions of "In [n] April 2014", that should be a step in the right direction

Voting[edit]

* "Approximately 27,000 South Africans registered to participate in the national election in the international voting phase" - this is redundant, we were told this in the "Voter registration" section * The "Election-related offences" and "Incidents" sub-sections are both quite small and can probably be combined

International special votes[edit]

* The last sentence in this subsection could be combined with the previous one.

Local special votes[edit]

* "Former President Thabo Mbeki cast a special vote on 6 May as he was attending a World Economic Forum meeting in Nigeria on 7 May" - as we've mentioned several dates here, the last "on 7 May" could be written as "on polling day" instead to avoid repetition * "The local special vote phase of the election took place on 5–6 May 2014, accommodating over 295,000 voters" - I can't find the 295,000 voters figure anywhere in the two sources cited

Voting day[edit]

* I wouldn't bother mentioning "7 May" anywhere in the section; we know what the date is having been told it several times earlier

  • Has there been any more news about the KwaZulu-Natal shooting? The source says the defendant charged with the murder denied it.

Results[edit]

  • Where is the table summarising results from 1994 - 2014 sourced from?

Removed. Nathan121212 (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too sure about this one. All previous articles have listed the provincial results. On voting day, voters filled out 2 ballots, so 2 results should be displayed. Nathan121212 (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions[edit]

  • The text here should be put it as prose, not lists. In particular the use of flags is generally restricted to tabled lists where a text description can also be given.

Done. Nathan121212 (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Agang SA reaction source goes to a login page

Fixed Nathan121212 (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The African Christian Democratic Party reaction is cited to a YouTube link. You should avoid citing YouTube like the plague as most links are either unreliable sources or copyright violations. I'd get another source if at all possible.

Fixed Nathan121212 (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Are all these international reactions necessary for the article? I'd certainly include reactions from neighbouring countries such as Zimbabwe, maybe the other African countries, possibly the UK and US, but I'm not sure about the others.

Sorted by continent putting Africa at the top. Nathan121212 (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The many mentions of "Jacob Zuma" should simply be "Zuma" per WP:LASTNAME, unless they are occurring in a direct quotation.

* King Abdullah of Jordan is a disambiguation page - this should be Abdullah II of Jordan, though I would pipe the link to say "King Abdullah of Jordan" anyway Done Nathan121212 (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC) * "BBC's Andrew Harding said that there was no massive change in the elections compared to previous years" - the source also mentions that support for the ANC dropped since 2009, and that he thought the party had "spun" their 62% of the vote as a victory despite the many controversies (most listed in this article). That's worth working into the article.[reply]

Aftermath[edit]

* This section has quite a few short sentences. It would be worth combining them. * "demanding the release of the suspects arrested on 8 May 2014" - use "the previous day" instead of the specific date here

Summary[edit]

  • I've gone through the whole article. I'll be honest here and say there is a lot of work to do to get this to GA status. The main work is the formatting and presentation, which is relatively straightforward to fix once you know what you're doing. Another key issue is the focus, which does drift a bit in places, particularly when documenting a series of events over a time period - that'll need to be sorted out. There are a few issues on unsourced content, though the sourcing I've found is generally good, as one ought to expect from an article on a major political event.
Anyway, since the article has been queued for review for so long and you've been patient with this review, I'll put it on hold, to give you time for improvements. The standard turnaround period is seven days, but to be honest I don't mind if it takes longer than that. Provided everything can be closed down in about two weeks, that should be okay.
I look forward to your feedback soon. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: Hi, sorry for not being very participatory and being quite slow with improvements. I've hit my data cap this month (2nd in a row) and will hopefully be able to fix these issues in the first 1 - 2 weeks of January. Thanks for your patience and the thorough review. Nathan121212 (talk)
@Ritchie333: I had some time on a computer today. I have performed most of the improvements you have suggested here. Can you please have another look? Thanks - Nathan121212 (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nathan121212: - I've gone through the points I raised earlier and checked them against what you've done. I've struck off everything that I agree is now resolved, copyedited a few things in the process. It looks like the main thing is the formatting and stripping out some of the lists, and getting rid of some of the tables. Once that's resolved, I think we'll be a lot closer to a GA. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Hi, would you be willing to take another look so soon? I've taken care of most of the raised points, the others which I have not changed have responses above. Nathan121212 (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Nathan121212: I've had a look through, and I think the only thing that's really stopping this from reaching GA status now is the National Council of Provinces results lists. I appreciate the other election articles have them, but none of the ones I checked are GAs, and especially for the 1994 one, which is an incredibly important event in South African history, the tables of statistics really do dwarf the prose and leave me a bit disappointed I didn't learn more. We can take it to a second opinion if you like, but I'm really going to have to take a stand on this one as I think it stops the "focused" part of the GA criteria being met. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I'll try to get this fixed tomorrow or the day after. Nathan121212 (talk) 07:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: I have now split the article. If you can offer any advice for the intro in both articles, it would be appreciated. Nathan121212 (talk) 13:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nathan121212: That looks fine. I've added a bit more in the lead; the only other thing to do is just summarise the results generally. I spotted another dead link this morning (not sure how I missed that first time around), but I've resolved that. So, after a far too long await, I'm happy to say I can now pass the review. Well done! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. Happy New year! Nathan121212 (talk) 13:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_South_African_general_election&oldid=1212497275"