Talk:2012 Angolan general election

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

Historical context[edit]

I've removed this section on the basis that it was quite poorly written (full of grammatical errors and spelling mistakes even after Everyking fixed it to some extent) and largely unreferenced (with a bit of WP:OR seemingly thrown in). However, my main issue is why this section is needed. Do we really need a short political history of Angola since independence? Surely the appropriate place for this would be Elections in Angola? In my eyes, the "background" section to any election only needs to contain details of what's happened since the last elections (and perhaps any controversy related to that). Number 57 08:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely hope your attitude in this is not one of parti pris. Assuming it is not, I shall try and give short answers to the different point you raise. (a) I admit the text may have been written too hastily. But in this case the reaction I would expect from a fellow wikipedian is that he/she made the necessary corrections. Which is what I have been doing frequently in articles written by others.(b) Although I have continuously studied Angola over the last decades, the text is not "OR", but drawn from the rather extensive sources existing (ranging from scholarly works to the Angolan press). The relevant aspects are summed up in the one source I added.(c) What the 2012 elections mean in/for Angola cannot be understood by the non specialized reader if it is not placed in the larger context. Leaving it out would be extremely bad policy for an encyclopedia.(d) However, you may be right that the text as a whole should be placed in the article Elections in Angola, and that here a more reduced background information is more appropriate. I shall try and do this over the next days. For this reason, I shall now revert your revert, so that the text is not lost. Please do wait for the outcome! -- Aflis (talk) 11:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know what "parti pris" means, but I have removed the section again until it is sorted out. It is not "lost" - you can still access it by editing previous versions. I would strongly advise posting a first draft of a shorter section here on the talk page so we can agree what should be included, rather than repeatedly go through the BRD cycle on the article itself. Thanks, Number 57 11:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
parti pris means a person takes a position and maintains it at all costs. I still hope this is not your attitude. However, I am very much surprised by your new revert, and even more by your "strongly advising" a procedure which, implicitly, attributes you a kind of authority. I must admit this is for me a new experience on WP. Aflis (talk) 12:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not my attitude, and I'd be happy to include a background section. However, this shouldn't be a short history of Angola since independence. I'm advising you draft something on the talk page, as otherwise we'll just continue this cycle of reverting (not sure why you're surprised at the latest revert - I was surprised by the fact that you re-added material that is under discussion here before the discussion was complete). Number 57 12:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done shortened to immediately pertinent. (although perhaps Samimbi need not be here)Lihaas (talk) 09:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have added a few details and eliminated the Cabinda question which is really not relevant for this election. I still intend to write a somewhat more detailed background section for Elections in Angola, as suggested above, but I shall now wait for the results of this election. -- Aflis (talk) 13:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Lihaas: sorry, but when talking about Cabinda, you seem quite out of touch with what is going on there, and what not. Since the football incident, the military & police control is such that no acts of "instability" occur. Cabindans are voting today - massively, I suppose - and one can expect the opposition parties getting there a higher proportion of votes than elsewhere (electing 2 MPs against 3 for the MPLA, I would guess), but that has nothing to do with "instability". In any case, the election is basically conditioned by factors other than the Cabinda question, which at this stage plays a very marginal role. Aflis (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Aflis on this one. "Very marginal" sounds about right. It would be wrong to create the impression that it's a significant factor in this election. Everyking (talk) 01:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just got the preliminary results of the election (see Público (Lisbon),02-09-2012) which confirm what I said above: no "instability" in Cabinda (where there has been no fighting for several years), and a relatively high percentage of opposition votes. -- Aflis (talk) 09:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)PS: [1] indicates that in Cabinda as well as in Luanda the oppositon won about 40% of the votes, against a contrywide average of about 25%.[reply]

Party abbreviations[edit]

@Number57: Could you please explain why the inconsistency in this respect is justified? Aflis (talk) 12:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is how the parties are named on Wikipedia - i.e. MPLA/UNITA vs National Liberation Front of Angola. Number 57 12:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this argument justifies the inconsistency. NB: As to my limited technical competence, I humbly ask for forgiveness...Aflis (talk) 13:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it does - the names of the articles are how the parties are commonly known (per WP:COMMONNAME), so the results table should also present the party names in this format. Number 57 13:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree again: people (the world over) who have some knowledge of Angola identify these parties always by the abbreviation of their name in Portuguese, and not by the translation of their full name into English (or any other language). -- Aflis (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Angolan legislative election, 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Angolan_general_election&oldid=1196609721"