Talk:Democratic Alliance (South Africa)

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

Party policies[edit]

For the main opposition party in South Africa, there's very little about their policies and what they stand for etc... Nil Einne 10:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Scotteh 15:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. dewet|✉ 15:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have a go at adding the DA's policies. I'll try fix up some of the other SA party Wiki pages too. Unfortunately the DA seem to be using a temporary blog site at the moment, so not a lot of their policies are online but I'll do my best. In order to add policies, I think this whole page needs a significant makeover. In particular, after looking at political party websites like this one, the following format appears to be used:

0. Lengthily introduction, with details of current officeholders, notable party facts, etc. DONE (--Mulaudzi8 (talk) 08:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC))
1. Ideology
2. Issues DONE --Mulaudzi8 (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
2.1 Economic Issues DONE --Mulaudzi8 (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
2.2 Social Issues DONE --Mulaudzi8 (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
2.3 Foreign Policy Issues
2.4 Legal Issues
2.5 Electoral Reform PARTLY DONE --Mulaudzi8 (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Voter Base & 2009 Campaign DONE --Mulaudzi8 (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
4. History
5. Relaunch
6. Youth wing
7. Name and symbols

The problem with the current Wiki entry is that it is basically an historical essay. It is similar to the History of the United States Democratic Party page. I'd suggest a new page entitled 'History of the Democratic Alliance (South Africa)' is created, and a shorter summary of that is included in the abovementioned section 4.

If you look at other political party pages, e.g. US Democratic and Republican pages, none of them have 'controversies' sections. Where they have been criticised, this is incorporated into the issues/policies sections, which I think we need to do with Delft. Because it IS an important issue, but someone else on here said, it doesn't deserve so much coverage while other important issues are left out.

--Mulaudzi8 (talk) 07:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now busy trying to get hold of a higher res image of the party - I'm pretty sure it's somewhere on the party's site. The current one is slightly low res (appears to have been compressed badly as a jpg at some stage) --Mulaudzi8 (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the "current policies" section a bit too detailed? I see no such corresponding section on the ANC article. Couldn't it be trimmed a bit at least? -- 80.217.141.69 (talk) 00:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User Boxes[edit]

Wouldn't someone mind creating a user box for the DA? I used one for the ANC because I could not find a DA one. If you don't know what a user box is, visit my profile. I'd love to put up a DA box. Scotteh 15:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. I don't use user boxes anymore. Scotteh 11:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DA Leadership Race 2007[edit]

Just a correction, Douglas Gibson is not in the race for the party's leadership (which is scheduled to be voted on Sunday, 6 May 2007. The candidates are Helen Zille, Joe Seremane and Athol Trollip, with Zille "ahead of the pack" if the Mail & Guardian report can be trusted. Zille ahead of pack in leadership race

MariusHR 00:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Tony Leon[edit]

Might not Tony Leon's emphasis on "the protection of human rights" be considered to be in conflict with his vocal support for the reintroduction of the death penalty during the run-up to the 2004 national elections. Shouldn't some mention, perhaps, be made of this? GermanySA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.6.64.7 (talk) 10:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I did with the new article is make reference to Leon's (alleged) rightward shift (including his support of the death penalty). I agree it's worth mentioning --Mulaudzi8 (talk) 05:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies sect[edit]

I don't find the content particularly relevant to the party, rather it is more of a council issue. I propose that it is either shortened or we move it to the Western Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign article. Teatreez (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is a something like this not relevant? All accusations against the DA are relevant especially one as substantial as this. It has been all over the news. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise the DA so both the good an the bad should be included (just as with any other political party). In fact, the controversies section should be much longer and include the array of other controversies that the DA has been involved in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaredsacks (talk • contribs) 13:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look on city's webiste, there has been no followup - well, there are a lot of other things that are not said as well. Classic newspaper headline:- No news of the Pope!. No news is not news. Making it news is WP:OR. Wizzy…☎ 09:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listing political controversies is fine, but it HAS TO BE NPOV. And the line "What ensued was a high profile political dog fight between the ANC and DA, each accusing the other of racism, playing party politics, and using the poor for their own gain" is manifestly biased. I wouldn't be surprised if someone at the TAC or ID wrote it. Sure, list all of the controversies that are relevant, but at least represent them fairly! User:Anon 18:30, 06 January 2009

And I'd like to just add to that that it's ridiculous that one controversy (which has been given a VERY one sided representation in the article) takes up the entire controversies section. I agree that it should be moved to the to the Western Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign article.

At the request of User:Anon, I have changed the sentence "what ensued was a high profile political dog fight..." to make it a less political statement. The statement and all the information come from the articles cited. Read the articles, it makes it very clear that there was sparing between the ANC and DA. While it might be something worth adding to the Western Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign article, it should not be removed from this page because it is a particularly relevant controversy surrounding the DA. As this is an encyclopedia, it should not be shortened because that would make it confusing as to what the actual controversy is. Regarding the one conroversy taking up a lot of space, I would suggest that other people add other controversies surrounding the DA (there are plenty). Just because other controversies have not yet been included, that doesn't mean that the one regarding delft should be excluded. I also think that the Xenophobia controversy should be explained in more detail but I do not have enough knowledge to expand that section myself.Jaredsacks (talk) 12:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently in the process of going through and really trying to improve South African politically related pages - starting with the DA. What I'd like to do, as I outlined above, is possibly merge controversies with a new 'issues' section. I see that the ANC page has a 'controversies' section too, but I'd suggest that the same should happen there. At the very least, if a separate section is maintained, it needs to provide a more balanced view of these controversies - including perhaps a longer list of them. But I do think that none of them can go into too much detail, especially when there's a full article that can be linked to. Right now this page doesn't have any details of policy, but does include a fairly minor controversy (and by that I mean the DA have been involved in some other bigger ones!) in a lot of detail. That's what I'm going to try fixing. --Mulaudzi8 (talk) 10:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would not be opposed to putting the controversies section into the new issues section however i do feel that issues is a bad term to use. It could mean both controversies or policies and the two obviously dont go together. So what I'd suggest is the within the new Issues Section, you create a subsection of controversies.
Regarding cutting down the controversy surrounding Delft, I am very much opposed to cutting it down. I think that if people feel it is not balanced, then they must edit it to make it balanced. But I DO NOT think that the Delft issue is minor. It resulted in the largest home invasion in SA history and the violent eviction of over 1,600 families including 20 people getting shot by the police. The DA councillor with Zille's permission (and I know this because I've seen the letter) sent out a letter telling families he was personally giving them permission to occupy these houses - this is a criminal act and I would say it is the largest controversy the DA has been involved in. So i'd oppose cutting it down or moving it to another article.Jaredsacks (talk) 11:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have tidied up the sections on Delft and Xenophobia, as both missed out on key details, and failed to conform with Wiki NPOV standards. In particular, the hyperbolic language in the Delft section ("the DA has been accused on numerous occasions of fuelling racial conflict") needed attention. I've rewritten this section to make it seem less like a partisan attack and more reflective of the facts, including dates of the events, and other important info that was previously missing. I have also added links to the main articles dealing with both the Delft and Xenophobic attacks, where more detailed information about these events can be found. If everyone is happy now, can we remove the neutrality dispute? Or are there still concerns? --Mulaudzi8 (talk) 08:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Come concerns I have: (1) They are not council houses. They are houses that are part of the N2 Gateway Housing project led by the national government. This is important because it is the prime reason why it was good for the DA to get the residents to occupy the houses. When Zille came to power in CT, the provincial ANC took the city out of the N2 project. This angered Zille and the DA has been looking at a way to make the ANC look bad since then. The support Frank Martin gave to the occupations of these homes was a political calculation.
(2) The 'saga' continues to drag on. There are still hundreds living on the pavement of symphony way. There are thousands who live in City built transit camps. These camps are supposed to be temporary and both the DA and ANC have promised to give these people houses. But, at the same time, there are no plans to actually give them houses and the DA is planning on electrifying the camps before election time. The residents of symphony way pavement have been threatened by Zill and the DA with a second eviction but its unlikely this will happen until after the elections.
(3) Finally, Frank Martin actually did send out letters telling the residents to occupy the homes. There's actually proof. I've seen the letters myself AND seen an sms from Zille to Martin telling him to be careful about what he was about to do.
Obviously, lots of this has not been reported in the press. Most of the press in Cape Town supports the DA and do not want to break the story. But I do think there should be some clarification here to show its not just some random allegation without evidence to back it

up.Jaredsacks (talk) 10:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have a problem with the term "riot". These were not riots but pogroms. Riots happen spontaneously and are rarely pre-planned. Pogroms are sponsored either by the state, by the police, or by some other organisation. The xenophobia attacks were pogroms.
Look, where there are errors feel free to fix them, but with due respect the previous version was flawed because it didn't state the basic facts like when the incidents occurred, resorted to a tone that was partisan and not NPOV, and used hyperbolic language.
I used the term council houses in a rather generic fashion, but if there is a more appropriate way of describing them please do fix it. Do likewise for the other terms (riots, saga, etc). And all of the detail you've mentioned here is great - irrespective of whether it's only available outside of the mainstream press, it should have a place on Wiki. My concern is that this DA page should be an overview of the DA, and at most should include a short section about controversies with links to a separate article. This is a page about a political party, and the convention on Wikipedia is that controversies and incidents involving political parties or political figures ought to have their own pages rather than being extensively dealt with on the party/figure's page.
A classic example: The (extremely comprehensive) U.S. Republican Party page has not one reference to Watergate. Not one. And that's arguably the political scandal/controversy of the century.
So I'd personally be inclined to get rid of the controversies section entirely, or, more appropriately, move them to the History of the DA page. But at the very least we can't include extensive details here. It's just not appropriate. --Mulaudzi8 (talk) 11:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise if my last message came out negative and overly critical. I hope you didn't take offense. I meant merely to state certain facts before doing the edits because I didn't want to cause problems when editing. I will make some edits. Thanks for your work. Thats also much appreciated.Jaredsacks (talk) 08:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still think there's something incredibly inconsistent about the amount of coverage afforded to these events. If you go to the ANC page, there isn't even mention of the R55-billion arms deal. I just think that, with the greatest respect to the people of Delft - who no doubt have a right to believe this was a major scandal - this page still pays WAY too much attention to an event which didn't even lead to a criminal charge. If we were to add details to every ANC (as you can guess, I'm not a big fan!) scandal their page would be one of the longest on Wikipedia! To reiterate, I'm not necessarily against including the Delft thing here. I just want consistency!! Comments? --Mulaudzi8 (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Wizzy…☎ 06:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree too.Teatreez (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizzy seems to like to follow me around and undo most of the edits I make. I have reversed his edits until we can discuss this issue further. Mulaudzi: I definitely agree with you that there is an inconsistency here. However, I think that the inconsistency is with the ANC article which absolutely should include the arms deal saga. Perhaps, the ANC article should include a bit about the N2 Gateway and the Delft saga as well. Unfortunately, political parties edit their own pages and tend to remove such things. I personally dont have the time and dont know enough about the arms deal to put it into the ANC article. Regardless, my personal point of view is that we should always, if in doubt, present more information rather than less. That is the whole point of wikipedia, to open up information. To provide as much basic reference as possible. Considering how long the DA article is already, i dont think the Delft section is particularly wordy but perhaps I could try to combine some sentences. Perhaps there should be an article about Frank Martin as well as the whole occupation saga - if I get time to write it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaredsacks (talk • contribs) 12:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I happen to have a lot of RSA articles on my watchlist - I don't follow you around. You have put controversy sections into a lot of articles, and I happen to agree with Mulaudzi8 that they are POV pushing, and unbalanced. Yes, we mention it in the DA article, if you want to find out more, chase the {{main}} link. I think duplication of all that stuff here to .. err .. throw mud around is disingenious. If I have someone else to back me up, I will back them up. Otherwise you just call me 'difficult' and revert. Wizzy…☎ 13:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Out-denting) And the proper place to put the Arms Deal information is in South African Arms Deal (which I started, and have worked on a lot) and not cluttering up the ANC page throwing virtual mud. Wizzy…☎ 13:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unilaterally removing things that are under debate is wrong. Doesn't matter who you happen to agree with.
There is currently no article about the Delft-Symphony N2 Gateway home occupation. If there was, one could put more of the info there and shorten this article. But I don't think its right to remove information unless it is going to be placed somewhere else. When I get the chance (maybe in a week), i'll try to create an article about the home occupations. Then I wouldnt mind compromising and shortening this section. Mulaudzi, is that fair enough? Thats what you were concerned about right? Jaredsacks (talk) 06:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved much of the section into Symphony Way Pavement Dwellers‎‎, which is a better home than this high-profile article. If you think it does not belong there, create another page. I left a summary here, with a {{main}} link to Symphony Way Pavement Dwellers. Wizzy…☎ 11:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizzy, please don't be difficult for no reason. Look back at the Symphony Way article. Your edit was not logical. Your so-called attempt to fix this DA article made the Symphony Way article worse! You cannot label a whole section in the Symphony Way article as 'N2 Gateway' just to prove your obscure point that the information should be removed from the DA article. Again, it is wrong to remove things unilaterally like that. You're not improving the article or making a summary. Please stop causing problems.
Mulaudzi: I will revert Wizzy's edit and try to improve the entry myself. And i'll create an article about the N2 Gateway BNG house occupation which seems sensible. To me its only sensible to remove information from the DA site if this article about the occupation is created. I'm strongly against destroying information but I agree with you that we should try to organise it as best as possible.Jaredsacks (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have now created an article N2 Gateway Occupations. I have redone the Delft criticisms section on the DA page. It is half as long and I have taken out much of what Wizzy had unilateral removed as well as a couple other sentences. The section is now half as long though it is divided into two parts. Mulaudzi, what do you think of the changes? are they acceptable? Jaredsacks (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Helen Zille and Desmond Tutu.jpg[edit]

The image File:Helen Zille and Desmond Tutu.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal?[edit]

I have removed the word 'liberal' from the first line for the same reason that someone else has changed 'liberal' to 'centre-left liberal' on the right hand bar - the term is so misunderstood and means something completely different to South Africans than it does to other wikipedia visitors. Unless it were specified in the top line "the DA is a centre/centre-left liberal South African political party" (which just sounds cumbersome) I think we can just leave their political ideology to later in the article. In any case, the DA is made up of left liberals, centrists and a few lingering conservatives from their brief merger with the NNP (though most of them I believe are leaving at the end of this parliamentary term). It's difficult to describe them in one sweeping description like 'liberal'. Possibly the correct term would be 'centrist', but that's my own POV and I can't back that up anywhere. Another problem is that the description is relative - in global terms, they might be described as centre-left, but they're decried as 'right wing' by the Communist Party and trade unions, for obvious reasons. So I think it's probably just better to try not to generalise, and let the article explain the complexities of their political views, rather than just making sweeping statements using the word 'liberal'. Thoughts?--Mulaudzi8 (talk) 05:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If people could stop changing the centre-left/ centre-right thing without discussing it first, that would be great. I have now changed the article to reflect the fact that the party is viewed as both centre-left and centre-right by different analysts. Beforehand we just had people switching the article back and forth between the two descriptions. For what it's worth, the DA does indeed get described as centre-right, but this is because the commentators who do so are largely sympathetic to the ANC, and also because the DA is genuinely to the right of the ANC. Similarly, the Lib Dems in the UK get described as centre-left because they're left of Labour and the Tories. In reality, though, the DA and Lib Dems are almost identical parties, policy wise, which is why describing them as centrist is probably best. In terms of economic policy, the DA isn't much further to the right of the ANC. Look at the recent announcements by the ANC to introduce a basic income grant and wage subsidy. Both of these are leftist interventions that were PROPOSED by the DA and then only followed through after Mbeki left office. The biggest difference between the ANC and DA is in their dealings with social issues - e.g. the DA is much more in favour of a free press. It's difficult to describe that as a left/right issue, but has more to do with a liberal/authoritarian dynamic - in terms of which, the DA can be described as liberal or progressive.--Mulaudzi8 (talk) 20:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have problems with the 'left' vs 'right' characterizations to begin with. I think generally they are quite simplistic and inaccurate. However, if one insists on using them, I would say the DA is pretty clearly a centre-right party. Economically, they definitely are 'liberal' in the classical economic sense or in the 'neoliberal' sense. Take for instance their clear belief in privatising as much as possible. They have criticised the ANC for not privatising enough (even though the ANC has privatised half of government's services). Also, take for instance Zille's focus on management and efficiency as excuses for not transforming socio-political inequalities especially with her new cabinet appointments in the Western Cape (all male and mostly white males). This is the same argument that the Tories make and the same argument that most Republicans make in the US. On some social issues, the DA is progressive but not when it comes to transforming social relations such as race.
So, I'd say they clearly believe in classical liberalism and are right of centre. Definitely not left of centre and saying the DA in centrist might be pushing it.
I would call the ANC, on the other hand, a centrist party. They they have both left and right elements within it (the trade unions and the conservative businessmen). I'd compare them with the old PRI in mexico, the current Chilean government, etc. Though the ANC is clearly progressive on certain issues such as Gay Marriage and anti-racism, I dont think they are 'left of centre' overall primarily because of their economic policies.
I would agree that the DA and ANC are quite similar especially on economic policies though the DA quite clearly is a bit more to the right in this sense. COPE would have the middle ground (though there isn't much space between them!).
Finally, i definitely disagree that the DA is against authoritarianism. I feel quite strongly that the DA is just as authoritarian as the ANC. And believing in a 'free corporate press' hardly makes it anti-authoritarian because a corporate press is very authoritarian - just in a non-state-led sort of way. Also, if you've ever actually heard someone like Zille or Dan Plato speak in meetings with poor communities, there is nothing democratic about it. I believe that the more the DA gains power, the more its authoritarian side will show in the mainstream. Frombelow (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies section: a review[edit]

Can anyone provide justification for why a political party page should include reference to a minor controversy sparked by one rogue local government councilor? I see no reason why this section should be included. Controversies sections should be included on individual profile pages (e.g. Frank Martin's page), and if the controversy extends to the entire party then fine. But the Republican page, as mentioned earlier in this discussion page, doesn't even include reference to Watergate. I see no reason at all for the DA page to include reference to the Frank Martin incident.

I would also argue that, for instance, if you look at how an ANC councillor was implicated in the xenophobic violence at De Doors, that is a story of equal, if not greater, seriousness (a party councillor inciting illegal action), yet even press coverage of it was muted (this is about all I could find: link) - and obviously the ANC page doesn't even remotely mention it. The ANC has been involved in at least 100 more serious incidents than this one over the last decade. It's a matter of consistency. And as serious as Martin's offence may have been (and let's face it, he hasn't even been criminally charged), I see no objective basis for that section, when you look at what is standard for a political party page, and the comparative seriousness of the incident.

Before it is removed, I would like to give others a chance to comment.--Mulaudzi8 (talk) 05:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this was a short-lived, isolated incident relating to only one member of the party. There is no indication that it represents party policy and though it should be noted on the page, it is not notable enough to have a complete section dedicated to it, especially since there is a complete separate article on the subject. The references themselves show that the High Court implicated Frank Martin for his part in the occupations rather than the DA party as a whole. As far as controversies go, I am sure there are others that are more notable, prominent and related to the party as a whole. --NJR_ZA (talk) 06:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dont see how this is isolated to just the one councillor. There are serious accusations that Zille orchestrated it and she has admitted to sms conversations with Martin that show that she at very least new that something of this sort was going to happen. Also, the fact that the City of Cape Town justified his actions by blaming the ANC and then gave him a small slap on the wrist is evidence that it goes far beyond Martin. If it wasnt their policy then they would have disciplined him more strongly. Also, this action hit international news so its not really a small incident. It effected thousands of families and implicated mass corruption on both the DA and ANC side. So, I think quite clearly, this should stay on the DA page.
Additionally, just because the ANC has done worse (and sure I agree that they have), does not mean that it should not be mentioned on the DA page. One omission doesn't justify another. If you want to balance things with ANC/DA, then go put up controversies on the ANC page.41.240.101.76 (talk) 16:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My reply is based only on the refs that are there. If there are better refs, please add them, but the only real mention of the DA in the refs provided are in the form of "DA councillor Frank Martin", i.e. specific to one person. --NJR_ZA (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't true. If you read all the articles, its all in there including the claims that the DA was tacitly approving it and that the DA was using it as an opportunity to attach the ANC's N2 Gateway. Obviously, the DA will never admit that their policy is to ferment problems to undermine the ANC but that does not mean that its not true and it doesn't mean that its not abundantly clear from the referenced articles inclulding number 59 in which Zille herself speaks.41.240.20.224 (talk) 08:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And look at the ANC page. There are many issues on there relating to individuals in which others (the DA or civil society) have blamed the entire ANC. The fact is that civil society organisations and the ANC were both blaming the DA for supporting frank martin.41.240.20.224 (talk) 08:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are not discussing the ANC article, we are discussing the DA article. I am also not disputing your argument, simply saying that I did not find it in the refs, possibly I missed something. If the DA was tacitly approving the action, then add that statement (with an inline ref) to the section and the section will immediately become relevant to the article, notable and verifiable. The section will stay and this discussion will end. --NJR_ZA (talk) 11:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Made some edits as recommended in the above discussion including adding statement with references to accusations of DA's role in occupation Frombelow (talk) 14:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DA's future policies[edit]

There's a long section setting out the DA's policies, for instance on crime and policing, should they come to power. X amount of extra cops will be hired and so forth. This seems very manifesto-ish. It may inadvertently be Crystal Ball gazing and Soap-boxing. Should so much detailed election promises concerning future eventualities be included, especially if the source is ANY political party? Wondering! BlandBaroque (talk) 07:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Do we see the DA moving away from its traditional liberal economic policies to attract more votes and moving from the centre right to the centre left or is the day keeping these general view quieter in order to focus more on scandals that have affected the ANC of late? Manofmyth (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Content Not Displaying[edit]

After inserting content in the infobox listing the DA's youth league and political position the content is unable to be displayed (see source). I was wondering whether this might be attributed to the template's coding, as this article (as well as other South African parties) does not use the generic "Infobox political party" but uses "Infobox South African politcal party." Could somebody with better technical expertise please fix this, or at least advise me on how to do so.

Furthermore, assistance in improving this article would be greatly appreciated. DiscipleOfKnowledge DiscipleOfKnowledge 23:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The political position information didn't appear because you misspelled the "position" parameter as "postion". :-) I didn't see any youth league-related stuff in your edit, but I added "DA Youth" using the youth_wing parameter. - htonl (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. I rarely mispell. Thanks for helping me with this. I see you frequently edit South African articles. Message me if you need my help on anything, and I will gladly help. I am a good writer, so call on me if you need to add substance to certain articles; I find copy-editing to be somewhat tedious. Thanks again! DiscipleOfKnowledge DiscipleOfKnowledge 00:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Electoral reform" section could do with an update[edit]

I won't edit this article myself because of my declared conflict of interest, but the "Electoral reform" section is looking a bit out of date; it should be updated to reflect that citizens are now allowed to vote from outside the country. - htonl (talk) 11:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leadership in infobox[edit]

I won't edit this article myself, because I'm a DA staff member, so there would be a perceived conflict of interest. But I have some suggestions for changes. (And to be clear, I am making these suggestions in a personal capacity and not on behalf of the party.)

If the article is going to list the Deputy Chairperson of Federal Council in the infobox, it should also list the Chairperson of Federal Council, who is James Selfe (he was re-elected unopposed). For clarity, the full list of the new federal leaders, with their correct titles, is:

- htonl (talk) 20:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Last paragraph in the opening text?[edit]

Is it really needed? It contains info about who leads the party (Maimane, Trollip, Selfe) and how many members the party has in parliament. This information is already included in the infox to the right in the article, so does it really need to be stated twice? I feel the opening section is long enough as it is -- Darthdyas (talk) 22:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Democratic Alliance (South Africa). 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 22:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Democratic Alliance (South Africa). 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 08:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sir/medem[edit]

I am sorry if drop wrong the thing DA is for big city only. i'm in libode the even office for DA . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.13.200.224 (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Democratic Alliance (South Africa). 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) 17:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 21 external links on Democratic Alliance (South Africa). 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) 07:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Democratic Alliance (South Africa). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between Federal Council Chairperson and Federal Chairperson[edit]

Is there a difference between Federal Council Chairperson and Federal Chairperson of the DA. And if so, how do we know Helen Zille succeeded Athol Trollip as Federal Chairperson? I know Helen Zille is Federal Council Chairperson, as per the ref I've added to the infobox, but where is a ref for her role as Federal Chairperson? comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 10:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging involved editors (Tree of the truth—Lefcentreright—StefanS33—Francoisdjvr—Deepfriedokra) – comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 10:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Waddie96: Please see my talk page. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 14:10, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Third Deputy Chairperson of Federal Council[edit]

I'm not going to edit the article myself because I have a COI (see my user page), but someone might want to add Ashor Sarupen in the infobox alongside the other two Deputy Chairpersons of Federal Council. The recent Congress voted to add a third deputy, and Sarupen was elected today in a special election to fill that position. See [1]. The article Democratic Alliance Federal Council would also need updating. - htonl (talk) 16:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

I’m not going to touch this article at all because of my declared COI. But there is an external link to https://da-news.co.za/ which appears to be a completely dead site. I would suggest it should be removed. htonl (talk) 17:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

political orientation[edit]

The DA is categorized as center sourcing an early 2019 article. I has since moved to the right in turning its back on Black leadership and becoming more of a party of White identity. I would suggest orientation should be categorized as center right to rightwing GaryJonathan (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slogan[edit]

I see there's been some back-and-forth about the slogan. As I have indicated on my userpage, I work for the DA, so I can't touch the article but hopefully I can help with slogan info. "One Nation, One Future" hasn't been used for years now. "The DA Gets Things Done" was the campaign slogan for the 2021 local government elections. If you want to name a single party slogan it would be "Freedom, Fairness, Opportunity and Diversity" as indicated in section 1.2 of the party constitution. htonl (talk) 10:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Htonl:. @EdgemeadsWikiKing: please see the above. If you wish to add a slogan, it needs to be sourced. Stating "it was literally used in Mutiple Campain Ads" in an edit summary is not sufficient, see HELP:Referencing for beginners. Greenman (talk) 12:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Greenman my bad I'm new so I'm not that good😭 EdgemeadsWikiKing (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Htonl Thanks you! EdgemeadsWikiKing (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Democratic_Alliance_(South_Africa)&oldid=1212779062"