Talk:SWAPO

Question

I don't really know enough about SWAPO to know if this is written in a NPOV, but it seems a little suspect - anyone know a bit more about this organization? --81.134.153.235 22:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It may not be perfect, but lacking further details about what is "suspect", and lacking further input over the past month, I'm going to remove the npov tag. It looks potentially fair to me; here's a military force that fought for independence, did some bad stuff, and runs the country now. CDC (talk) 18:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Removed broken link

The link to the official website was broken, so I removed it --Werdna648 12:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

wasn't connected to the lives of future Namibians not in exile.

What does this mean? I think it's potentially POV. aliceinlampyland 11:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I have removed this section, as well as (temporarily) fixing another which I feel to be a problem NPOV-wise. The section that alleges human rights abuses is unsatisfactory without a reference. aliceinlampyland 19:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems that User:Sooibrand has been filling this article with South-African POV on July 9th this year. The article should either be completely reverted or completely rewritten. --213.220.104.152 11:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Norwegian aid

"The Norwegian government began giving aid directly to SWAPO in 1974." The way it's written, it looks like the Norwegian government is still giving them aid. I find this hard to believe; more likely, they gave them aid during the liberation struggle, and now that Namibia is democratic, Norway gives aid to the government rather than one political party. LittleDan^talk 04:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Weasel Words

"Some say SWAPO was responsible for human rights abuses against its own cadres during the period of exile. The most serious of these was the detainee issue, which remains a divisive issue"

I've tagged these two sentences as using weasel words ("Some say" is a classic example). I know that the ANC was found guilty of torturing/killing some of its members who were suspected of being spies, so it wouldn't surprise me if SWAPO did the same thing. However, we do need to find a citation for this. Pjones (talk) 11:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Potential move to SWAPO?

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move Parsecboy (talk) 01:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The current name is entirely too long and cumbersome. I think we should move it to SWAPO, as it is the common name used in media and most other sources. Thoughts?--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 23:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There are tons of articles with names much longer and cumbersome than this one. However, you do raise a valid point. As the governing electoral party, the name "SWAPO Party of Namibia" is used. The liberation movement was properly called the "South West Africa People's Organisation." The question should be whether to split this article into two to reflect these quite distinct roles —Sesel (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree with the idea of splitting the article into liberation movement and political party. SWAPO has been the acronym used throughout both liberation and independence. SWAPO is the most commonly used name in all media sources.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

For what it is worth, "SWAPO" turns up 171,000 google hits, while "South West Africa People's Organization" turns up only 27,000. Yet another reason to move it.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 14:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I also think that we should make it SWAPO. Everyone calls it SWAPO. All books Ive read about the Border War in Angola also refer to them as SWAPO.Slapsnot (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Politics?

For being an article on a major political party, it says very little about their political standpoints. Apparently it's affiliated with Socialist International. That's about it. More? /Julle (talk) 04:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It is really hard to say what SWAPO stands for. Generally, you can argue that since independence, they have followed primarily a mainstream, market-oriented growth strategy favorable to the IMF and other multilateral organizations. We could mention the foreign policy of trying to embrace Zimbabwe, China and the US at the same time.--TM 04:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

LOL. Its structure is communist, its words are conservative, and its deeds are somewhere between liberal and corrupt. Hard to find any reliable sources evaluating their politics, though--you cannot really take the word of the opposition without a pinch of salt, you don't want to cite sources near ANC or ZANU-PF, and who else writes about it?--Pgallert (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

While just a column, this may be enlightening. This is a more academic source, though it is from 1997. Henning Melber is always a good source for critique of SWAPO as well. Enjoy--TM 12:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Centre-left

Is it accurate to call Swapo centre left? Isn't it more like left, or even far left?203.184.41.226 (talk) 07:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Their words are far left, their actions are right-wing liberal. Take your pick. --Pgallert (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Swapo is politically far left. It is not right wing or centrist in any way, either its words or its acts. It is a part of every far left movement in the world, favours nationalization and state control, is centralist and dictatorial.203.184.41.226 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any nationalisation. In fact, several important companies are owned by SWAPO, not by the government. To be frank, except within the party itself I don't see anything dictatorial either. Elections are reasonably credible. "Right-wing liberal" might not be the scientific term, I'm not an expert there. But for as long as it is somewhat legal they certainly enrich themselves with not the slightest consideration of the man on the ground, that's what I meant, --Pgallert (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

banned in SWA?

When was SWAPO banned in SWA? Where they even illegal (as organisation)? --41.151.40.158 (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Interesting question. I don't think they were ever banned but I can't give a source for that. --Pgallert (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Merging of 'Namibia Today' article to SWAPO

Please note I merged the article Namibia Today into this one. See the talk page here. Revilovs (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Liberation movement

As a long time editor of Southern African topics and articles concerning WikiProject Namibia in particular, I take issue with the fact that SWAPO is described here as a liberation movement, which is a violation of Wikipedia's policy on NPOV. I've gone to great lengths explaining why in the Liberation Lingo essay, which I'm well aware is not a formal policy but describes why terms such as "liberation struggle" or conversely, "terrorism" in the context of Southern Africa's independence wars and anti-apartheid struggles may be considered breaking a neutral narrative.

"Liberation movement" is an example of a value-laden label, which are discouraged under WP:WORDS: Avoid words that may introduce bias and are considered contentious labels.

SWAPO considers itself a liberation movement. During the South African Border War, its critics decried it as a terrorist organisation. Describing SWAPO in its own words is implicitly taking SWAPO's perspective.

We should not describe SWAPO as a liberation movement any more than we should describe Nelson Mandela as a freedom fighter. We present the facts as they are, and allow the readership to come to their own conclusion.

Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect to your very extensive and high quality work, I disagree for two reasons. One: 'Liblingo' is your essay, not a wikipedia policy. I read it and agree with many of the points you make in it, but, essay is not policy so I felt it was a bit unworthy of you to cite it as sufficient reason to justify an edit. Second, frankly I think the term 'national liberation' is as good as any to describe anti-colonial movements thatseek to establish self-rule by formerly colonized people. Whew! That was long-winded, and 'national liberation' does the job a lot more efficiently. The term 'nationalist' on the other hand, has a very different meaning. For one, it does not connote any sense of establishing a new nation-state or casting off foreign rule. E.g., an American citizen or a French citizen or civic organization can be a nationalist, but cannot in 2016 usually be described as pursuing a goal of national liberation.

I'm not married to the term 'national liberation'. There might be some other term that works just as well, although I think it is a good term here. But 'nationalist' is certainly not the right term.

Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

"Separatist" isn't quite right either, sorry. SWAPO was about self-rule and ending foreign/colonial rule over their entire country. 'Separatist' connotes trying to pull some portion away, leaving the rest intact. E.g. the Parti Quebecois, which wants to separate a piece of Canada. You may not *like* the term national liberation but it does correctly describe the goal. If others load it up with additional meanings that's not our fault. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I assumed separatist would be interchangeable with liberation movement, seeing as how such precedent already exists on Wikipedia, ie List of active separatist movements and List of national liberation movements recognized by intergovernmental organizations (ditto for all of its sub pages).

As far as not liking the term national liberation movement, I don't object to its discussion as a concept (hence why I don't take issue with the Liberation movement article, or indeed the Wars of national liberation one), however, I see a violation of neutrality when it's applied as an adjective. Let us agree to disagree. --Katangais (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Katangais! I also think you made some good points in your essay. If the flow of prose allows it, we should maybe put phrases like 'fight for Namibia's independence', 'guerrilla', 'PLAN fighter', and the like. However, South-West Africa was under South African occupation as from 1966. The liberation from this occupation was the main goal of the independence skirmishes, that's why I think 'liberation fighter' is -- if this context is spelled out -- not totally off-track. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 05:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on SWAPO. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110420064235/http://www.eisa.org.za/WEP/namoverview6.htm to http://www.eisa.org.za/WEP/namoverview6.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 11:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Anton Lubowski?

I'm new to this subject and found that Anton made some impact to SWAPO history, but there is no word about him in this article.
"He was a member of the SWAPO. In 1989 he was assassinated by operatives of South Africa’s Civil Cooperation Bureau"
I think it will be nice if someone more in the subject could improve it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Lubowski — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2168:818:654:0:0:0:2 (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Statism

The addition of statism in the infobox as well as the source attributed to it might neglect the acctual meaning of the term, which simply implies that the government has a hand in social and economic affairs, by which definition most governments may be regarded as statist! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 09:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Status of Afrikaans and German names

What is the status of the Afrikaans and German names at the start of the article? Are they officially used by SWAPO or in government documents? Docentation (talk) 09:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Pretty much everyone uses the acronym SWAPO today, or the official name, 'Swapo party' (no capitalisation). The Afrikaans and German names have historical significance and were mostly used before independence. Nobody uses the German/Afrikaans acronym SWAVO. --Pgallert (talk) 07:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Should paragraphs 2 and 3 of human rights abuses be there?

They don't really belong there. because paragraphs 2 and 3 are only somewhat related to the topic being talked about 74.96.69.94 (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)