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)

Ideology

I have revised the infobox to reflect SWAPO's current political ideology, which is distinct from Social Democracy and Marxism.

Social Democracy is an erroneous classification of the party's ideology, and one that was rightfully removed from this page a fair while ago. We can determine this by looking at both the current available WP:RS, as well as SWAPO's current internal and external declarations of it's own ideology.

As to be wary of placing WP:UNDUE on SWAPO's self classification, I'll start with the sources that come from outside of SWAPO's direct control.

Firstly, examining independent media coverage of SWAPO since 2017, we find two critical sources from Namibia, both of which were previously cited on this page and removed for unclear reasons.

The first is an article published contemporaneously with the conclusion of SWAPO's Party congress in 2017, by a prominent Namibian media outfit appropriately named "The Namibian."

This article states: One of the approved changes is to redefine the party's political ideology from capitalism to socialism “that will reflect the Namibian character”.

The Namibian understands that the Swapo top organ had deliberated extensively on the idea of redefining the party's political ideology.

In fact, party sources said the discussion has been coming from the days of Pendukeni Iivula-Ithana as secretary general and was also extensively dealt with at Swapo think tank level.

One of the key things here is that the independent media treats SWAPO's transition as both from Capitalism (ie, abandoning social democracy or capitalism for socialism)

Another article from The Namibian, entitled: "Will SWAPO's Socialism Come To "Mixed Economy" Namibia," also serves to shed light on the view of the independent press in Namibia on SWAPO's ideology, repeatedly stating that SWAPO is a socialist party, and that it was already practically socialist prior to 2017.

Another significant piece of evidence in favor of this is an article aptly titled: "Socialism with Namibian characteristics, " published in the Namibian Sun in 2019, by Ngarikutuke Tjiriange, the former General Secretary of SWAPO, in which he reflects on the history of the party that led to the adoption of SWNC.

Finally, Chinese diplomatic sources have expressed ideological support for SWNC:

https://wb.beijing.gov.cn/en/center_for_international_exchanges/headlines/202411/t20241113_3940814.html https://un.china-mission.gov.cn/eng/zgyw/202607/t20260710_11979845.htm

SWAPO's Constitution obviously supports the view that SWAPO is a socialist party with Article 2, which reads:

The ideology of the Party is socialism with Namibian characteristics.

There are, of course, other examples of usage of the term to describe SWAPO's ideology outside of these key examples. I have cited some of these links and examples in the revised infobox.

As for the other sources cited, all of them PREDATE the critical 2017 Party conference that established SWNC, thus making them irrelevant for describing the ideology after the sweeping changes of 2017 (Additionally, the German source doesn't directly call SWAPO Social Democratic. The only other source using the term Social Democracy is Africa Elects, and they don't cite a source for such a substantial claim. PlebeianTribune (talk) 23:14, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@Demeseriecroitor, I have reverted your edit to the page based on the fact that they fall under WP:OR. I looked through the sources you provided, and neither of them even mention the SWAPO party, but Namibia as a state, and several of them do not fall under reliable sources, (such as the blog/news site you cited titled "Gay Nation"). Additionally, the citations do not directly support your claimed ideology for SWAPO, since they relate to specific policies and not party ideology.

I do not appreciate your lack of communication, especially when adding a dubious - discuss tag, without discussing, and ignoring my written request to discuss ideology changes PlebeianTribune (talk) 12:38, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Greetings! Left-conservative views have been espoused by the current president of Namibia. The country has been under the rule of SWAPO since independence, so commentary on Namibia's policy is related to laws and policy approved by SWAPO. The article on LGBT rights focuses on a UN hearing, not on mere original research or opinionated articles. Nambia also follows Keynesian policies, with the approval of SWAPO, so, again, I believe it is more than fair to be on the page.

I did not revert your edit, I simply put a dubious label since this ideology has only been mentioned in the 2017 congress, and no follow up development to it has happened. If you wished to contest my edits, you were more than welcome to put a dubious label yourself, instead of deleting the sections, all of the sources on economic policy are based on scholar, professional views, with many being from the country proper, not just from an external point of view. I believe it is best that your label is analysed here, in the talk page, by other people, not just me, hence the discuss label I put. Demeseriecroitor (talk) 12:49, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for your prompt reply, and willingness to discuss. This doesn't address the key issue that I criticized you for. A blog site called "Gay Nation" does not qualify as RS, and even if it did, it's not directly relevant to the source. You do a conflation here with the Namibian state and the Namibian party of SWAPO. Namibia is not a party state in the same way China or Laos is. While I don't disagree with your categorization of SWAPO as "left conservative," I do think the current sourcing is insufficient to support the label.

Socialism With Namibian Characteristics is not "your (my) Label" it is the label used by domestic media (which I cited), the Party itself (specifically, see the reference to SwNC in Dr Ngarikutuke Tjiriange's article, as well as this 2019 debate published on YouTube, which contains key SWAPO figures discussing the term, but I did not cite this on the page: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=-Xb1fHjFAAc&pp=ygUpU29jaWFsaXNtIHdpdGggbmFtaWJpYW4gY2hhcmFjaHRlcmlzdGljcyA%3D&ra=m), with this in mind, your statement that "this ideology has only been mentioned in the 2017 congress, and no follow up development to it has happened." is patently false. I don't blame you for saying this, because quite frankly it takes a high degree of research to find these kind of sources.

The only other statement I'd like to dispute is this one: "Nambia [sic] also follows Keynesian policies, with the approval of SWAPO, so, again, I believe it is more than fair to be on the page."

Quite frankly, I see no evidence for the Party adopting this as an ideology. It doesn't to my knowledge exist in party vernacular, and isn't commonly used in your sources. The sources that you do cite that do mention these policies don't claim it's an ideology of the state or the party, but rather they use it to describe the Namibian State. Regardless, the state isn't the party. One of your sources is pre-2017, making it inaccurate given the developments of that year. The other sources describe specific policies, but these aren't unique to Keynesian thought (in the way that something like Worker's Self Management and Market Economics are unique to Titoism), and they broadly fit within state-led developmental states, not just Keynesian ones. I don't think specific government policies can be used to define the ruling party's ideology (WITHOUT SUPPORTING EVIDENCE). PlebeianTribune (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Also the only article that does mention Keynesianism is way outdated. I forgot to mention this. PlebeianTribune (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I understand your viewpoint, but the same could be said about Cambodia and its rulling party. It technically is not a one party state, and there is a sepraration between state and party. But, the cambodian people's party has massive control over policies and is used as a paravan by the current rulling family. In this case, where I describe the policy of a state, it is directly linked to the rulling party, since the rulling party approves said laws in the economic and social landscapes. Again, SWAPO has been in power since the very independence of this country, and the government of Namibia has been dominated and influenced by this party. Demeseriecroitor (talk) 14:59, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

There is also a difference between what is said, and what is done, In the 20th century, many western european and asian countries adopted keynesianism without mentioning Keynes year by year. Nambia currently practises Keynesianism, and while Namibian economic policy does not refer to it, the country still practices this policy, as I shared in the sources you just read. Demeseriecroitor (talk) 15:04, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

This is WP:OR. Your view that they practice this as a state is derived from, not mentioned in, reliable sources, and thus not adequately supported. As I stated previously, these policies are not unique to Keynesianism, nor are they especially unique to Namibia or distinct from other state directed economies. Wikipedia doesn't do OR, and even if it did, Namibia isn't SWAPO. PlebeianTribune (talk) 16:07, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

https://tomorrowsaffairs.com/japan-another-keynesian-failure, https://www.ifri.org/en/papers/swapo-beginning-political-challenge, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352549661_The_Government_Expenditures_Impact_on_Namibia's_Economic_Growth, https://www.ncl.ac.uk/press/articles/archive/2017/10/cambodiaheadstowardsone-partystate/, https://www.thepoliticalpulse.co.uk/post/what-was-the-impact-of-the-sino-soviet-split-on-china-s-strategic-thinking-and-doctrinal-development I do not base my edits on Original Research, here are a couple of sources talking about the various points I have invoked in my reply. Demeseriecroitor (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

It is best that more people comment on this talk page, and give out their opinion on this matter, and all the labels added on the page proper. Could you please point out what part of the article I provided has blog language in it? The website hosts opinion articles and news as well. It has a news structure to it, based on a UN hearing, and official positions from Namibian officials, nominated by SWAPO, the rulling party since independence, and their dynamic with the supreme court. Again, other people can review the source at hand as well. Demeseriecroitor (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

And again, CPC views do not always align with reality. During the Sino-Soviet split, China accused the Soviet Union of abandoning communism. Can this be qualified as a credible source? The cia factbook, more or less, serves as a wikipedia clone rather than a government mouthpiece, and it is still known to have contained many errors in it. Worth noting that the very same language China uses here has been reused for other meetings with African, Asian, European, American heads of state. See the relasionship between the CPC and modern social democratic rulling governments. Demeseriecroitor (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Your personal view of the history of the CPC's ideology is interesting, but not relevant. This "language" is diplomatic speak. Regardless, it is directly relevant under WP:PRIMARY.

There really isn't a difference between the CIA and MFA-PRC when it comes to being a "government mouthopiece.

Even if it wasn't relevant, it doesn't serve as the primary backing for my claims which are supported by a wealth of independent Namibian sources. PlebeianTribune (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Pardon, what I meant to say is that they are all government agency/mouthpieces. I have also cited independent Namibian sources from Namibia proper, on the Keynesian label, and I will continue to add Namibian sources as well in the left conservative label. External credible sources should not be excluded just because they are external. Demeseriecroitor (talk) 16:07, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I will add more sources for the left conservative label in the infobox body. Demeseriecroitor (talk) 15:21, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah that works, I don't plan on disputing it, but make sure that more doesn't end up meaning lots of low quality ones, and make sure they directly refer to SWAPO, not Namibia. PlebeianTribune (talk) 15:59, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I do not believe Africa News to be low quality, any article can have relevancy as long as they provide good info to back up their claims. Demeseriecroitor (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

And , again, these sources talk about SWAPO officials and/or officials appointed by SWAPO/the government dominated by SWAPO. Demeseriecroitor (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

It does not work like that, see this revert for example: The citation calls the leaders centrist, not the party itself. The article speculates what a move to the centre might mean for the party, but doesn't explicitly call the party centrist. Therefore this breaks the WP:SYNTHESIS rule.

Since we do not equate even party leaders' views with party's views, then likewise we do not equate party officials and/or "the government" with the party itself, to avoid WP:SYNTH. Brat Forelli🦊 16:17, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

"Left-conservatism" and "Keynesianism" do not belong in the infobox if they cannot be proven. Currently none of the sources support the claim.

We need to keep WP:OR in mind, meaning that we cannot do our own personal interpretation of what the source means. In order to not break WP:OR, the source needs to directly support the claim, meaning it that the information is present explicitly in the source. This means that for "left-conservatism" or "Keynesianism", the sources need to explicitly describe the party (or its policies) as left-conservative and Keynesian.

To see a clear example, check out Direction – Social Democracy. There, you have the party be explicitly described as "left-conservative" in the sources. No need for our personal interpretation of the sources. But in your case, the word "left-conservative" or "left-conservatism" does not even appear, let alone have the SWAPO be described as that. As such, unless you can find the sources that directly support the claim, we fail WP:OR on do that.

"Keynesianism" has the same problem, and is a blatant breach of WP:OR. You got four sources. The "2015 University of Namibia economic report" does call SWAPO Keynesian at all, it simply analyzes the Namibian economy from Keynesian perspective. Where does it say that SWAPO actually adheres to it? The IMF source does not even mention Keynesianism (!). The "Economic Association of Namibia" source only states that according to economic theory, specifically the Keynesian fiscal multiplier effect, increases in income lead to surges in consumption and investment spending., and that Applying this to poor rural communities in Namibia means that the BIG has the potential to increase levels of liquidity through induced local consumption and investment. Or in other words, it merely makes a Keynesianist policy recommendation... The source from The Namibian, again, does not mention Keynesianism at all, meaning that you have to do your own interpretation to even extract it from there, again doing WP:OR. Brat Forelli🦊 16:15, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

The Chinese article is opinionated and based on Chinese interests in the country. It is as if I woulf have linked a US government agency as commentary on Namibia. Usually, this would violate NPOV, and this is why I have reverted it, the rest of the sources are older, and need some discussion before they can be fully approved proper. Demeseriecroitor (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Government sources are occasionally acceptable (ex: CIA factbook or State Dept) if they serve a clear purpose and aren't used in a way that would compromise NPOV. I provided my justification for it above. PlebeianTribune (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2026 (UTC)