Talk:Abahlali baseMjondolo/Archive 1

Tags
I'm removing the Nov 2006 Orphan header - the page is now linked to 18 others on wikipedia.

29 Jan 2007 - The article is now significantly longer. Makes sense to remove the "Expand please" flag. RajPatelUK 19:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Huh...?
Has no one noticed how badly this is written? The introduction speaks as though the reader already knows something about the subject. ie:

Its commitment to economic struggle – to the extent that it has an economic vision or practice at all - has been channeled toward the mirage of a definitive solution that will supposedly be achieved by a single blow on the day of a popular insurrection. Unwittingly they have saddled themselves with fulfilling an ideal and remain, for the foreseeable future, a merely ideological negation of South Africa’s class society.

the "an" is probably supposed to be "no," but I can't say for sure because this topic is foreign to me. also, what economic vision? what definitive solution? what exactly IS their ideology? aside from being vague and presumptuous, the introduction is also ridiculously long. This needs a lot of work. 76.190.157.0 18:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

- NOTE: the introduction referred to here was vandalism by Bolnick of SDI (a rival political organisation)which was quickly removed -.

Copyright and citation issues
So far, this article seems to be growing quickly and very well. Unfortunately, I'm a bit concerned about a couple issues. Right now, there are many uncited claims in this article, and while there is an extensive list of external links, inline citations or even footnotes (see WP:FOOT) would help the article quite a bit. Hopefully those who added the material can add citations to their work. The images are, perhaps, more troublesome, as thier is a question as to whether Wikipedia can legally host them. Many of them have "fair use" written under them, but I'm not sure this applies. I worry that the images will need to be removed (they seem to have been removed before). Smmurphy(Talk) 07:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've split the article into sections, which hopefully helps with the structure. I'm not sure about the introductary paragraphs, however. Hopefully someone who knows more can look at that and see if the most important stuff is included. Their are, as is mentioned, plenty of photographs involving Abahlali online, so Wikipedia doesn't need all of them. A couple should be singled out for inclusion, and the rights to those photos should be verified. The same is true about the links at the end, only a few links need be given, especially as many of them are subpages for the same sites (such as abahlali.org).Smmurphy(Talk) 07:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

choosing images
I've commented out some of the images which did not add to the article. Then I removed all the images which were not correctly tagged as public domain or anything. This leaves 2 images in the article, but I think that the article is better for it. If anyone has more images that they want to release and which will add to the article, that is great. We can even add images to Wikimedia Commons, and link to there. Hopefully this is ok. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV?
A lot of this article seems like an ad for the movement

I've added some more NPOV information to balance it out. It was reading like an ad for the movement with a lot of adjectives and unsubstantiated claims. Hope this helps start to round it out a bit.

NPOV
Hi, I've tried to remove adjectives and claims that have no evidence. Is it better now? Would be good if someone in Durban could add some footnotes from sources other than the movement's own website (which is what is available to me).

NPOV
This article seems unduly adulatory in tone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dak06 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV
Definitely not neutral both in the point-of-view and certain adjectives and phrases. Psylocybha (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This entire article is rubbish
I really don't understand how it got a B rating. This whole article is blatant soapboxing by an inconsequential organisation that hardly anybody outside of its own so called membership have ever heard of. It has practically zero profile in the general press in South Africa. It a silly little wannabe organisation with absolutely zero notability. Delete this article. Roger (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've heard of it and I'm in California. My friend has heard of it and she's in France. Anecdotal evidence, I know...just like yours.  S a u d a d e 7  07:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't heard of it and I am from South Africa. My family in Durban have never heard of it. This organisation is completely inconsequential in the South African political landscape. Its idea may have support among certain liberals in the West – but the fact remains that it has no popular support in South Africa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.18.202.227 (talk) 08:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOV : Again
This article is a joke, at best. It is a soapbox for a little known organization, (in fact, never heard about it until I came to the Durban article. Almost all the so called references are either invalid or unrelated, (and don't even mention what they are supposed to reference).

I don't mind cleaning it up, (by that I mean removing all the political drivel), but I fear that it will end up been reverted. FFMG (talk) 05:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary
On the contrary, there are all kinds of credible references to this movement such as numerous academic articles (I quickly counted more than 20 using the search engine at my university), books (I found 3 on google books) and literally hundreds if not thousands of newspapers articles (just search any of the titles in the KZN press and lots of articles will come up), statements by the United Nations and various international Human Rights Organisations (such as the Centre on Housing Rights & Evictions, Amnesty International, War on Want etc). The fact that two middle class white men do not know about a movement of shack dwellers is hardly reason for deletion. On the contrary that facts speaks only to their prejudices and their ignorance about the country in which they live - perhaps also to racism. I can't imagine that they would want to delete an article on an organisation with 10 000 paid middle class white members....

If there are claims here that need to be referenced then they must either be deleted or properly referenced. That, clearly, is the correct response to this article. I will go through it now and, using google, try to plug any holes. Others are invited to work on the article further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sekwanele (talk • contribs) 10:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This page needs work by people with constructive intentions - not rank intolerance and a clear refusal to actually read citations before declaring them unacceptable
FFMG declared citations invalid seconds or minutes after they area loaded - even when they are 50 page academic articles or 250 page human rights reports. It is therefore absolutely clear that FFMG is not actually reading the citations that s/he instantly declared invalid. As has been noted before FFMG is squatting on various pages and then simply removing content that s/he doesn't like. This is unacceptable.

I repeat that what needs to be done with this page is for people to work through it carefully noting where evidence is not provided for claims, then looking for that evidence and including it if it can not be found and then, and only then, removing text. FFMG's style of simply removing text without actually looking at the text in references provided may well amount to vandalism. In any event it is certainly unhelpful and counter productive.


 * Looks to me like FFMG has an agenda for deleting relevant information about the largest social movement in Africa. This group is known throught the world. It is in text books in harvard and talked about in classes at UC-Berkeley.  FFMG says this organisation is a joke but he does not provide any evidence that this is true.


 * I would also say that the article in general has a neutral point of view. There may be instances where certain words may not be entirely neutral but all that requires is a few minor grammar changes.  I believe that FFMG should, if he finds any words that are not neutral, work on changing those words rather than declare the entire article irrelevant.  All conventions are followed and all sources cited by relevant sources.


 * I nominate this article as being neutral. inkululeko (talk) 12:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In the wiki article NPOV_dispute, there states the following requirement: "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort." Based on this, I would say that FFMG has not sufficiently attempted to explain why the article is not neutral. He/she also has not used the tag as a last resort. Therefore, I will remove the non-neutral tag.  I request anyone, including FFMG, who has issues with the neutrality of the article to first attempt to resolve those. If all other avenues are pursued, then he/she may nominated the article as not-neutral if he/she gives proper reasoning, details and examples as to why it should be given this tag. jaredsacks (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Not entirely sure why you are attacking me personally, but I am not the only one who thinks that this entire article is not neutral. Look at how many discussions have started here regarding NPOV.
 * So, please, stop your personal attacks and leave the tags/templates until others have a change of commenting. FFMG (talk) 11:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There was no personal attack. I was just disagreeing with you because you presented no explanation of point of view tag which is obviously wrong. I would appreciate it if you un-accuse me of the abuse you have just accused me of considering it is not true. jaredsacks (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I added, (before your new comment), an entire section about NPOV for others to discuss/review. FFMG (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with jaredsacks
It is clear that these tags are supposed to be added as a last and not a first resort and that, therefore, they should be removed. If there is disagreement with this there needs to be detailed and persuasive arguments as to where the article lacks accuracy, neutral tone etc. However it is clear that there are some parts that do require citations - but most of these have already been tagged. BTW, the first comment here about non NPOV (by User:76.190.157.0) refers to vandalism on the page (by User:Bolnick) which the poster failed to recognise as such even through it was a long, palpably ignorant, entirely unreferenced and clearly hostile rant about the topic in question. That vandalism was removed long ago.

(talk) 15:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

NPOV, ( and Peacock), issues to handle
Here are all the NPOV issues that need to be discussed.

There are 47 references in this article:
 * 25, (over 50%), are from Abahlali itself, in other words it is self referencing.
 * some,, are used as references but the claims are not mentioned in the text.
 * At least one reference is by subscription and cannot be verified.
 * At least one reference does not exist, (404 page). Making [[Abahlali_baseMjondolo#International_Condemnation_of_Repression_in_Durban|an entire section] hard to verify.
 * Many references do not support the statement made,, (reference 46), for example.
 * The sentence Abahlali has members in 36 shack settlements in KwaZulu-Natal points to a website about London
 * Twenty four of these branches participate in the movement on a day to day basis has not references
 * ...been subject to severe and sustained state repression suffering numerous police beatings and more than 200 arrests over the last three years..., no references
 * ...Abahlali claims that it has been subject to sustained illegal police harassment, violence and intimidation. It has received very strong support from very senior church leaders on the issue of police harassment... the ref, ( from the Abahlali site itself), quotes 2 newspapers but does not really mention harassment.
 * ...Journalists covering Abahlali protests have also reported violent intimidation, theft of cameras and wrongful arrest by the South African police officers..., no ref
 * The Context section has little or no references, the few references are not in context or simply do not mention the claims made.
 * The eThekwini Municipality which governs Durban and Pinetown has embarked on a slum clearance programme... not in ref
 * In these demolitions some shack dwellers are simply left homeless and others are subject to forced evictions to the rural periphery of the city... not in ref
 * The movement has had a considerable degree of success in stopping evictions and forced removals... no ref
 * However in a number of settlements the struggle against unelected authoritarian (and often armed) local elites, who often try to deliver the settlement to a political party in exchange for petty favours..., POV with no reference.
 * In some of these settlements there are ongoing struggles for democratisation. In some instances people struggling for democratisation are living under death threats., POV with no reference.

There are also many peacock terms with no reference:
 * Abahlali baseMjondolo is a popular, entirely non-professionalized, (the reference does not mention that)
 * It has placed the dignity of the poor at the centre of its politics, no ref
 * In November 2008 the movement's paid up members reached the 10 000 mark but the number of supporters is believed to be considerably larger than that number, no ref
 * ...Abahlali is often referred to as by far the largest oppositional movement of the poor to have emerged outside of the ANC alliance thus far in post-apartheid South Africa.
 * The movement has a very high media profile..., no ref.
 * The movement has had a considerable degree of success in stopping evictions and forced removals..., no ref
 * Abahlali has had great success in building popular power outside of the representative politics..., no ref, (the ref given is of its own site with more interlinks to articles within the site that hardly cover the events).
 * In September 2007 thousands of shack dwellers were peacefully marching on Mlaba to protest against his policy of expelling the poor...

Note that this is only for the first 2 paragraphs, the rest of the article is riddled with no references, misquoted references, or self made claims that cannot be verified.

Some of the references are also badly formatted. FFMG (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Now We are Having a Useful Discussion
Now that there are some concrete issues on the table we can have a fruitful discussion. Some brief responses:

1. References from the AbM site are clearly not ok for certain claims (e.g. for evaluations of the movement) but they are ok to reference statements that speak to the movement's statements about itself. e.g. if the claim is that the movement has said 'X' then it is perfectly ok to cite the movement saying 'x'. In fact it is necessary to cite Abahlali documents for claims about the content of Abahlali statements etc. It also seems to me that it is ok to cite (the very numerous) independent academic and NGO research, as well as the independent articles from newspapers etc that are archived on the Abahlali site. In fact a large number of the links to the AbM site are to academic of newspaper articles archived on the site but produced, edited etc independently. (Of course these links could be changed to the academic journals and newspapers in question but then access would require a subscription - linking directly to the open access version on the site is therefore preferably where this is possible for the simple reason that it is more democratic) The issue of links to the AbM site will have to be handled on a case by case basis.

2. References that require a subscription to be verified can certainly be kept. Wikipedia does not insist that all references be available free online. Citing a reference that requires a subscription is no different to citing a book, a journal etc which happens all the time. The fact that a newspaper article is not available for free online does not mean that it is unacceptable to use it on Wikipedia. By that logic most scientific work would be excluded from wikipedia.

3. If a link is broken clearly that must be fixed. But this is just a technical problem - it does not speak to a NPOV problem.

4. The link to Voices of Resistance in Occupied London points to the journal - from there one can find a link to a PDF of an article. Perhaps this needs to be changed to link directly to the PDF.

5. Clearly any unreferenced claim that is contentious must be referenced. Where there are such claims, and there clearly are, they must be noted and time given for people to find and add in good references. However it would be a little pedantic to reference every single claim made in the article where there are a number of major and scientific peer reviewed academic studies that cover large numbers of the claims made here. This should be born in mind.

6. It is clearly not the case that the academic article at http://jas.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/43/1/95 does not support the claims for which it is cited as a reference. On the contrary it, an article by a Harvard Professor, quite clearly supports the claim that Abahlali baseMjondolo is a popular, entirely non-professionalized. If FFMG has concluded that the reference is not acceptable on the basis of just reading that abstract that is not helpful. Very many wikipedians have access to university libraries and can therefore read the whole article. We should, surely, leave the assessment of whether or not a piece of academic work supports a claim to people who have been able to read that academic work.

7. Clearly badly formatted references need to be fixed. But, again, this is a technical problem.

8. We can agree that the article needs more work - let's try and do the work in as constructive a manner as possible.

Radical Changes have been made
Large chunks of text without specific references have been removed, broken links have been removed, citations have been found and inserted where possible etc. It is quite clear that the article can not, now, be called unreferenced or non NPOV. FFMG has been met more than half way on this - s/he needs to show the same generosity and good faith here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sekwanele (talk • contribs) 17:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Too Much Has Been Conceded to FFMG
It is true that there were statements in the article that still needed to be referenced. Noting this would have been useful. However the attitude of FFMG is clearly outrightly hostile and motivated by political opposition to a radical organization rather than any concern for the integrity of Wikipedia articles. As has been noted FFMG has a habit of squatting on pages and removing contributions on entirely spurious grounds. Content is often declared to be inadequately NPOV or inadequately referenced (sometimes in a few seconds when reading the reference might take hours) and simply removed. In some instances this is clearly political vandalism. Radical organizations deserve the same careful, collaborative, non-partisan and constructive attention as any other topic on wikipedia.

My suggestion is that the page is reverted to where it was before FFMG placed these tags, tags are added to request development of the page, areas where citations are needed are noted and it is left to develop organically as other pages do. If, after some time important claims do not have citations then, and only then, should they be removed.


 * Yet more personal attack, (as usual with no references), also following the same pattern as others. Quite amazing how many different people are watching this page all of a sudden.
 * I see you also edited this talk page, removing certain comments, not sure why really.


 * My attitude as you claim has nothing to do with POV, some claims are made in the article, and no references are given or the references simply do not match the claims been made in it.
 * Why are you not attacking other 8 comments that basically say the same thing as me, why are you only now editing the comment page?


 * Like in any articles, all we want is for the claims made to be referenced, many claims have/had no references.
 * And because I did read the references I was able to see that many had nothing to do with the article, did not exist or were simply made by the subject of this article, (see my notes above).


 * what you think of me is immaterial, simply add reliable references to the many claims and the article will be better off that way. FFMG (talk) 11:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

False Accusations
FFMG has falsely accused me of being a 'socket puppet' of user:Sekwanele. I am not and he has no evidence to show that this is the case. I simply agree with Sekwanele that FFMG is acting in bad faith and is preventing progress on this page. I would appreciate it if FFMG retracts this accusation. Thank You. Jaredsacks (talk) 11:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Progress
I've done a considerable amount of work on this page in the last few days using google and my university search engine for academic journals. As far as I can tell all claims on this page are now:

1. Referenced (and) 2. Referenced to documents or texts that are credible sources (I've used academic texts and human rights reports as a first choice where possible and newspaper articles as a second choice where academic texts do not seem to be available. All remaining references to the Abahlali site are only to illustrate what the movement says about itself).

I do think that it is clear that FFMG's initial challenge to this page was largely in bad faith HOWEVER there were some good points (broken links, unreferenced claims etc) and it now also seems to me that the responses to that challenge have significantly improved the page so, in the end, it has not been a bad thing. But given that I have done most of the work on this page recently that is for others to judge. I am going to stop working on this page now and let others take it forward and debate it from here. But if FFMG does just revert the work done claiming that the edits are not adequately references and without providing persuasive evidence of this, or on the spurious grounds that they do not all refer to open access material (e.g. to academic journals which require a log in), I will revert. I have carefully read all of the texts to which I have added citations but will, of course, accept a challenge to their appropriateness as support for claims on this page if FFMG, or anyone else who wishes to challenge them, also reads them and provides a careful and reasoned explanation as to why they are not acceptable.

Finally, there can be many reasons why groups of people sometimes have broadly similar interests or take a similar view on issues. e.g. Large numbers of American students have visited with Abahlali over the years and retained an interest in the movement etc. I am certainly not Jaredsacks and this can be very easily proven via IP addresses, an off line discussion etc. Happy holidays!

Sekwanele. —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC).

Check for neutrality

 * In December, I nominated this article to be checked for neutrality. The article has undergone a number of changes and I now believe the tag at the top of the page should be removed. However, no one from admin has bothered to check the page and confirm neutrality. I would like this to be done ASAP and would like it if anyone who has any further complaints as to the neutrality to make their issues known.  If nothing has been done and there is no opposition in the next week, I will take the liberty of removing the tag.Jaredsacks (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the neutrality has improved markedly. Well done to those who have worked to transform what was a blatant Soapbox article just a few months ago! However this article has has no "Critics/Criticism" section. What do its opponents have to say about it? A few quotes from the Durban Metro or the Police and other government departments would really help to improve the balance. Roger (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I still have some problems with the article.
 * The very first reference for example "Abahlali baseMjondolo (AbM) is a shack dwellers' movement in South Africa. The movement grew out of a road blockade", where does it say that a movement grew out of that incident? It mentions an incident, but no movement. The next reference should be used rather than the sunday tribune article. The next reference  could also be used but it says pretty much the same thing.
 * what does reference 4 mean? can it really be used as a reference?
 * The term, (while properly referenced), has shaken the political landscape of South Africa, is a peacock term and is not really needed.
 * Reference 10 cannot be checked.
 * Reference 20 does not reference the sentence, The movement has been involved in considerable conflict with the eThekwini Municipality.
 * References 16, 18, 22, 24, 28, 29, 37, 39, 40, 43, 45, 46, 48, 50, 52, 56, 63, 64 are all self references of its own website and cannot really be considered neutral.
 * A lot of the references are broken, (But those can be fixed once this is all done).
 * The movement is currently suing the Provincial Government of KwaZulu-Natal to have the Slums Act[22] declared unconstitutional, when is currently? Also what is the side of the KZN? What are they saying in reply?
 * Some of the references are questionable, (I am not saying that they are not acceptable), for example "fpif.org, 'a think tank without wall", FPIF also seems to have issues.
 * The caption of the image is not neutral "The South African Police crush a demonstration by the Squatters' Movement Abahlali baseMjondolo, 28 September, 2007"
 * The 'Campaigns' section reads more like a political manifesto.
 * The 'Harassment' section makes accusations without references, the given references don't all verify the claims. For example, In 2006 the local city manager, Mike Sutcliffe, unlawfully implemented a complete ban on Abahlali's right to march, was it proven unlawful in a court of law? The reference given does not mention Sutcliffe or any broken laws and the second 'reference',  is a letter to Sutcliffe. I cannot see any references of anything unlawful. The reference afterward are more trustworthy and do show that there was indeed a court battle that overturned the city decisions.
 * Reference 68 cannot be verified.
 * ...and a group of prominent church leaders[64] reference 64 cannot be verified.


 * Those are just some of the issues. And I also agree that a more balanced view should be given. This article would 'sound' more balanced if there was something from the point of view of the government. In the end 70% of South African elected the current government, many of them are poor, shack dwellers. FFMG (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It is great that there is now a co-operative attitude and that clear progress has been made. As someone who has worked hard on the article recently I'd like, in that co-operative spirit to add the following comments to the discussion about where the article is now.


 * 1. With regard to reference 9 I think that the intention here was to refer to a press account of the road blockade rather than to say that the movement grew out of the road blockade (which is, as we all agree, shown in later references). Perhaps there could be a way to make the point of this reference clear.
 * 2. Clearly reference 4 is not appropriate. This point will either have to be removed or adequate references (rather than the claim that they exist) will have to be added.
 * 3. I may be wrong here but from what I have read on wikipedia there is no barrier to using references that require subscription. I have not seen anything that says that all references have to be online and open access. There are many articles on wikipedia that refer to books etc that are not even online at all. And of course the vast bulk of scientific work is in subscription only academic journals. A ban on using those would, surely, cripple, wikipedia. Can someone confirm if wikipedia articles shoould not include books and subscription access academic publication as references? If this is indeed the case very many articles here will be in deep trouble (as will wikipedia for the simple reason that the quantity or available quality resources will be radically reduced.
 * 4.Reference 20 does provide an incidence of conflict with the police, but not the Municipality. I agree that it should be moved and a more appropriate reference sought.
 * 5. As I have said before references to the Abahlali site are surely not problematic when used to refer to the movement's claims about itself when it is made clear that the referenced claim is the movement's claim about itself (or when referring to things like court documents that are archived there.) Clearly it would not be appropriate to reference the movement's subjective claims about matters of fact in the wider world given that it is a protagonist in various debates. But it would be impossible to make statements about how the movement presents itself without reference to the movement's statements which are all on its site. The bulk of the work that I have done on the entry is to look for independent references to claims and, where these haven't been found, to delete claims on the entry. As far as I can tell there are now no claims referenced to the AbM site that are questionable.
 * 6.Foreign Policy in Focus is a very highly regarded publication. If this is not acceptable then I can't imagine what is...
 * 7.With regard to the Slums Act case the matter is ongoing. The phrase 'currently suing' will remain accurate until the case is resolved. I don't think that it is appropriate to put the state's views on the Slums Act here as it is an article about AbM. What seems to be appropriate to me is for a new article to be constructed on the Slums Act that includes all of the various views including, of course, the state.
 * 8. Clearly the picture caption in question does have to be rephrased. I accept this point unreservedly.
 * 9. The campaigns section is important. What suggestions are there to present it differently? It seems to be neutral and factual to me.
 * 10. Sutcliffe's ban was overturned in the Durban High Court. The papers are available on the AbM site. Perhaps this needs to be made clearer.
 * 11. With regard to the final point I agree that were there are relevant counter points from the government they should be included. All I found though was a statement on the eThekwini Municipality site by Michael Sutcliffe denying that he had banned a march but given that the court found for AbM it didn't seem important to include it. I guess that we could add it in.

However I do not agree that the article should give general prominence to government views in general because 70% of voters elected it. This article is about AbM, and even if the are a minority of shack dwellers, which they clearly are (there are 2 million shack dwellers in South Africa) their organization is of interest in its own right. if, for instance, there was a new article on housing policy after apartheid or something like that then, clearly, the views of AbM would have to be balanced with regard to the government, other organizations etc. But, this is an article about AbM. SEKWANELE —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC).

Just some notes to add
 * 1.With regards to the slums act, I think Wikipedia etiquette is to provide a date when it started...though i'm not sure about this.
 * 2.Government statements on the slums act should go in a slums act article. Someone should create one. Government statements about AbM itself might be included in the article but the article can only not be neutral if the government statements were removed.  I therefore think that the article is neutral without including the government or a criticisms section in there as long as the possibility of creating one is kept open. Perhaps FFMG would like to add such a section.
 * 3. I would like to point out that just because 70% of the people who voted, voted for the ANC, that really has nothing to do with why one should and should not include government (which is a collection of political parties and not just the ANC) in the article. But just for clarification, the ANC does not have the support of the majority of citizens.  A large number of citizens feel that voting for any party at all is either a waste of their time or that they have no party to vote for. They therefore choose not to vote - to boycott the vote. In the last election, only 10 million south africans voted for the ANC.  This is less than 50% of the voting age population.  Therefore, one cannot even say that the majority of the country supports the ANC.
 * 4 References to the AbM website are obviously relevant if they are about AbM itself.

Jaredsacks (talk) 12:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a note, the ANC received only 38% of all eligible voters. 44% of the voting age population didn't bother or refused to vote.Jaredsacks (talk) 13:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

A Note on Sources
I have just double checked the wikipedia guidelines on acceptable sources. It seems clear that:

1. It is clear that reliable sources are those that go through rigorous editorial processes and that academic sources (books or journals) are the best available sources for wiki articles. See the wikipedia entry on Reliable sources for more on this.

2. In terms of the question of verifiability I can see nothing that indicates that sources must be online or open access. See the wikipedia entry on Verifiability.

For these reasons it seems clear to me that FFMG's concerns about references to academic books that are not online, academic articles that require subscription and newspaper articles that require subscription should not carry any weight in this discussion.

3. In terms of the wikipedia guidelines on self published sources (in this case the AbM site) it is clearly stated that there are acceptable when used as "as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves" when:

::*2. it is not unduly self-serving; ::*3. it does not involve claims about third parties; ::*4. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; ::*5. there is no reason to doubt its authenticity; ::*6. the article is not based primarily on such sources;

See the section on self published sources in the entry on Verifiability.

It is therefore clear that there can be no blanket ban on references to the AbM site. Although of course any individual reference can be taken up if there is a particular issue with that particular reference.

After looking at these 3 issues carefully it seems to me that the tags should be removed (the article is basically sound) and individual issues should be addressed as they arise.

Surely these tags must go
This article has been more or less totally re-rewritten since December. It has far more and better sources than most wikipedia articles. And the worries about subscription only sources and using the organisations statement's to comment on how the organisation presents itself have been dealt with too. Sure the article does not give the views of the South African government at every point but it is not an article about that government - it is an article about this shack dwellers organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.242.182.211 (talk) 08:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article is hugely improved, but I still think it needs a criticism section. practically all articles about organisations involved in conflicts and/or controversial issues have a criticism section. It shouldn't be a huge section that overwhelms the main content, but without at least the basics of for example the Durban municipality's position it is hard to actually understand what the conflict is all about. Roger (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If the article does indeed need a criticism section then surely it needs to be tagged as 'requires help to be developed', rather than being tagged as 'totally disputed'. But I'm not sure how such a section would be developed. Google only throws up a statement by the Municipality on a dispute around a particular march being banned (or not). There does not seem to be much sense in making a big issue on the page of a minor issue some years back. I could find no overall comment from the Municipality on AbM as a whole. Of course there are lots of statements on their housing program that give details and which laud it. There are also criticism of their housing program from NGOs etc. Maybe this page needs to be complemented with a separate pages, referenced to from here, to the Slums Act and Public Housing in Durban. It would be quite easy to balance out contesting views on those pages (and there is loads of stuff online on both issues). But that wouldn't really fit the focus of this page.

Also, why on earth is this talk page tagged as an anarchism topic and a philosophy topic? Surely those tags should go too unless there is some good reason for them that I am missing.

Ok, so the 'Criticisms' section has been created, as requested by Roger. It's not great but that's what is easy to get on google. It is a start and will no doubt be developed over time. The tags on the article page are gone now - seems fair. The irrelevant tags on this page are gone too and on the others that are in fact relevant the importance of the article has been upgraded to encourage wider participation in its further development. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.242.182.211 (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality
I also question the neutrality of the article - I can see a lot of work has been done on it, but almost entirely by its supporters, a group consisting of 41.242.*.* anons (from South Africa),, , , who all also edit in a similar style at Western Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign, N2 Gateway occupations and corresponding negative edits at South African general election, 2004, Elections in South Africa, Democratic Alliance (South Africa). I have downgraded the importance of the article from high to low. Wizzy&hellip; &#9742; 18:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I have personally made a total of 2 edits on this article. One of them being linking to another article.  The other questioning one of FFMG's edits. If you look at the edit history, you'll see this is the case. So I do not know what makes me one of the 'few' contributors as labelled by Wizzy.


 * Second, if you actually look at the edit history, the biggest contributors to this article have been the following: 41.242.*.* anons (from South Africa), 90.192.*.* anons (from South Africa,, , ,  and a couple others.  The person who started the article is .  Furthermore, there have been well of 60 unique editors to this article in the past year which definitely proves that this article is rather relavant.


 * this edit was certainly you, and was done from a 41.242.*.* anon. Wizzy&hellip; &#9742; 15:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No it certainly was not! My IP is 41.245.186.76 which I didn't even know until I checked now. I never sign my articles using my IP. Jaredsacks (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Not that I really care, but if you have a Telkom account then you IP address is dynamic and changes all the time. FFMG (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ya got me there. Had no idea it changes. All the more reason why both of you should do proper research before accusing me or others.  I don't know how to do so, but i'd be happy to submit to any kind of verification which proves that I am not signing out and doing anonymous edits. Until then please refrain from accusing me of such things.Jaredsacks (talk) 17:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion but, because I clearly know what I am talking about, and you clearly don't, I will keep monitoring suspicious edits. FFMG (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK since you clearly know what you are talking about, monitor me all you like. Just dont accuse me of anything again and then be wrong. Jaredsacks (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thirdly, the quality of this article has improved significantly in the past 3 months. All the criticisms by FFMG have been addressed.  There are no longer any claims that the article is not neutral.  Its absolutely pointless to make vague claims like this without providing specific concerns about specific 'non-neutral' claims in this article.  Either make edits on specific points or put those points in the talk page but unilaterally downgrading an article just cuz you feel like it is wrong.  The quality of this article is leaps and bounds about the large majority of South African articles.


 * Fourth, I would like to ask Wizzy to stop following me around and disparaging everything I might be connected with without looking at the facts.Jaredsacks (talk) 13:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I still think that the article is not neutral, a lot of the references are from its own website, inaccessible, and some of the quotes are not in the given articles/references, (the few that can be trusted).


 * You said that _All the criticisms by FFMG have been addressed._, would you mind telling me the ones that have been addressed?
 * I went to some length to point out where/why the article is not neutral and one or more user made some changes, but I would not say that the issues have been resolved.
 * While I agree that a lot of work has been done, I wouldn't go as far as claiming that all the issues have been addressed.


 * Also I am not sure why you keep referring to me personally, I am not the only one who thinks this article is far from neutral, I am not the only one who raised a few issues. I might be one of the few who pointed out where all POV were.


 * In any case, this movement as no, or very little, impact in KZN, (and SA), so as long as the article does not become a soap box again I guess it does not really matter. FFMG (talk) 14:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding you'r specific concerns:


 * It grew out of a road blockage because of citation #2. This concern was addressed
 * Reference 4 issue was not addressed though there is agreement that it should be addressed. I will remove it myself. But this has nothing to do with neutrality.
 * according to the Wikipedia, it becomes a peacock term when it is a statement made all by itself. Because it is properly referenced, imparts information, and is its relevance is explained in the citation, it is not a peacock term.
 * Reference 10 can be checked. you can go to a bookstore and check it. If you find it is not neutral, then you can comment on this
 * Reference 20 is irrelevant, yes it should be removed. But the statement can be referenced by all the other references so should not be removed.  This statement is clearly neutral.
 * Self references are neutral if they are referenced in a neutral way providing information about the subject. See wikipedia guidelines.
 * As far as a know, all broken references have been fixed. All that has nothing to do with neutrality
 * Use of 'currently' in Slums Act - this has nothing to do with neutrality but it should be edited. Abahlali's views on the slums act are not stated and neither are the Province's views
 * I dont understand what user is questioning in terms of the reference about PFIF. Why is it questionable? They are a think tank meaning their job is to do research and write academic articles.  If there are other questionable references, please point them out speficially.
 * The caption of the image is not neutral "The South African Police crush a demonstration by the Squatters' Movement Abahlali baseMjondolo, 28 September, 2007". This has been changed an is now neutral.
 * Your comment about the 'Campaigns' section reading like a political manifesto is unfounded. It is similar to the Current Policies section in the Democratic Alliance article.  user:SEKWANELE asked for clarification on how this could be changed. The user who doesnt like me to use his name should therefore come up with suggestions.
 * The ban on march references are obviously valid. Look at all 4 articles especially the Daily News article which states that the high court overturned the ban thereby making it unlawful.  Therefore, everything is cited there and neutral.
 * Regarding "and a group of prominent church leaders", this statement is verified by the the citations. Bishop Phillip Rubin is the Anglican Bishop of KZN. I dont think u get much more prominent than that except if Desmond Tutu supports you.
 * Regarding your last statement requesting Government's views be put in there, there has been a criticisms section created and I'm sure you are welcome to add relevant things about AbM on there.


 * Thus, all the issues of neutrality above have been addressed. There are a few issues you mention (not about neutrality) that have not been addressed.  I will attempt to address those now.


 * The bottom line: (1) Wikipedia allows self-references, (2) Just because references are inaccessible online, does not make them invalid. Go to a book store or order the books online, or get a subcription to the relevant journal or newspaper, (3) If quotes are in correct, please say so.


 * Please make any FUTURE criticism about the neutrality of this article relate to specific examples. Until then, there is nothing non-neutral about the page. Thanks Inkululeko (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I will do no such thing, the article is still not neutral for some of the reasons I have already listed, I am not going to repeat myself over and over. Most of the claims are still made by the organisation itself and it it not just self reference, it is self quoting to unverifiable sources, some speeches or simply some articles loosely related to the self made claim in this article.


 * But as some work was done to remove the blatant neutrality and peacock issues I left it, (and really because this is such an unknown group).


 * As I have said over and over, my main concern is the neutrality of Wikipedia. I had never heard of, (and I still have never heard outside this article), of this little political group until I came here, and this is why I expect a neutral, balanced article. FFMG (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hardly an unknown group
By far the majority of the media attention that Abahlali baseMjondolo gets is in the isiZulu media, and especially isiZulu radio. Nevertheless in this morning's Mercury - the elite mainstream English language newspaper in Durban - there are 4 articles that refer to Abahlali baseMjondolo - 2 discuss the movement directly and 2 discuss struggles organised by the movement. If this movement is 'unknown to FFMG' then that is just because s/he is not paying attention.

The articles are:


 * 'Revitalalizing civil society' by Matthew Savides on page 6
 * 'Project halted by protests' by Nompumelelo Magwaza, also, on page 6
 * 'Shack dwellers step up court battle' by Tania Broughton on page 4
 * 'Project halted by protests' by Nompumelelo Magwaza, also on page 4

If there are 4 articles on a mainly Zulu speaking poor people's movement in an elite English language newspaper on one day that movement clearly has a strong media presence and is clearly being taken seriously by all kinds of people. The fact that FFMG claims to have never heard of this movement outside of this wiki page may tell us something about how much FFMG knows about what is happening around him/her but it, clearly, tells us nothing at about the importance of the movement, or for that matter of this article on wikipedia.


 * The fact that you call the Mercury "elite" says a lot about how narrow your outlook is and your biases. (Its probably news to you that the cold war is over and that the commies lost.) The Mercury is a LOCAL Durban newspaper reporting on matters of local interest. I have never heard the org's name mentioned on the national tv news. Roger (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, not sure why i'm getting into this debate but since Mercury is considered local and therefore not notable, lets try M&G which, searching their site, brings up 12 articles directly naming the movement: http://www.mg.co.za/search.php?cx=partner-pub-7437014498697169%3Axaom8b4epv5&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Abahlali+baseMjondolo&sa=Search#953
 * If national news isn't notable enough for you, there's mainstream international news. Try this article about an AbM member http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN0141748820090201 or this one http://vodpod.com/watch/675309-al-jazeera-housing-crisis-in-south-africa . There are many more.
 * And now that you have heard of them, you'll be seeing them even more often. Enjoy your re-education.  I hope you learn that critiques of capitalism often have very little to do with the cold war and communism. Jaredsacks (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

2009 mob attacks at Kennedy Road
I was looking at the latest edits and as usual it is very biased and badly written, it needs to be a lot more balanced.

First of all the location of the passage, what has it got to do with the movement itself? Political parties are often victims of some kind of attacks one way or another, why is this placed as a level 2 heading straight after the context? As far as I know the DA, IFP, COPE, ANC and so on only have level 4 headings for political violences.

The claim "...It was reported by Abahlali baseMjondolo that mob members were affiliated with the local branch of the African National Congress and that the attack was carefully planned and sanctioned by the local police..." offers no reference apart from it's own website.

The Cape Argus, (and other), even report as unlikely the allegations that the police or the ANC knew anything about the attack. Other online papers also reports that the allegations are unfounded and that people were in fact arrested for the murders.

So I think we need to make this event a level 3 or 4 heading, (maybe under 'Political violence'?), in any case, move it lower down the article and find some reliable sources that the attack had anything to do with the ANC and/or police. You cannot really have allegations referenced by the political party itself. More importantly this needs to be reworded to be a lot more neutral. FFMG (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course if it is alleged that police are complicit then it also follows that police deny that they are complicit. You can't use those articles to mean anything.  They are just quoting Abahlali and the Police alternatively.  The article itself is not saying that these allegations are 'unlikely'.  Still, there are more articles and statements out now that show that those old articles you quote are a bit off.  I will edit the section to make it more relevant and accurate.Frombelow (talk) 07:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Also its fine if the section is moved down...i just don't know where is more appropriate for it to go. But also FYI another point is that Abahlali baseMjondolo is not a political party at all.  They are a social movement.  They dont stand in Ward, City, Provincial or National elections.Frombelow (talk) 07:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with FFMG on the poor quality of the sources. thepetitionsite is worse than a blog, abahlali.org is the website of this movement, and antieviction.org.za is closely associated. I notice a News24 article regarding the ANC allegations though, good. Wizzy&hellip; &#9742; 09:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not because you/they claim that they are not a political party that they are not. They want to make changes in society and that makes them a political organisation.
 * Personally, (and on a totally unrelated note), I think it is foolish to not take part in elections, maybe because they know they don't have the grass root support.
 * Maybe if/when they get some support they could make some real changes to their society using the election boxes. FFMG (talk) 09:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes they are quoting Abahlali and the police to remain impartial, but same is not done here, all you mention is your side of the story, "It was reported by indepedent local and international academics as well as members of the Abahlali baseMjondolo movement that the mob was affiliated with the local branch of the African National Congress and that the attack was carefully planned and sanctioned by the local police.", and you use Abahlali baseMjondolo as a reference to such allegations.
 * The news24.com reference is of course much better, (and the other 2 should be removed as they are just short of propaganda for your organisation), even they add that the police deny all allegations.


 * All I am trying to say is that using the political party own website to reference one side of the argument is nowhere near neutral. If there are proof that the ANC and/or the police were involved then you can make such claims but until them you must remain impartial.


 * I also saw your new changes, this section is becoming more and more impartial, you should remove the petition, "The attacks have garnered national and international condemnation including a petition signed by over 350 people", it means nothing, cannot be verified and realistically 350 people is nothing. FFMG (talk) 09:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Frombelow your edits are going from bad to worse, this is not encyclopaedic at all. You need to remove the links to your website, you cannot use it as reference to your allegations, use more reliable sources and give a more balanced report of the events.
 * All that will happen is that all your edits will be reverted or your one sided reporting of the events will be re-written to be more neutral.
 * Also note that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. FFMG (talk) 11:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I apologise for the last edit. It was unintentional for me to include the entire article from Business Day as I meant only to use it as a citation.


 * On another note, please dont insult me and please use respectful language as mandated by Wikipedia. I see from past edits you've always had a personal issue with Abahlali baseMjondolo.  Please also do not make allegations that are not true.  I do not even have a website and have nothing to do personally with what is going on in Kennedy as I currently reside in Cape Town.  But News24, the Statement by 27 academics and professors, and BusinessDay are clearly reliable sources.  So are the comments in the petition where over 400 people and organisations are saying the same thing and many of these people and organisations are extremely reliable.  For instance, the petition has been signed by the following organisations/respected people: Diakonia Council of Churches, South Africa, Jean Comaroff, Judie Blair of South African Development Fund, Professor Michael Neocosmos, Peter Hallward, Peter McLaren, and many other sources that are reliable.Frombelow (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Where did I insult you? What personal issue do I have? Can you point to any 'issues' I might have other than a badly written article that is a blatant point of view?
 * What does a petition of 300 people, (or what ever the number might be), tell me? How does it improve the article?
 * How does adding a section on political violence in the middle of the article tell me anything about the subject, (Abahlali baseMjondolo)?
 * You seem to want to accuse the police and the ANC at all cost, (and that might be a valid accusation), but in doing it you not doing this article any favours. You have no proof of your allegations, nothing at all, yet you refuse to write a balanced section.
 * And even if it was a balanced view, what good doe it do on the subject matter?


 * And, again, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. FFMG (talk) 12:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have deleted a few sentences from this section that are unverified, original research or simply quote the Abm website.Claims made that did not match the footnote I deleted too. This is a controversial section (and by the look of this pg, article) and proper verification as per WP guidelines are important. Wanya1 (talk) 21:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

POV Tag
I added a tag as the section is not balanced as mentioned before the issues are: FFMG (talk) 11:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The use of Peacock words, "The mob demolished residents homes and terrorised the settlement killing at least 5 people ...", "...the mob was affiliated..."
 * The very one sided reporting of the events, "...the mob was affiliated with the local branch of the African National Congress...", "...and that the attack was carefully planned and sanctioned by the local police...".
 * No reference given to some important parts of the article, the involvement of the ANC, involvement of the police.
 * The response of the ANC/Police is not mentioned.
 * In general, the section does nothing to improve the article itself, it looks like biased newspaper entry, ( Wikipedia is not a newspaper).
 * The use of online petition[LINK REMOVED], "The attacks have garnered national and international condemnation including a petition signed by over 600 people"
 * The use of Business day as a reference to the petition when it is not mentioned at all in the article.
 * The use of abahlali.org as reference to its own allegations.

It does seem right that a wike entry should not be a newspaper with current events at the top. I have moved it down and added in a denial from the ANC and the police which balances it out a little. But it did occur to me that there is now a huge amount of media on this - in South Africa and around the world. Does this not mean that the attacks require a separate entry with a link from this page?

Use of accurate terms
I think we need to come up with an alternative term than 'violence' to be used in the disagreement on section title "2009 Violence at Kennedy Road" vs "2009 Mob Attacks at Kennedy Road". The term "Mob" may be somewhat subjective. However, it is more accurate than just using the word 'violence'. Violence implies that the attacks were disorganised and/or uncoordinated. That it just happened. But in this case, the attacks, as has been reported and confirmed by the police and government, were very well organised. We should be using a term that accurately describes the incident. I suggest one of the following: "2009 Militia attacks at Kennedy Road", "2009 attacks at Kennedy Road", "2009 pogroms at Kennedy Road". It should, in my view, be a word of a couple words that say that the attacks were well organised and directed.Frombelow (talk) 07:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Is Raj Patel a valid academic reference?
The article claims: "The Academic work on the movement stresses that it is non-professionalized (i.e. independent of NGO control), autonomous from political organisations and party politics[37] and democratic.[38][39][40]". Two citations for this are of the work of Raj Patel. He is an academic, but he is also the administrator of the Abahlali baseMjondolo website. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raj-patel/off-side-at-the-world-cup_b_607951.html Therefore the impression given that Patel's take on this organisation flows from a disinterested academic seems misleading. He is part of the workings of the organisation. Suggest removing those citations or else reformulate : "The academic work, including that of persons closely allied to the movement, stresses that it is ..." . Wanya1 (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This article is full of unverified claims, OR and NPOV
The talk page reveals a history of contention about claims made in this article. I made a number of edits in line with Wikipedia guidelines. I clearly summarized why: footnotes did not substantiate specific claims, were original research, were dead links and so on. I even corrected a grammatical mistake. A IP address user, reverted these edits without in any way dealing with the substantive reasons for them. This user simply accused that they were made "in bad faith", including the grammar correction. I have no intention of starting an edit war, particularly with an IP address user, whose "good faith" is hard to evaluate. I call rather for discussion on the substance of my edits so that the article is improved, not necessarily as a source of propaganda for the organisation concerned but as a neutral wikipedia entry with verifiable knowledge, citations and good grammar. Wanya1 (talk) 08:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I might add that a section of the article expanding upon criticisms of the movement, together with authoritative citations, was summarily removed. This cannot be right! Wanya1 (talk) 08:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Discussion (in good faith) would be very much needed. There is no claim by me that there are no unverified claims and that everything in the article is from a NPOV.  However, 90% of edits by previous editor was in bad faith as it merely sought to undermine the article and was combative from the outset to say the least.  What do others say?41.133.175.113 (talk) 08:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh dear, the same anon user has reverted all edits again without addressing the substantive reasons contained in the edit summaries. It's difficult to see how edits that seek to address NPOV, OR, grammar and citation concerns (that he admits are present in this article) can be said to seek to 'undermine" it. The opposite. The article can only be improved by having proper citations and verifiable claims. It can only be improved by the fuller picture of this organization in the Criticism section which has been removed once again. I do not think my edits were combative, just bold. Wanya1 (talk) 09:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As you can see with my past edits in this talk page, I agree with you, unfortunately the same editor(s) keep reverting over and over again, maybe we should request for it to be semi protected. Unfortunately, in South Africa most IPs are dynamic so it always 'looks' like a different person is editing.
 * I am not going to repeat myself as I have in the past, but there are many, many problems with the way this is written. The biggest issues is the this party uses its own website for references, some references cannot be checked, peacock words are used and so forth.
 * As I have said before, at the end of the day, it is a very small party and probably not worth the effort.
 * Anyway, the IP is now getting close to the 3RR rule, but I very much doubt this will matter. FFMG (talk) 09:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This problem extends to practically all articles about lunatic fringe left wing topics. These orgs and their supporters appear to be "genetically" incapable of understanding the principles behind NPOV, RS, SPS, NOR and so on. At least one of the major editors of this article has openly declared him/her self to be an activist editor on his/her user page. (I forget who but I clearly remember reading the statement and almost choking on my coffee!) Roger (talk) 09:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've had a look, and the activist-editor you refer to, Roger, is Frombelow. I myself am a little to the Left, but I must say that the behaviour of my friends from the fringe makes me cringe. I am disinclined to leave this and be frightened away but I am new to wikipedia and don't really know how to proceed.  Forget the smallness of the group, perhaps we should ask for semi-protection.  There's a principle at stake that pages should be edited in terms of wiki guidelines set out by Dodger67. I for one will persist but guidance will be much appreciated Wanya1 (talk) 13:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section - edits by Sekwanele
The thrust of the criticism of Abm's conduct has been distorted by Sekwanele. The citations I provided refer to ABM's antagonism to other social movements from all over SA when it, according to the citation, disrupted a meeting of a other social movements. This is not a truth issue but a verifiable fact. I think we should stick to the original formulation of the criticism. I understand Sekwanele's attempt to hollow out the criticism of Abm (to which he is clearly devoted i.t.o. of edit history) before such a criticism is even properly made, but this is not appropriate and does not improve the article as knowledge. Should he not simply point out that the critics of Abm that are cited are connected to the CCS, although I would appreciate a reference for this contentious point? Since the whole article is so full of Abm peacockery, could not the criticism section at least be allowed to set out the other side of the story unmolested by editors with vested interests in the movement itself? Wanya1 (talk) 13:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In fact the Conflict of interest policy actually bans edits by people with an interest in the subject. Members and/or supporters of AbM are not allowed to edit this article at all - but its practically unenforcible. In terms of the Self published sources AbM's publicity, press releases, own website, or statements by persons connected to it (including their pet "academics") may not be used to support statements about other organisations - meaning the article can only quote or cite AbM statements to support what they say about themselves. Statements about others must be cited from reliable sources.
 * The short answer: This article (and others like it) is an irredeemable mess and will remain so until all activist editors are permanently banned. Roger (talk) 14:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the problem, Roger, is that by privileging privacy above verifiability and NPOV, wikipedia unwittingly allows patrolling activist editors free reign. Nature of the beast! But a great pity nonetheless,even for the quality of the articles they feel they own. What wikipedia perhaps needs to consider is just how much activist editors in the NGO, charity, movement sector rely upon wikipedia articles for their own marketing, funding, publicity, etc and harden up the page-protection and check-user policies.Wanya1 (talk) 15:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This has always been the problem with this article, some IP comes along and slowly makes changes, reverting any attempt at keeping any form of neutrality.
 * If, like now, more than one editor raise a concern then users like Sekwanele (or Sekwanele 2), come along and try and help take a 'middle ground', but in fact this does not help at all.
 * Almost all the points I raised before are back in one form or another. I just hope that any reader, (if there are any interested), will see the talk page an realise that this article is mostly use for propaganda for the party.


 * The main issues with this article is that it pushes the agenda of the political party and there are not enough neutral editors keeping an eye on the various edits. Many sections should simple be removed, like the recession, Church support, elections and so on.
 * Removing the self references is also very important, that alone makes all the claims made impossible to reliably verify, (or believe). FFMG (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you see self-references that violate NPOV, then please identify them. However, not all self-references violate this because it can be used on an informational basis.  Also, please note that the movement in question is not a poltical party.  The central tenant of the Political Party is that they seek state power - usually through the ballot box.  This is an important distinction as, for instance, many members of various social movements can simultaneously also be members of a political party.Frombelow (talk) 13:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again, IP address editors as well as Sekwanele 2 come along and, bit by bit, evacuate the criticism section of its content. This article is truly a mess and a study in dishonesty Wanya1 (talk) 11:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

improving
I have begun addressing some of the issues raised recently. I have added a number of citations in places where there has been 'missing citation' identified and other places where it was not identified. If there are any other places missing citations, please identify them, that will help improve the article.

Also, talk pages should focus on improving the article in question rather than on politicised and/or personal discussions. Labeling people or subjects lunatic fringe is not helpful. While some subjects may be fringe related from one person's perspective, it might be quite mainstream for others.

If there is a particular statement that is not neutral or written in from a neutral point of view, please identify that specific statement rather than claim an entire article is 'lost' or 'worthless'. This will also help improve the article. ThanksFrombelow (talk) 13:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Redshirt link
This page is linked to from Redshirt, but there is no use of this phrase to refer to the group anywhere in this article. Unless someone puts this nickname in this article, i will delete the line in the disambig page.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Go ahead remove it, some fringe editors add links to this political party on other pages to give the false impression that it is bigger than it really is.
 * There are many pages where it should be removed from. 03:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Helpful and constructive rather than disparaging comments would be much appreciated by all people who are editing this page in good faith.Frombelow (talk) 04:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Resolved issue raised by user:Mecurywoodrose10:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frombelow (talk • contribs)

clean up
How does one clean up the talk page? its really long.Dannyboypipes (talk) 10:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Article quality
This article is one of the better quality ones on a South African topic on Wikipedia (in terms of style, academic usage, layout etc). I would invite the editors responsible for this article and related topics to help edit other South African articles as well, many of which are in dire need of copyediting, updating and maintenence. Park3r (talk) 12:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Article quality
Yes, this article is referenced throughout, detailed and carefully mesured. Other pages - like for example the Treatment Action Campaign, the Anti-Privatisation Forum, the Conference for a Democratic Left, the South African Communist Party etc, etc need a lot more work to catch up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.231.129.51 (talk) 10:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)