Talk:Adam Habib

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Adam Habib. 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/20110726214058/http://www.hsrc.ac.za/HSRC_Review_Profile-1.phtml to http://www.hsrc.ac.za/HSRC_Review_Profile-1.phtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140813003406/http://www.uj.ac.za/EN/Newsroom/OpinionPieces/Pages/HabibFiles.aspx to http://www.uj.ac.za/EN/Newsroom/OpinionPieces/Pages/HabibFiles.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Adam Habib. 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/20080212070510/http://www.ukzn.ac.za/ccs/default.asp?10%2C24%2C8%2C49 to http://www.ukzn.ac.za/ccs/default.asp?10%2C24%2C8%2C49
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060925181309/http://sds.ukzn.ac.za/default.php?2%2C4%2C58%2C4%2C0 to http://sds.ukzn.ac.za/default.php?2%2C4%2C58%2C4%2C0

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

March 2021
I notice that you have requested partial page protection. Would recent events be eligible for addition to this page?

what would be your view? Ear-phone (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm OK with it being added with news (not opinion) sources, and without it being given WP:UNDUE prominence. Looking at the sources you have cited, I have serious misgivings about the IOL citation: it gives undue prominence to a Tweet by one of his political enemies, and uses emotive language "shock etched on her face" and "look of disbelief"...not exactly indicators of dispassionate reporting; it's also published on IOL, without any indication that it was carried on any of the group newspapers, and thus may possibly have not been subject to strict editorial oversight-I would say it fails the standard of WP:RS and certainly fails WP:BLPRS. The Sunday Times link is a (paywalled) opinion piece, and probably shouldn't be used either. The enca source is better.Park3r (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * And how about these sources? What kind of wording would you consider appropriate?


 * WP:NOTCENSORED would mean that the euphemism "N word" wouldn't work in the article, but n**er would simply trigger edit warring. How about: In March 2021, Habib was stood down from his position as an investigation was launched into his uttering of a racial slur during an online meeting with a group of students, when he was responding to a question about university policy on the use of the word. He subsequently apologised for his use of the term.? As for the citations, I think the eNCA article is sufficient. I haven't looked at your new sources, but I would think the headlines are overly provocative in themselves. Park3r (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I will defer to those with more experience. Your view would be welcome. Ear-phone (talk) 22:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think Park3r's suggested compromise sounds okay. Deb (talk) 08:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Added the sentence above. Changed stood down to stepped aside to match the source. Added the word "American" to contextualise the racial slur.Park3r (talk) 10:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * your new additions were not by consensus. I would suggest that you revert to the version which achieved consensus, otherwise this defeats the purpose of prior discussion.
 * Ear-phone (talk) 12:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Ear-phone - As far as I can see, these minor changes are improvements and not worth getting upset about. Deb (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Ear-phone - As far as I can see, these minor changes are improvements and not worth getting upset about. Deb (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you . This is how I view it: Matching the source could be plagiarism. The new addition of "American" could be misunderstood to mean that the word is only derogatory in America, which is not true. The Wikipedia page, on the slur, does not refer to it as an "American" term. Since consensus no longer exists a third opinion may need to be sought? WP:CONSENSUS
 * Ear-phone (talk) 12:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Using the phrase stepped aside is not plagiarism. I added the word American, because there is another slur that would tend to be automatically associated with South Africans. The article for the American slur actually does repeatedly state that it is used against African Americans. Of course, this entire discussion would be entirely unnecessary if we could use the actual word (I thought about Wikilinking it, but I'm not sure if that's verboten as well, notwithstanding WP:NOTCENSORED).Park3r (talk) 12:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Using the phrase stepped aside is not plagiarism. I added the word American, because there is another slur that would tend to be automatically associated with South Africans. The article for the American slur actually does repeatedly state that it is used against African Americans. Of course, this entire discussion would be entirely unnecessary if we could use the actual word (I thought about Wikilinking it, but I'm not sure if that's verboten as well, notwithstanding WP:NOTCENSORED).Park3r (talk) 12:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * According to the page, the term has origins in e.g. Spain. Nonetheless, it is now a globalized term. The central aspect is that you made unilateral changes without seeking consensus. Why not revert to the version you wrote first which had been agreed to?
 * Ear-phone (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The improvements are minor. I'll take out the word "American", even though the uninformed reader might in future assume it was the South African slur. As for "stepped aside" rather than "stood down" that's a WP:BLP matter, and I am being faithful to the source (that you provided), and will not change it.Park3r (talk) 13:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The improvements are minor. I'll take out the word "American", even though the uninformed reader might in future assume it was the South African slur. As for "stepped aside" rather than "stood down" that's a WP:BLP matter, and I am being faithful to the source (that you provided), and will not change it.Park3r (talk) 13:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * you made three unilateral changes to what you proposed yourself. In my view, you seek to subvert the consensus making process and frankly you are being patronizing to me in my opinion. I would again suggest that the version you wrote be the one in the article while other aspects are being discussed.
 * Ear-phone (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Consensus is less important than accuracy when dealing with living people. My proposed text on this talk page had an error (stood down, rather than stepped aside), and I fixed it. I’m not going to knowingly put an inaccurate claim into an article about a living person. If you can find a WP:BLPRS that states he was stood down, I won’t object if you change that phrase Park3r (talk) 13:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Consensus is less important than accuracy when dealing with living people. My proposed text on this talk page had an error (stood down, rather than stepped aside), and I fixed it. I’m not going to knowingly put an inaccurate claim into an article about a living person. If you can find a WP:BLPRS that states he was stood down, I won’t object if you change that phrase Park3r (talk) 13:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

, why not seek other opinions at a suitable WikiProject? Deb (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I am not prepared to be harassed by you . You suggest that you are the paragon of accuracy who can make unilateral changes. Stood down can be considered to be a synonym of stepped aside. I don't think Wikipedia implies everything is copied word for word from sources. Para-phrasing is permitted. Biographies of living persons require great sensitivity, yet you are the one making live edits. Discussion before going live may be a more sensitive approach.  thank you for your efforts. Ear-phone (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am planning to revert to this version in the next 24 hours: In March 2021, Habib stepped aside from his position as an investigation was launched into his uttering of a racial slur during an online meeting with a group of students, when he was responding to a question about university policy on the use of the word. He subsequently apologised for his use of the term. 

, I do feel that "stood down" is better than "stepped aside". "Stepped aside" implies that he was making way for someone else in the job, or just temporarily leaving it, whereas "stood down" clearly means that he resigned. Deb (talk) 09:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * would this then be considered to be the consensus version? In March 2021, Habib stood down from his position as an investigation was launched into his uttering of a racial slur during an online meeting with a group of students, when he was responding to a question about university policy on the use of the word. He subsequently apologised for his use of the term.  Nonetheless more recent events may soon supersede the previous consensus version.


 * To me "he was stood down" (my initial draft), sounds like he was suspended, but "stepped aside" would imply a mutually agreed temporary cessation of duties (he hasn't resigned). "Habib stood down" works as well. I think the phrase "in the meeting" should stay because to do otherwise might imply that he used the term in other contexts.Park3r (talk) 06:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The source does not mention "in the meeting".
 * You are correct that the exact phrase does not occur. I assumed that was easily inferable from the text of the source. However, we now are faced between an implication that he apologised for using the term (without context of what he is apologising for: a reader in a few years might well assume that he apologised for the general use of the term, including outside the meeting, and there is no evidence that he uses the term outside the meeting) which is a potential BLP violation. This is why I didn't want this included in the first place.Park3r (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I think the assumption you make is undue. Here is evidence of use outside the meeting. Ear-phone (talk) 00:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * But in that source, he clearly states that he used the term in the meeting, and I'm inferring that he included it in the Tweet purely for illustrative purposes - and then deleted it. Deb (talk) 08:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Another source says: "When one of the students tells Habib that she finds it unacceptable that he has used the word in a public meeting with students, an unrepentant Habib says: “You do, I don’t actually. “I come from a part of the world where we use the word.”"


 * The article you cited is another from IOL (see above), and it doesn't appear to have been published in any of the group newspapers, and therefore may not have been subject to editorial oversight. It appears to to be part of a genre of story on that site and it fails WP:BLPRS.Park3r (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The article had a video of the actual conversation. The above quote is entirely consistent with what Prof Habib said in the video. Anyhow, please may you now revert to the consensus version? Assumptions and inferences cannot be the basis of editing. Ear-phone (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The video is cut off. Park3r (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The portion available has exactly what the article says he said. If you decline to revert to the consensus version, that you in fact proposed, then little choice now remains. Ear-phone (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)