Talk:Julius Malema/Archives/2011

New Photo?
The current photo for this page is laughable. Why is there not an actual picture of him? Perhaps from the Youth League itself? His face on tshirts is just....foolish. Elefuntboy (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality Check discussion
Even though this article was nominated for a neutrality check in May 2009, there has been no discussion on this talk page. Furthermore, all the statements in the article are clearly cited from widely recognised and reputable sources, most of them mass-media publications with wide circulations. The article does paint an unfavorable picture of Malema, but it reflects his actions and statements in public.

The POV-check was removed, but was re-added by an editor because of vandalism. POV-checks are not the way to deal with vandalism.Jngt (talk) 13:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is highly questionable. The account of the Press conference incident with the BBC journalist is biased. The word 'rubbish' was first used by the BBC journalist to qualify Malema's comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.72.157 (talk) 10:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it wasn't re-added because of vandalism. The problem is that this is a list of negative comments about Malema's actions. It starts from education, where it notes his poor grades at school, and continues from there - almost every line is a negative comment about something, or, in the rare case where it is positive, it is almost always followed by something negative (for example, "Malema also began visiting schools. These visits were criticised by Deputy President of South Africa, and of the ANC, Kgalema Motlanthe for being disruptive to education."). My concern is that this seems to be unbalanced: he clearly has support, and thus it appears that there must be another side of his story to tell. Therefore I am left concerned that the ongoing addition of negative material, with no balancing alternative views, represents a problem. - Bilby (talk) 10:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The neutrality is indeed a problem. The problem is that there do not seem to be any verifiable alternative views. Everything verifiable is either negative, or neutral (like the journalist mentioning the word "rubbish.") I do not buy the leap of logic that asserts "he clearly has support, and thus it appears that there must be another side of his story to tell." Hitler clearly had support. I seem to remember that he once kissed a baby. He seemed fond of Eva Braun. I am running out of ideas. Personally I am aghast at the litany of negative "soundbites" being added to on a daily basis. However, Julius Malema is an important figure, likely to be the next president of South Africa. Perhaps we could weed out some of the less notable items. The article certainly needs to be more "dignified" -- for the sake of Wikipedia; I don't particularly care about Mr Malema's dignity. pietopper (talk) 11:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I said that badly - what I meant was that it is clear that he has supporters, and thus there is the potential that there is another side that could be told. :) However, simply as a matter of interest, and in spite of my fear of having Godwin's law invoked, the article on Adolf Hitler has quite a lot of positive things to say, as well as a great deal of neutral commentary. - Bilby (talk) 11:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. I removed some loaded adjectives and non-notable factoids from one section. Let's see the reaction, if any. On a related note, I see there is a reference to a comparison between Malema and Hitler in the article...pietopper (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Malema's supporters are themselves not well portrayed by the media:. The credible mainstream media in South Africa, and the rest of the world do report on Malema, and most of what they say can be perceived as negative, however Malema would have the right to sue for libel if anything they said was inaccurate. Jacob Zuma did it to a UK paper. South Africa itself has a well developed legal system, and the newspapers check everything they publish on him - they would have to, because Malema would certainly be able to sue them if they didn't. Incidentally, Malema's supporters support him BECAUSE of his controversial views, not despite them, so there is no "other side" in many cases.


 * 1) The thing about Motlanthe criticising Malema's visits to schools would be seen as significant within South Africa, as it would indicate that there are tensions within the ANC about Malema's activities. To an outsider, this would seem like a pointless factoid, but to someone versed in SA politics it would be important.
 * Yes, I agree that Mothlante's censure is significant; however, it was only significant while there were no other indicators of tensions withing the ANC about Malema. That event has now been overtaken by much more significant indicators, amongst which the upcoming disciplinary hearings will probably be the enduring one. pietopper (talk) 20:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * 2)The calls for the "other side" assume a first-world Anglosphere political culture of spin doctoring, where one would imagine spokesmen cleaning up after politicians, making their views palatable to the middle classes, saying things like "Julius was quoted as saying ABC yesterday, but don't worry he really meant XYZ". Malema's supporters are poor, young, and uneducated: they want nationalisation, they do sing songs like "shoot the boer", and they are unashamedly radical. They support Robert Mugabe. That is their "side", and it is amply covered in the article.Jngt (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Here, too, I agree with you. I am therefore trying to edit out all the noise, so that the notable facts can speak for themselves. It's actually quite hard to do, because Malema generates a lot of noise, and much of it is quite amusing. pietopper (talk) 20:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is still a long way from NPOV. I am going to try to bring it more towards neutral by going through and either removing or moderating where things catch my eye. As contributors have mentioned, Malema himself makes it difficult to be positive about him, but at least we can avoid going out of our way to criticise him. Eg on his education the detail on his subjects failed etc is negative without really being justified; among his peers, his performance at school could be described as 'average'. If anyone thinks I have gone too far, please feel free to revert my edits. Equally, if you feel that reasonable edits are being reverted for no good reason, please reinstate them! David FLXD (talk) 08:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Something funny happened to my logged in status while saving changes on the page. Just to confirm, "Major moderating edit towards NPOV" at 09:45 on 7 March 2011 was mine, and was not vandalism - or at least, not meant to be! I have tried to moderate propagandist language, and I have removed what I considered to be excessive repetition, excessive detail, or over-emphasis of Malema's (many) errors, while trying to leave the basic outline intact. There were passages where the article seemed to be determined to line up every single piece of available evidence to prove just how bad Malema can be: these have been summarised, sometimes down to a single, general sentence. Some relatively minor incidents have been removed entirely, as have one or two which were ANCYL actions rather than Malema's actions. David FLXD (talk) 09:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that David FLXD made necessary and sensible changes. I did something similar to a single section some months ago. The article is a mess because too many people are pumping in facts which are not noteworthy and will not stand the test of time. pietopper (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "Education - His school career was average, and he completed his secondary school education at age 21, having eventually overcome the disadvantages of black education under the Apartheid system" Really think you should remove the word average. This gives the idea that he was an average student. Looking at the released copy of his report card in matric he failed three subjects including Maths, Geography and Woodwork and received below average marks for all his other subjects almost failing most of them. This is by nobody’s standards average. I don’t think its fact to say that he was an average student.” This needs to be rephrased.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.18.8 (talk) 10:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You may have a point in that people from places with a healthy education system may conclude from 'average' that he did a lot better than was actually the case. What I actually meant by that is that his performance was not untypical of his peers; it was normal to do pretty badly. How about, his performance was 'representative of his peers' or 'poor, which was normal in that time and under those circumstances' - or something along those lines? David FLXD (talk) 14:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Good job David. One issue I have noticed is that the contents in the Comments in Zimbabwe section lacks context, and so I find it difficult to understand. I also fail to see the relevance (but that may be because I fail to understand it.) Maybe it should be removed. Gary van der Merwe (Talk) 07:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well spotted, Gary. That is typical of the little "news factoids" that litter the article, worthy of page 7 in a daily newspaper, but hardly encyclopedia material. Would you like the pleasure of removing it? Otherwise I will. pietopper (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

External Links to blogs etc.
Why is it some editors of this page have a problem with references and links to external blogs, parody sites and the like? Julius Malema thrives on controversy and as such it has the effect that others will react to this by way of such blogs, sites and parodys. Please consider a section that links to these as there was before and stop removing references.Askari-za (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * External links should conform to WP:ELBLP which discourages blogs, questionable sources or sources of dubious value.
 * I have been watching changes to this page for a while, and I have not noticed removal of references. Could you provide examples?
 * Gary van der Merwe (Talk) 14:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I took out a lot of references which were generating errors as they were linked to the material I cut (ie links now pointing to nowhere). Could this be what Askari is referring to? David FLXD (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No. This question was asked before you made your changes. Gary van der Merwe (Talk) 20:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Controversies
There is no need for a section devoted to controversy (or to "controversial statements," for that matter). The entire article is one giant "controversies" section. Is there anything that Malema has done that has not sparked controversy?

Jcschulze (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Nothing comes to mind right away... pietopper (talk) 12:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

[sic]-note
"put a bread on the table (sic), we don't want sophistication" - why is there a (sic)? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * sic means thus. In other words, this is exactly how it was said, including bad grammar. Wizzy&hellip; &#9742; 13:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I know what [sic] stands for; I'm asking why it is there. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * So people don't try to correct the bad grammar ? Wizzy&hellip; &#9742; 18:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm... the problem is if he said "a bread" then that's probably what he meant. The [sic] in this instance is like saying "yeah, that's what he said, but he didn't really mean it" Keep in mind he was being sarcastic/funny (or at least trying to be) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 18:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "a bread" is translating directly from Afrikaans, which is more predominant where Malema comes from, literally meaning (in Afrikaans) "one loaf of bread." Which makes sense in the context. So, to summarise: He said "a bread," He meant "a loaf of bread." The (sic) should stay. pietopper (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for article protection (again)
Another Wikipedian has indicated that this article should be placed under semi-protection due to persistent editing that has compromised the article's neutral point of view. Furthermore, a glance at the history of this article shows one libellous statement that contained lifted verbatim from an activism blog, and two incidents of vandalism this month and at least three incidents of vandalism in the preceding month. While I recognize that Julius Malema is a controversial figure in South African politics, I think that this article should receive some form of protection and that discussions regarding the article's improvement should be moderated here on this talk page.

Editors: if you agree that this article should receive protection please submit your remarks here and I will direct an admin's attention to the article, and your feedback if somebody has not done so already. --User:DiscipleOfKnowledge (talk) 04:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Bias on Julius Malema Genocide Reporting
The connection between Julius Malema and Genocide allegations are well documented by the mainstream media. Julius Malema is well know for his "Shoot the Boer" song. Genocide Watch reported on the "Shoot the Boer" song of Julius Malema. 

By removing all information related towards these serious Genocide allegations, Wikipedia is showing Bias towards Julius Malema. It can also be seen as Genocide Denial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.232.177 (talk) 00:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia strides to maintain a neutral point of view. However, the articles that you have referenced are all speculative about genocide issue. Malema has been found guilty of hate speach, but hate speach, which even though can incite violance or genocide, is a different thing. The way in which you added the information about the charge of genocide laid at the International Criminal Court was done in a misleading way such that it may appear as though the court was following through on the charge and prosecuting. I understand that there are numerous farm killings and could be considered genocide. I understand that Malema's hate speech can incite further violence. But claiming that Malema is guilty of genocide is something that should be left the relevant justice systems, and not to Wikipedia. I have there for removed the additional sections that you have added, as I believe that they did not have a neutral point of view.  Gary van der Merwe (Talk) 17:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Genocide incitement
More information required this topic:

ANC youth-league leader Julius Malema is being investigated by the North-Gauteng Public Prosecutor’s office for the incitement to genocide of the Afrikaner-Boer minority with his public “Shoot the Boer/Kill the Boer’ chanting. 
 * The blog quoted is an activist blog. There is no such entity as "North-Gauteng Public Prosecutor’s office". There is no record anywhere else of this so-called investigation. Bring some credible quotations. In the meantime, read some of Wikipedia's policies, starting with WP:NPOV You might also consider signing up for an account, so that we know we are dealing with the same person from time to time. And then learn how to sign your contributions to Talk pages. pietopper (talk) 16:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

According to Genocide Watch, South Africa is at stage 5 of Genocide. It will soon be upgraded to stage 6. Boers and Refugees are the victims; and "racist blacks" are the killers.

Genocide Watch reported "Malema may face Hague genocide charge". 

Genocide is defined as "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

The term "genocide" was coined by legal scholar Raphael Lemkin in 1943, writing: 'Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves.

The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of personal security, liberty, health, dignity and lives of the members of such groups... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.62.152 (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There is an existing article for Genocide. It is not helpful to drag all that stuff in here, just refer to the Genocide article. pietopper (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Masupatsela pioneer movement
There seems to be some confusion about the Masupatsela factoids. Yes, there is a pioneer movement caled "Masupatsela", but that movement was founded long after Malema was member of a movement which was also called "Masupatsela", so they're not the same. Yes, Malema and his peers were called "young pioneers" but that does not make Malema's Masupatsela the same as the pioneer movement sponsored by the South African government. Also, I find no reference to the "trailblazers", so I'm removing it. -- leuce (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

...

Racist
Julius Malema is racist against whites yet there is no mention of this on the page about him

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?art_id=iol1258967907278M451


 * He probably is a racist. However, references (like the one you provided) only provide facts about what other people think or say about him. That is not helpful or even notable. To turn the example around: Malema alleged that Helen Zille is a Satanist. Should we now adorn the article about her with "She is a satanist?" I think not. Let us just stick to the (notable) facts. As noted below, they put him in a pretty bad light as it is. pietopper (talk) 10:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Malema's racism, his brushes with the law, and his style of politics are so central to his character that they can hardly be ignored. It would be like avoiding the topic of the holocaust on David Irving's wiki page. aotearoa-azania


 * This is an encyclopedia, not a blog, or a psychoanalysis. Read my comment again. Wikipedia is about facts, and facts that can be referenced. Not about things that "can hardly be ignored", noble as that may be. pietopper (talk) 02:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * He is openly racist in many interviews available on youtube. Or is racist comments/remarks != being a racist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.215.58.144 (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

How could he be racist if he dined on kosher karrats with the JewishStudent Union? This is a valid discussion, and does not require more massmedia referencing, as it is already provided. Does the membership of the student group not transcend racial boundaries? FunnyFarmofDoom should not be censoring such discussion. at least be decent enough to give a valid reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.122.39.254 (talk) 12:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This talk page is not for general discussion about Malema. It is for discussion on the contents of the article. As explained by pietopper, we are not going to add to the article that he is a racist, or that he is not a racist, because that would violate the policy on Libel. If you have reliable sources that state that the man is racist/not racist, this stance will change But this does not include articles that show that he said something/did something that you feel shows he is racist/not racist. That only proves that he said/did the said thing, and the fact that you think he is racist/not racist is your original research. Gary van der Merwe (Talk) 08:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * That's the obvious solution: Quote him saying bigoted things—he has done so repeatedly—and leave their characterisation to the reader. Crusoe (talk) 13:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Referring to one as a "racist" is a claim. Proof needs to be provided.