Talk:Mzoli's

GA Delisting
After considering this article and the GA criteria I am prepared to delist this article from GA status on the basis of GA Criterion #3. It is not broad enough and without references it would be very short. I don't believe this article should be promoted because it got so much media coverage. So if there are no objections after a couple of days I'll be delisting the article. Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 12:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * When you say it's not broad enough, according to the good article criteria, I presume you mean that it does not address the major aspects of its topic, right? That criterion, as I read it, should not be used merely to discourage articles with appropriate coverage of specialized topics. So which major aspects of this topic do you feel are not addressed? —David Eppstein (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry Littleteddy, but "not enough bytes" isn't a valid reason to delist. How does it not meet #3? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 05:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My first concern was that there's no measure of popularity. How much does Mzoli's earn per year? How many patrons are there in a year/month/week? Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 11:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Mzoli's, in western terms, probably does not earn a lot. On a weekend, it might serve 1500 or more patrons. It is unique in Gugulethu. I don't care about its GA status. Wizzy&hellip; &#9742; 12:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Following the criteria to the letter could mean delisting on the sole basis of this, because a whole chunk of stuff was removed two weeks ago. Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 11:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what? How could that merit a delisting? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have any references for that? Am I getting FA and GA mixed up or is it true that the article must be stable? I'm sorry :) Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 11:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems that the GA criteria definitions, being so concise, allow for a lot of interpretation. If an article topic only warrants 5 sentences of discussion, but the 5 sentences currently in the article are extremely good, should the article have GA or FA status?  I am of the opinion that granting "higher" status to articles should be done to showcase the finest articles in the encyclopedia rather than how close an article is to a "perfect" state.  With regards to this particular article, it obviously is not that great in an absolute sense, but it probably has all the information that one could say about a place like this.  Personally, I think the article should not be GA based on the fact that there are many better articles on wikipedia that are not GA.  However, if the proper criteria for GA is comprehensiveness relative to the maximum comprehensiveness there can be, then I don't think criterion #3 can be used to delist the article. Dwr12 (talk) 03:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

self-reference?
Shouldn't the AfD controversy be covered? It has, after all, received more notable coverage than anything and it is directly related to this article:


 * http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2007/10/11/dlwiki11.xml
 * http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/delete-generation-rips-encyclopedia-apart/2007/10/12/1191696163688.html?page=2WatchFlikr:
 * http://media.www.commonwealthtimes.com/media/storage/paper634/news/2007/11/08/News/Vcu-Student.Triggers.Wikipedia.Showdown-3088322.shtml

dorftrottel (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I know there's been some resistance to that in the past. But, at this point, the Wikipedia controversy really is the eatery's main claim to fame (outside of South Africa, anyway). I'd support a brief mention. Zagalejo^^^ 17:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that fits under WP:NAVEL. The "mentioned in the press" box at the top of this talk page provides more detail than we ever could in the article.  Wikidemo (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but when a subject is arguably best-known because of its Wikipedia connection, we should at least mention Wikipedia in the article itself. Zagalejo^^^ 20:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It should be mentioned in a Wikipedia related article. This subject is not best known for its Wikipedia connections. giggy (O) 00:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Mzoli's is a great deal more notable than some petty commentary of its Wikipedia status. Go there one day. Of the few thousand people having a meal there over a weekend, very few even know what wikipedia is. Wizzy&hellip; &#9742; 19:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Even though a few Wikipedia scandals and controversies are notable I don't think this is one of them. Moreover, in this case it is this very article that attracted attention.  It would be too self-obsessed for Wikipedia articles to cover controversies created by the process of writing the article.  Wikidemo (talk) 01:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But outside of South Africa, I'd bet that it's best-known for the Wikipedia article. Only two of the sources currently cited in the article come from outside of South Africa. Zagalejo^^^ 05:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The best known Wikipedia article? Hardly. giggy (O) 05:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that this is the best-known Wikipedia article. I said that Mzoli's is probably best-known to people outside of South Africa for its Wikipedia article. (I can't prove it, of course. It's just a hunch.) Zagalejo^^^ 05:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misread you. Yes, your hunch is probably correct, but I get the feeling most Americans have only heard of Powderfinger after I asked them to peer review it. (Not the same thing but you get the idea.) If this made news for Wikipedia related purposes (which it did), that information belongs in a Wikipedia related article (eg. Criticism of Wikipedia). giggy (O) 05:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Problems with community
An editor has twice added this discussion of some complaints and problems with the local community. I think this is relevant and useful information if it can be sourced (I have not yet checked the sources), but we have to be careful in how we write it for WP:NPOV and WP:BLP purposes. We should not include claims about fraud or corruption against specific individuals if there has been no trial or conviction, but we can say that there are people in the community who are unhappy with the establishment. It should be written more like a report of the situation than a series of complaints, though. Just my opinion. Wikidemon (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This blog is clearly not a reliable source. Giggy (talk) 02:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * User "Giggy" clearly has an agenda to prevent a well rounded account of what is happening with regards to Mzoli's Place in Gugulethu. I will once again add the discussion of controversies surrounding Mzoli's place as it is relevant and has been reported widely in the news.  The website "antieviction.org.za" is also relevant and reliable because it represents the views of over 30,000 people in Cape Town and over 2,000 of Gugulethu's residents. The organisation, the Anti-Eviction Campaign, is a well respected organisation in Cape Town. Wikipedia guidlines, for instance, states that "Wikipedia articles should cover all significant views".  The views of 2,000 residents of Gugulethu are therefore relevant.  Protest marches to Mzoli's Place did take place - they are not allegations.  As the guidelines makes clear: "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process."  This implies that one must take into account independent news sources as well as mainstream media.  The Anti-Eviction Campaign is an independent news source.  Each article written has been vetted by the community it represents.  I know this because I have researched the organisation.  I am therefore, resubmitting previous content.  I will however, attempt to make the changes requested by Wikidemon. jaredsacks (talk) 10:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have made the necessary edits to make such additions so that it is sourced properly. Please do not remove the information.  If one feels something is not accurate, edit that particular sentence. (talk) 11:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * antieviction.org.za seems to me to be a single-issue blog, and therefore not a valid source for wikipedia. The sowetan link doesn't work. The other references are both for one protest that happened. I do not think the piece needs such prominence in the article. [ And, why Mzoli must employ locals, and not others from Cape Town, is a mystery to me]. Wizzy&hellip; &#9742; 12:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I have removed antieviction.org.za references, and changed the text to more accurately reflect the remaining IOL and Sowetan references. Wizzy&hellip; &#9742; 13:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Someone else step in here please - my edits have been reverted. I know Mzoli's, I have visited many times - this is about the eatery, not the owner. I made some good faith edits, with my motivation explained above, that I thought accommodated the issue addressed by jaredsacks. Explanation given was reverted to last edit by Jadresak. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a free marketing site. Criticisms, properly referenced, as in this case, must be included in wike entries. antieviction.org.za is self-evidently a pressure group, not a news site. Wizzy&hellip; &#9742; 07:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Your edits removed all criticism of Mzoli's Place. They were not balanced.  Antieviction.org.za is not a pressure group.  It presents one side of the story.  You are welcome to include Mzoli's website.  In fact, I will add that now. jaredsacks (talk) 10:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * All the criticism comes from antieviction.org.za. I left the newspaper references in - and made the article reflect what they, not antieviction.org.za, had to say. The newspaper articles do not allege corruption. They talked about vandalism, which you do not. Mzoli said "criminal thugs" - not criminals and thugs.  if they were criminals, they would be rich like Mzoli. - cry me a river. Wizzy&hellip; &#9742; 14:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing edit warring
I hesitate to get involved in article edits but it looks like this disparagement does not have reliable sourcing or consensus. It may or may not be true - who knows? But obviously some people have an issue with Mzoli's and its owner, and Wikipedia seems to have become an unlikely forum for it. I strongly suggest that anyone wanting to add discussion about opposition and criticism of the establishment find impeccable sources, and gain consensus here to include it. Even if you strongly believe that it is true, Wikipedia is not always the best place to voice opinions or fix things that are wrong in the world. From the outside, it simply looks like someone is disgruntled over a dispute. If this continues it may require some help from administrators. Wikidemon (talk) 06:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If one reads the articles and compares them to the text, the allegations are accurate. There's no claim that the allegations are true. However, it is important and only fair to report that there are serious allegations being made.  All the sources have been cited and most of the sources are well respected newspapers in Cape Town.  These are not tabloid newspapers but papers that are supposed to do proper investigation of the issue.  Elsewhere in the article, the same newspapers have been cited for other claims and allegations.  For instance, "Tour operator Ryan Hunt claimed that police swore at the patrons and threatened people for asking questions."  This was cited from ^ Zara Nicholson. "Swearing cops 'disgust' arrested tour operator". Cape Argus. 2006-11-22. p.5.  However, this allegation is not questioned by "User:Wizzy".  Rather, it is ignored by "User:Wizzy" because he is biased and it makes his favorite restaurant look good.  There is a definite double standard here.
 * Disparagement is defined in the dictionary as: 'the publication of false statements that are derogatory of another's property, business, or product called also business'. However, what is being published here is not false.  Even more importantly, they are merely allegations of wrong-doing.  Allegations, whether they are or are not true is irrelevant. But they are relevant as any criticism of any public figure is relevant when substantiated from a number of sources.  If one looks at the wikipedia article on Thabo_Mbeki, one finds a section called 'controversies' which clearly makes substantial allegations against Mbeki including connecting him to 'aids denialists' and to stoking the 2008 Xenophobic attacks.  While this may or may not be true - the sources provide no proof of this - it is relevant criticism reported in the media.  But why is this not seen as disparagement even though sources including the same South African media as well as the Treatment Action Campaign", a social movement similar to the Anti-Eviction Campaign?  In the Mbeki article, there isn't even sources for half of the claims while I have cited 5 different sources to substantiate a single paragraph in the Mzoli's article.
 * I feel there is a definite double standard at play here. Mzoli should be treated like any other public figure. jaredsacks (talk) 09:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A couple quick comments. Mzoli is not really a public figure by American legal / wikipedia standards.  He is the owner of a small business that has achieved enough attention to be notable.  Second, I don't much believe in dictionaries - they are a poor substitute for understanding the language.  My use of "disparaging" was not intended to imply falsity, only a negative / derogatory comment meant to impugn that if accepted leads to a lowering of one's opinion of the subject.  Wikidemon (talk) 07:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My reasoning is clearly spelled out above, it needs no repetition. police swore at patrons - what has this to do with Mzoli's or Mzoli himself ? Does 'balanced' mean that something disparaging must be said ? It seems there is a dispute - I grant that. The antieviction folks threaten vandalism - does that make them right ? User:jaredsacks has had his efforts to raise the profile of the Anti-eviction campaign on other pages reverted (not by me) with the comment (Please refrain from making unfounded accusations.The links you are trying to add simply have nothing to do with the ANC and are of small, hardly known community groups). User:jaredsacks does his reverts from anon IPs. I don't. Wizzy&hellip; &#9742; 12:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added the alleged threats of vandalism which were also reported in the news and which Wizzy called attention to and said were missing. I think it is fair to include that as well but would be unfair to exclude other aspects of the controversy.  I believe this is a fair compromise. There is also nothing derogatory about the statements since it is everywhere clear that everything said is an allegation (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I want all references to antieviction.org.za removed, and allegations that appear in the article that are solely sourced from that single issue blog to be removed. The title of the section says 'allegations of corruption'. Where is that referenced ? Wizzy&hellip; &#9742; 09:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I still disagree. I dont think that reference should be removed. However, your recent edits were reasonable and except for one small edit I made, I will not oppose your changes. I hope this closes the 'edit warring' as it was called?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaredsacks (talk • contribs) 22:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

New article Mzoli Ngcawuzele
I have moved the criticism section unchanged from here to a new article about Mzoli himself, and will work on it there. Wizzy&hellip; &#9742; 11:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. But i have reconstituted the relevant bit about the march on the eatery.  It is still relevant to the eatery. Jaredsacks (talk 11:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If you march to the Town hall, it is not about the town hall, it is about the mayor. I will remove this again. Wizzy&hellip; &#9742; 10:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

What a joke this article is...and stop trying to bury stuff in the archives
This article is Jimmy Wales silliness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.157.157 (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced section
It is untenable for a GA status article to have one section completely lacking references. The Tourism section currently lacks references. I will check in on this article shortly to see if this has been addressed satisfactorily. Otherwise I will request a review of its GA status. __meco (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia controversy
I've rewritten it so it's no longer violating navel, lets see how long the section lasts before someone decides it needs to go. 124.191.165.101 (talk) 11:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it made it just over a month. It still violates WP:NAVEL quite badly, as the Wikipedia connection is wholly unencyclopedic for this article.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Respectfully disagreed, the Wikipedia section is why I came here: a friend told me about this incident so I googled "jimbo wales article deleted south Africa" and got here to the conveniently sourced section. No doubt there are others like me. It's a pretty interesting incident (that might be a strong word, but you know what I mean). It doesn't undercut the Project: it's just that sometimes, as the saying goes, the medium is the message. --174.20.123.243 (talk) 02:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I would support including a mention of the connection with Wikipedia, considering it has received significant coverage in the media. Benjamin (talk) 10:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)