Talk:Zindzi Mandela

WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION
I'll reiterate what I said at ITN/C here. The WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION impairs the neutrality of this article. Any Twitter controversy relating to her ambassadorship should be integrated into that section. It should be balanced with other information from her tenure, which is not there. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much nonsense, but I've removed the section and moved the actions into the relevant sections. If you think the information is thin, please feel free to add more, although information about the actions of an ambassador normally goes under the radar, except in those situations when it is controversial, so it's a bit of an empty call to want to see more information. - SchroCat (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , it's not at all "nonsense", it's a sensible essay. And look how much better the article is now that we don't have a "controversy" section. Probably good enough for RD. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * it’s an essay: you shouldn’t be basing admin action (or inaction) on essays really. So if Trump died now, you’d refuse to post on the MP because there are several articles (Not just sections) on controversies related to him? - SchroCat (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree with this essay and what it says about WP:NPOV, which as you know is policy. Trump's article includes criticism, but it is presented neutrally and therefore wouldn't be a problem. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That makes absolutely zero sense. You’ve posted this article despite there being EXACTLY the same information present before or after. The only difference was that the criticism was in its own section. The NPOV of the material has not changed one iota. Trump doesn’t have a section of criticism, he has whole articles. I’m not going to bother continuing this, as There is no point in watching someone try and square the circle, so feel free to have the last word here. - SchroCat (talk) 17:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I would've liked to see the article fleshed out with more detail, but I'm compromising like everyone else. The point of CONTROVERSYSECTION is that those sections serve as a magnet for people to add random things to just pile on the subject. That's the NPOV fail, not the content itself. Same thing with Trump, the criticism is ordered and structured according to policy, and has plenty of counterpoints intermixed. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

First lady
The Zenani Mandela article claims that she acted as first lady. Zenani certainly accompanied her father at his 1994 inauguration. Also the 1996-1998 timeline doesn't make sense. Although Winnie and Nelson divorced in 1996, she was never first lady since they separated in 1992 (see discussion at Talk:Winnie_Madikizela-Mandela) therefore the daughter(s?) would have been acting first lady from 1994. There are contemporary sources that either show Zenani acting as first lady, or neither daughter Park3r (talk) 13:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)