User talk:Zenboy29

Durban
The references you are giving do not mention Durban, furthermore the tone of the section you are trying to add is far from Neutral. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. FFMG (talk) 10:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually every single link does mention events in Durban. Read them. And if the United Nations can't be taken seriously on Human Rights then who can?


 * Then please, tell us where it mentions Durban. I have looked at the first link you gave, (the very first ref), and it does not mention Durban at all, let alone you point you are trying to reference.
 * So that 'reference', (amongst many), is not one as it does not mention the city at all, and it does not use the 'damming' terms you are trying to use.
 * But this is not the only one, a few of the 'references' do not mention Durban at all.


 * The section you are trying to add is not very neutral and is full of weasel words, you need to keep the section a lot more neutral and encyclopedic. FFMG (talk) 18:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I am quite willing to accept that the actual words should be edited etc. But I can't accept that the references don't mention Durban when they all do....

Jon Selby
Please do not remove tags from an article without fixing the problem. Chubbles (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008
Please stop using wikipedia as a soapbox and try and remain neutral.

In your recent edits, ref 3, 6 do not mention Durban, (at all), ref 7 is by subscription only and ref 4 is a self referencing website about the exact abuses you are tying to add.

Only the link, ref 5, mentions forced evictions in Durban and is not biased, but it does not mention anything like "A report by to the United Nations the Centre for Housing Rights in Geneva in early 2008 claims that the City routinely evicts shack dwellers without court orders" as you claim.

Furthermore, sentences like: were peacefully marching on Mayor Mlaba to protest against his policy of expelling the poor from the city were violently attacked by the police without warning or provocation or In early 2008 the United Nations expressed serious concern about the treatment of shack dwellers in Durban.

are clearly not neutral statements and are not in any of the references you give. FFMG (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It may well be the more NPOV language is needed but the facts are not in dispute. For instance the COHRE report to the United Nations most certainly does state that the City evicts without court orders and that this is an unlawful and in fact, in South African law, criminal practice. I will out it back, with NPOV language, and references to the specific pages numbers in each report where events in Durban are pointed to.


 * For instance see page 28 of:


 * http://lib.ohchr.org/HRBodies/UPR/Documents/Session1/ZA/COHRE_ZAF_UPR_S1_2008_CentreonHousingRightsandEvictions_uprsubmission.pdf


 * By the way there is a direct reference to the attack on a peaceful march on the COHRE website, the Freedom of Expression website and a church website. I'll add those too.


 * The point is that you tried to add references to make a point, and because I happen to check those references, I noticed that they had nothing to do with what you were actually trying to say.
 * Those references and the non NPOV made the entire section very hard to believe.
 * You even claimed in one of your edit, It is a simple empirical fact that every single one of the reports cited makes mention of events in durban, when clearly only one reference is usable.


 * As an aside, the section you are adding is much too long, a simple sentence, (with a valid reference), is more than enough.
 * The heading Human right abuses is also not appropriate.


 * Please learn how to use talk pages and indent properly, (use one or more ':' in front of your new lines), it makes it easier for us to follow the flow of conversation.
 * Also use  ~  at the end of your comments to sign them, it also makes it easier to know who is talking.
 * Have a look at How to edit a page for some basic info.


 * I added indentation to your last reply to illustrate what I mean. FFMG (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the technical help. Appreciated. But you are wrong about the references. They do refer to Durban. I have put them back with the page number specified and scrupulously NPOV language.

Durban Changes
Sorry but I had to fix your changes again, please practice here first, use the preview button to make sure that everything is in order.

The various problems were:
 * 1) The page was badly formated, the way you are quoting references is wrong, your edit was actually breaking the article, (at the bottom by the references). If you break the page then we must revert the changes rather than fix it as I have tried to do.
 * 2) The mercury cannot be used as you are asking people to subscribe. You cannot ask readers to register to check your references.
 * 3) The reference, Centre on Housing And evictions (p29), does not use the words routinely, illegally or unconstitutionally.
 * 4) The link to ODS, is broken, we cannot see page 14 and 15.
 * 5) The link you gave for the Freedom of Expression Institute, is a letter to Mike Sutcliffe, it does not mention words like unlawfully and unconstitutionally.
 * 6) The link to COHRE - South Africa, does not mention church leader, bishops or any statements made.
 * 7) The link to FXI, (Court victory for shack dwellers), and The DailyNews, (Court declares Abahlali march legal), only mention legal actions against the marches, nothing about demolishing shacks. It does not say anything about the constitutionality of the evictions.
 * 8) The website http://www.abahlali.org/ cannot be used as it is not a reliable source. But more importantly Abahlali is a Shack dweller action group and we cannot expect their website/opinion to be fair as they were involved of the court cases/evictions/marches.

Also, what you are trying to say is that Shack dwellers are evicted in Durban, but your text is much too long. A short section with the relevant references is more than enough. FFMG (talk) 11:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Look, I am very grateful for the technical assistance. But once again your claims about the content of the references are just not all accurate. The COHRE report certainly does use the words 'routinely' and (elsewhere) notes that evictions without a court order are unconstitutional. I am rewritten again to ensure that the content follows the evidence scrupulously.


 * Please stop your edit, you are breaking the page!
 * Furthermore I have clearly explained what was wrong with your edits but you chose not to address any of them. FFMG (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. MastCell Talk 16:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --HiltonLange (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)