Talk:Abahlali baseMjondolo/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Article quality

This article is one of the better quality ones on a South African topic on Wikipedia (in terms of style, academic usage, layout etc). I would invite the editors responsible for this article and related topics to help edit other South African articles as well, many of which are in dire need of copyediting, updating and maintenence. Park3r (talk) 12:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely NOT!!! This is one of the worst articles on the entire site! It violates NPOV in practically every single sentence! Roger (talk) 06:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Roger, this is obviously a joke, (the statement and the article), this is one of the worse soap box I have seen in a long time. Thankfully this is a tiny political party with little or no impact in South Africa, so I doubt that anyone, others than its leaders, come here and read the article. FFMG (talk) 10:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I was commenting about the amount of effort and care that is put into the articles on this subject (regardless of content). Quite extraordinary for an organisation of the lumpenproleteriat from South Africa. I was merely inviting the authors to put extend their considerable academic and writing prowess to other South African articles. Park3r (talk) 13:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Afraid Not - This Article is a Slippery Soapbox

This article is plagued by massive sockpuppetry, POV and stealthy reversions of the work of independent editors by a few allied ones obviously connected to the organisation IRL. The main sponsors of the article have been exposed as sock-puppets and since then anonymous IP editors have taken over. The [history] showing the contentious nature of this article has also IMHO, problematically, been archived. I've noticed the same problem on another page of an allied organisation, the [|Anti-Eviction Campaign], in the Cape. BlandBaroque (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

That is untrue. The sockpuppetry case was thrown out because it was found to be untrue. However, there was a case of 'outing' by one of the people who really hate this article. When i've edited, i've always edited under my own name. I wish the same people would stop calling this article a soap box while not bothering to try and improve the article. If there is anything that is not neutral POV, then please make those edits.Frombelow (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say this but, you Frombelow, are one of the worst violators of NPOV I have ever seen on WP. In fact you went so far as to openly declare your rejection of NPOV on your User page. I see you have removed the statement that used to be there but [this diff] reveals it. The part I'm refering to is: "I see Wikipedia, not as an impartial source of information, but as a space of contestation within which a battle of who owns history is being fought." IMHO your credibility as a participant in this discussion is zero. Roger (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Roger. I take issue with your belligerent tone. Let me defend myself nonetheless. My statement referred to the belief that wikipedia is not a neutral space as it biases elite stories and elite topics. My interest is in supporting information coming from marginalised sources. Someone on wikipedia was confused by my originial statement and confronted me. I realised that my statement was misinterpreted by her. Therefore, I edited and clarified that statement. I stand by what I currently have on my user page as it is an accurate clarification of what I meant when I originally wrote on the userpage. Regardless, I think you should get off your high horse and be aware of your own biases as an editor as well. No one is unbaised as much as they may try to be.Frombelow (talk) 08:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong Frombelow. I am not referring to the sockpuppet case in which you were involved. This is a more recent one in which Bjorn Martiz and Sekwanele2 among twenty other puppets were [found to stem from a single user]. All these accounts have been blocked indefinitely. They make up the majority of the work on this Abahlali. Does this not worry you? To be associated with such an operation? If you wish to rescue this article, I suggest we delete all the work done by these puppets, see what we have left and rebuild IGF with other single editors. As long as a soapboxer patrols this article, though, it does not help to urge participation by other editors because he simply reverses the work, either with puppets or anonymous IP edits. Look at the edits on the Criticism section and see how it works, if you do not already know. BlandBaroque (talk) 04:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, bad link. The sockpuppet findings about Bjorn Martiz and Sekwanele2 are here .BlandBaroque (talk) 05:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know about this case but I plan to find out more details about it. That said, I am firstly not associated with that and secondly I have no issues with the article as it currently stands. Just because someone may have made multiple edits as different people, that does not mean that the information in the article is either wrong or soapy. From my understanding of the article and the movement, almost everything in the actual article is correct and well researched. If there is anything that is incorrect, I suggest people make those individual edits. However, I would find it extremely ineffective to just simply delete all edits made by an individual. Edits should be made based on merit, period.Frombelow (talk) 08:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a clear definition of sock-puppetry and it is not the use of more than one user name. It is the use of more than one user name to create the appearance of multiple users sharing similar views in debates about articles. Wikipedia does not provide an absolute barrier to the use of more than one user name and there are various reasons why people may do this in good faith. The fact is that the people believed to have edited this page have been subject to real life intimidation by a very nasty individual - with a long and documented history of real life intimidation. This is all a matter of public record. This is a cause for serious concern and, under the circumstances, its hardly surprising that when user(s) are subjects to intimidation, including attempted outing, that people may change user names under this sort of intimidation. The quality of the page is not determined by whether or not a user has (under serious intimidation) changened his her user name. The quality of a page is determined by how well referenced it is and that is how this page, like all others, should be judged.

¬¬¬¬¬ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.249.180.52 (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Concerned About Dodger67's Comments

Dodger 67's recent edit is accompanied by the following statement: "The only thing these people have ever studied or planned is violence, destruction and rioting."

This is grossly prejudicial. Is it ok to make such grossly prejudical statements as one edits a page? Surely not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.4.103.29 (talk) 08:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

This whole article is such a load of rubbish I wouldn't worry too much about one or two passing comments.

If all this political party can do to self promote itself is to edit an article on wikipedia then I wouldn't worry too much about claims on their level of education. FFMG (talk) 06:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

FFMG's Comments are Hardly Those of a Neutral and Constructive Editor

Firstly this organization is not a political party. And secondly it has a very high media profile. It has been all over the press in Durban in the last couple of days. The fact that some editors are so overtly politically hostile should not affect their approach to the article.

Updating?

This page doesn't seem to include recent events most notably the assassination of Nkululeko Gwala in Cato Crest. It seems to me that it needs to be updated. This is a very important event that has been consistently reported in the newspapers in Durban over the last few days.

41.11.133.145 (talk) 07:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Anybody can update this article, and that includes you. If you want to bring it up to date with some events that are appropriately referenced, then please do so. pietopper (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The repression section of this articles seems to be seriously out of date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.249.180.52 (talk) 15:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Dead Links

Lot of dead link footnotes in this article, mainly referencing the organization's own website: www.abahlali.org. Hopefully its up again in a few days. Otherwise plenty new citations needed. SicTransitMendacium (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Soapbox

This article seems to be a soapbox, and in desperate need of trimming and editing. Park3r (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)