Jump to content

Talk:Economic Freedom Fighters/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Removal of recently added material

105.236.86.22 recently added a lot of material to this article, which I have removed for the following reasons:
1) The source on which the edits were based was "Genocide Watch", an advocacy group which among other things claims there is a genocide against whites going on in South Africa. While controversial sources in themselves might be useful if used in a balanced way (such as citing them alongside otherwise slanted and/or balanced sources where the controversies are part of the article's subject matter), presenting information from such a source as undisputed fact, as 105.236.86.22's did, is a clear violation of WP:NPOV;
2) Even beyond its clear POV slant, the tone of the edits was totally unencyclopedic (e.g. "Malema ... has a red beret with the inscription on it which he doesn't know how to wear properly", etc.). The POV pushing wasn't particularly subtle; and
3) Most of the information added was about the various controversies surrounding Julius Malema, a subject already covered in a more neutral way in his eponymous article.

I'm no fan of Malema or the EFF, and I think the many criticisms of them should be included in this article, but it should abide by NPOV. And it should be in a "Criticisms" section, not take up the whole article, as it briefly did.
—A. Pseudonym (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Broken Info box

The info box is broken and I have no idea why, it looks okay in the code.--Inayity (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Economic Freedom Fighters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Exceedingly weak article

This article is grotesquely lacking in information. The likely reasons behind this seem to be related to the above criticism from Pseudonym. There is no positive information about the party whatsoever -- meaning nothing affirmative. What is the party's platform? What are its stated aims? There's virtually nothing of substance to the piece -- just a few names and then criticisms.

Typical. deeceevoice (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

  1. deeceevoice(talk) If you think the article lacks something,simply ad it.Clearly the editor thinks it's well constructed but if you have a differing opinion,add it.It's that simple🤔 Queen mash (talk) 13:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Opinion articles being promoted as fact

Someone recently reinstated "anti-white racism" in the infobox after it had been removed. The citations are simply opinions from opposing parties, and are not NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.192.231.168 (talk) 19:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Malema himself has been convicted for anti-White and anti-Indian racism and many commentators have described him as a racist. Perhaps you'll explain why we should ignore these reliable sources? Alssa1 (talk) 10:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree with the other users that it is not really appropriate for the infobox. Mainly, "anti-white racism" isn't exactly an ideology, and isn't described as such in the cited sources. Since it is a new addition and is contested (with only one user I see supporting inclusion), it should be excluded until there is consensus to include. Freelance-frank (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I've removed anti-white racism as ideology, since none of the sources stated support such claim. EFF does not porpose it's ideology as being such and there are no reports that sustain any type of systematic violence against whites being practiced or endorsed by the party. Henrique Mirenda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:18:5800:2690:281C:33FE:E50:DE69 (talk) 18:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Can you explain how you make such a claim given the sources that are listed to support it? Alssa1 (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

choice of attire

Why is there nothing about the tendency of their elected officials to dress as maids or laborers in Parliament? [1] -- AnonMoos (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

"anti-white racism" under the ideology section would make more sense as "black supremacism"

I rarely see "racism" of any kind listed under the "ideology" heading of any political party on its wikipedia page. Even obviously racist parties such as an explicitly neo-Nazi party or something. Generally such parties have "white supremacism" listed under their ideology section. So it would make sense for this party to have "black supremacism" listed under its ideology, just to keep the style consistent. This is another clear example of Wikipedia's editors racial bias. Purporting a black liberation movement as being "anti white racists". Admin "Drmies" is one of the racists forwarding white supremacy over Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:18:5853:2577:14E6:1C98:8619:57 (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Read the sources before making statements like this, also engaging in personal attacks against Drmies is not an intelligent way to behave. Alssa1 (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
This is not worth addressing as a personal matter, but since a claim is made on the talk page I'll address it, briefly: the IP editor has been edit-warring over content is clearly verified, and it's been pointed out to them that they should discuss the sourcing on the talk page. They haven't done so, and they're still not doing it: talking about what other articles have makes sense only after discussing what the sources here say. So that they make rather disgusting personal attacks is not very surprising: they're pissed at being prevented from disrupting the article, and thus have to resort to this childish behavior. The IP editor has probably not noticed that another disruptor, from the opposite camp, acted in a similar manner and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Notfrompedro&diff=prev&oldid=1033587098 ended up making personal attacks also--and that I blocked that editor. So I guess that editor could have claimed, just as validly, that I am "forwarding" Black supremacy over Wikipedia. User:Ohnoitsjamie, you put a partial block on that IP range for some childish stuff; maybe you can consider extending it. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Partial-blocked for a spell on this range. Feel free to add additional targets. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
"Racism" isn't included as a part of the ideology for even parties like the neo-Nazi Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging, which would probably self-identify as white supremacist, whereas allegations the EFF is black supremacist would be rejected by the party. It is inconsistent and, less academically, "a bad look" that only a majority-black group gets this formal description (without even an "alleged"). Zellfire999 (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Let's make a few things clear: 1.) We don't make a judgement of what takes place on this article, by what takes place on a different article, that's not how Wikipedia works. But if you believe that racism should be included in the ideological section of the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging page, be bold and put it in. 2.) It is not legitimate to make changes based upon your opinion of "a bad look", we go by what the reliable sources say. 3.) I'm not sure I buy the 'bigotry is not ideology' argument in the slightest, why do you complain about racism in the ideology section on EFF but not anglophobia on Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging? Further to that, what is your opinion about including anti-semitism in the ideology section of the NDP page? The idea that somehow the EFF is the only political organisation with a page on Wikipedia that mentions its racism in the ideology section, is just patently inaccurate. 4.) Julius Malema himself has been convicted three times for hate speech alone. Why do you consider it an "allegation" of racism, rather than going by what the reliable sources, and the South African legal system say? Alssa1 (talk) 01:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 16 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AmandaMiskell.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

fascist or racial nationalist

The party is fascist or racial nationalist its been well sourced. somebody has wrongly Revert https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Economic_Freedom_Fighters&diff=857353833&oldid=857353425 the party is well known to have racial hate against white people and Indians. MroWikipedian (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The sources used for these claims are far too weak.
The Sunday Times article is specifically about Julius Malema and doesn't mention the EFF, nor would one opinion article be sufficient for such a claim anyway.
The Huffington Post article is from their "blog" which undergoes very little editorial oversight or fact-checking, making it unreliable as a source. This might be usable for an opinion attributed to Gareth van Onselen of the South African Institute of Race Relations, but certainly not in the lede. There would have to be some specific reason to include this weakly-sourced opinion, and this reason should be connected to a more reliable source.
The Alaska Dispatch source (live link for convenience) doesn't mention anything at all about being "racial nationalist". It merely says, in passing, this is a far-left nationalist party. This is not the same as "black nationalist" or "racial nationalist" or "fascist". This source is not about the EFF's ideology, and should not be abused to support an unrelated point in this way. It's also pretty funny that this source is from almost literally the opposite side of the globe of the issue it is covering, but since it was presumably a wire story I guess it doesn't matter for its reliability. Grayfell (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Antisemitism is very similar in its core to the ideas of Strasserism. Which promoted an anti-capitalist, anti-imperialism jew sceptical ideology. Mainly due to the Jews overrepresentation in banks and idea of making more room for more germans. Because of the policies that restricted Christians from money lending by the Vatican. Strasserism also preached all human beings were equal. If they could integrate. But strasserism is by some reason considered far-right. Even thou it's clearly were socialist in its aims and goals. The only reason he is not considered at the same spectrum as Malema is because he is an European. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.32.21 (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


Personally I think Strasser was a left-winger like Malema. I have no problem labouring EFF left-wing many left-wing movements have had racial motives. I just have a problem with people like Strasser being labelled far-right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.32.21 (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


There are more telling sources coming out in support of MroWikipedian point

There are more recent reports detailing not just opinion, but political insight into the EFF's ideology as both 'racialist' and 'nationalist' from the leading governmental party the ANC here https://www.politicsweb.co.za/opinion/anc-rejects-effs-racist-nationalism--jessie-duarte https://www.sapeople.com/2018/06/06/anc-calls-out-the-blatant-racist-nationalism-of-the-eff/ and also a stern review by Dawood of the Centre for Unity and Diversity https://www.biznews.com/thought-leaders/2018/06/22/diversity-body-eff-race-profiling — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.32.21 (talk) 01:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrPreamble (talk • contribs)

Given the large number and wide range of sources describing the EFF as a "fascist" party I wonder if it is not now time to list it as such in the infobox and introduction? --Discott (talk) 06:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Grayfell@ what is your opinion on this?--Discott (talk) 06:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

"Anti-white" racism

Being opposed to whites owning 80% of land and 70% of farms in a black majority country is not racist. 2600:1702:130:2230:D846:78DC:B87A:5150 (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Two things. First, from what I can tell that is not the reason why the EFF's critics accuse the party of being "racist". I will let you read the article/relevant section to see what and why the party's critics make that allegation. The second is that Wikipedia simply reflects and distills what is commonly understood to be fact, it is not the arbiter of fact. If you want to challenge the accusations of racism against the EFF then this is not really the best place to do it given the range, volume and quality of source material making that allegation.--Discott (talk) 13:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2022

The spokesperson(s) needs to change from Vuyani Pambo to Sinawo Thambo (and Lee-Ann Mthys) Petrovunderwood (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Done: found reference to prove the change, also clarifies the current status of the previous spokesperson.--Discott (talk) 12:34, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Ideology

The ideology section of this article is an absolute mess and should be reworked Jaxthesubhuman (talk) 09:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

This article is by far the most consistently vandalized one on this site and a NPOV violation. FF toho (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I think an RfC on the tag of 'anti-white' is maybe needed, but if this article is that contentious, editing sanctions might be an idea as well, if they're not in place already.—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 21:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Anti-Black Racism

So the incident described there doesn't really seem like the EFF has Anti-Black racism as a part of its movement or philosophy. Rather, a relatively minor figure within the party impersonated someone else i assume to make it look like White people are racist.

Should this really be in the wiki page at all? Especially under anti-black racism when it is from a relatively minor figure about something that may not even be motivated by racism (and if the person in question is Black, and I'm pretty sure they are, I think that is the case)? Genabab (talk) 12:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Community consensus has seemingly determined that it's worth mentioning some instances of racism by the EFF on the page. It's referenced by a number of sources, therefore I see no particular reason to remove it. Alssa1 (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
It would be worth mentioning it somwhere, but the heading anti-black racism implies that this is a part of the EFF's movement, and this incident doesn't exactly show that. Genabab (talk) 08:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
I disagree, I think it just shows that there has been instances of it within the party. Alssa1 (talk) 12:04, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
User:Alssa1 I forgot to reply, apologies.
At any rate, if it shows there have been instances of it within the party (i.e. 1 Black person who happened to be a member of the EFF) does not reflect actual EFF policy, especially if it is not sustained. This therefore, shouldn't be included. Genabab (talk) 11:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Neo-stalinists and trotskyists.

I don't think one could be a Neo-Stalinist while at the same time also being a Trotskyist. Death Editor 2 (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

The Infobox and Violation of Wikipedias policy of NPOV

To quote Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them."

Relying on the provided citations from John Campbell and Megan Lewis to make a FACTUAL CLAIM about the ESSENTIAL IDEOLOGICAL TENANTS of the EFF is in violation of the policy guideline;

  • "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice."

The same goes for the citation of a news article about someone filing a complaint or lawsuit to a SA court against the leader of the EFF accusing him of racism particularly given that as far as i can find, none of these complaints have resulted in any conclusions.

That is not in any way to say that these citations have no place in the article whatsoever, in fact, the point they are getting at is essential to discuss, but the infobox is not the place for them and the citations do not substantially back up the characterization of the party as having "anti-white racism" and "anti-indian racism" as part of the ideology of the party.

This topic is clearly highly controversial. From a political perspective party opponents feel it's necessary to label it as such in order to discredit the party and party sympathizers do not agree with the characterization. As per the NPOV policy guideline,

  • "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements."

Placing the terms "anti-white racism" and "anti-indian racism" is in clear violation of this policy

These topics are ESSENTIAL to discuss in this article but in accordance with Wikipedias NPOV policy and guidelines, they do not belong under the infobox section "ideology" and instead belong squarely in the section "Criticisms and controversies" subsection "Racial and ethnic prejudice".

As these topics are already covered about in their proper section, I will be removing both descriptions from the infobox. Transvex (talk) 23:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that, as things currently stand, the terms "anti-white racism" and "anti-indian racism" should be removed from the infobox as they are accusations and not official EFF policy. Its better left in the Controversy section where accounts of the accusations of this are recorded and the reader can make up their own minds.--Discott (talk) 09:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Agreed 100% Stix1776 (talk) 07:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Alssa1, looking at the page history, it seems that you're the one that keeps reverting to keep anti-white & anti-Indian racism in the infobox, as well as you being the original editor. Can you please stop reverting to defend your edit and achieve consensus before adding per WP:ONUS. Thanks.Stix1776 (talk) 02:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Then I highly recommend you look back to 2017 where such things appear in the infobox. Furthermore, such 'accusations' in the infobox are perfectly legitimate, after all (and as pointed out 2 years ago) we put such things in the infobox all the time without issue. Alssa1 (talk) 15:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Just please stop reverting and achieve consensus for your edits. Do I need to add the diffs of your adding the original text or your constant reversions? So far, I do appreciate you not reverting this time, so thank you. Stix1776 (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
By all means, you can add the diffs and I shall highlight how far back the changes have gone. But you haven't answered the 'accusations' point, could you do so? Alssa1 (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Economic_Freedom_Fighters/Archive_1&oldid=1258213603"