Talk:Economic Freedom Fighters

Political position

It correct to define this party far-left or left wing? Is not more correct to say far-left/left-wing economically, and far-rifgt/right-wing socially? DR5996 (talk) 09:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources that claim the party as "far-right"/"right-wing". Vacant0 (talk) 10:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

🤓 well idk bro maybe the fact that in infobox says it’s ultranationalist and racially nationalist socially while communist economically is literally a source itself 2600:8801:1187:7F00:65A1:F5CF:8721:9275 (talk) 20:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

This page can't use itself as a source. To call the party right-wing, you would need a source that describes the party as such. This is how Wikipedia works. 173.80.108.187 (talk) 01:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposal that we remove left-wing and simply keep far-left in the main text and in the infobox. Reasoning given in a post below. Helper201 (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The two sources for left-wing were fairly shortly after the party was formed and less was known about it and it had less time to develop. The sources for this claim are from 2015 and 2016. In comparison since there are far, far more sources that call the party far-left. This includes those that are currently given on the main page plus some more examples here:

• President Cyril Ramaphosa pledges 'new dawn' for South Africa. BBC News.
• The Routledge Companion to Media Disinformation and Populism. (Book).
• Social Changes in a Global World. (Book).
• Journalism, Gender and Power. (Book).
• Young Africa: new wave of politicians challenges old guard. The Guardian.
• South Africa's ANC calls top-level meeting on Zuma's future. Reuters.
• South Africa’s ruling ANC takes lead as vote counting continues. Al Jazeera
• How Far Can Populism Go in South Africa?. Foreign Affairs.
• Red is the color of opposition in Africa. Deutsche Welle.
• Why keeping Jacob Zuma as president is bad for South Africa. The Economist.
• South African municipal vote to gauge support for ruling ANC. The Independent.
• Cecil Rhodes statue pulled down in Cape Town. The Daily Telegraph.
• Squatters In Wine Country: South Africa Struggles With Land Reform. NPR.
• South Africa virus cases surge past 100,000. France 24.
• South Africa’s local vote will gauge support for ruling ANC. Associated Press.

Not only is there more known about the party and it has developed and changed in the years since these sources, I also think the sheer weight of sources specifically stating far-left rather than left-wing means that to include left-wing is giving such a claim undue weight. Helper201 (talk) 04:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• No change Came here via a bot-announcement. I'm generally not comfortable using contemporaneous media sources when academic literature from specialists is available. The problem this RFC highlights is the EFF's political eclecticism (although no less than the ANC's or the SACP's). Trying to reduce the EFF to a single political current is somewhat misleading, but left-populism is clearly predominant, indicative of political positions stretching across a spectrum and hence why left to far-left is apposite.

References

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Weak support of just "far left" (Invited by the bot) IMO labeling (or in this case, more specific labeling by removal of "left") should only be used where it is truly informative of >90% accepted fact. It appears that that is the case for "far left". BTW a source saying "left" might consider them to be "far left" and use "left" to include that. I wrote "weak" because I didn't take the deep dive here to learn this 100%. North8000 (talk) 12:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment Goldsztajn all but one of those sources you provided fall foul of part of what I spoke of. They are all bar one from 2015, only two years after the party was established and 7 years ago from now. I have provided three non-media sources within the list of 15 reliable sources I provided and I'm sure more can be found for far-left on top of these. I think the consensus on reporting has clearly shifted since 2015 and the party is not the same as it was then. The clear vast majority of sources now refer to the party as far-left and I don't think we should be retaining some 7-year-old sources of what was rather than what is to define how the party is now. Helper201 (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll reiterate: using contemporaneous media sources is a poor substitute for specialist academic literature (and comparing the two on the basis of publication date is equally problematic especially since many of the sources "discounted" deal with the ideological origins of EFF in the ANCYL). I'd also note elements of WP:RECENTISM are relevant here. I do not see any academic consensus that unequivocally regards the EFF as far-left; of course, media sources grounded in a world view of North Atlantic liberalism will struggle to define the EFF as anything but far-left. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, further sourcing.

References

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• Far-left Sources for 'far-left' appear to be more reliable and somewhat detailed. LearnIndology (talk) 11:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

  Which sources are more reliable and detailed? Helper201 posted only three academic sources, none of which are actually discussions about the EFF. I've posted nine academic sources which are all specific studies of the EFF. The Economist, Foreign Affairs, The Daily Telegraph are all right of centre news media outlets, their characterisations of the EFF need to be treated in that context. The point is not about denying far-left elements of the EFF, but rather, that there are more than simply far-left elements to the EFF, that it spans a spectrum of left to far-left, and to use Wikipedia's voice to characterise the EFF as simply far-left is inaccurate as it is not something reflected in the literature. FWIW - some of the same media sources above *not* using far-left:

  • "The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), South Africa’s left-leaning and third-largest political party" Al Jazeera, 2 June 2022
  • "President of South Africa's radical left-wing party, the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), Julius Malema" Council of Foreign Relations (publisher of Foreign Affairs), 5 February 2019
  • "With revolutionary rhetoric, bright red outfits and left-wing policies, the Economic Freedom Fighters have shaken up South Africa’s political landscape" Associated Press, 6 May 2019
  • South Africa's left-wing EFF leads latest anti-government protest Reuters, 27 October 2015
  • "the Economic Freedom Fighters, as a left-wing populist alternative to the increasingly decrepit ANC Foreign Affairs, January/February 2022
  • "Mr Ramaphosa will have to navigate a domestic politics that on the right sees the Democratic Alliance rising in popularity – it now governs the country’s three most important cities – and on the left is dominated by the noisy populism of the Economic Freedom Fighters." The Guardian, 18 December 2017

  Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

  Comment For the record The Economist is not centre-right. It’s cited on its page as being "radical centrist". There is also nothing cited on the page of Foreign Affairs calling it centre-right. Not that even if either case were/is true that it would make these reliable sources any less valid as being used as citations in this context. Helper201 (talk) 23:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  In spite of its own pronouncements, to be taken with a heavy dose of salt (as with any self-assertion), The Economist is well understood as a newspaper of the free-market right with large dollops of (right-)libertarian sympathies when it comes to individual behaviour. I never said these were invalid because of their political worldview, I simply noted that those sources' worldview colours their understanding of the EFF and should not be considered as equal to sources from academic specialists whose work has been treated to peer review. Regards Goldsztajn (talk) 03:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

  Complicating matters further on this issue are the sources arguing that the EFF is a fascist party that has right wing tenancies. There is even a line of argument by a minority of commentators in South Africa that the EFF is in fact a right wing party, or at least a crypto-right wing party. I haven't yet seen any one argue yet that the party's ideology is an example of Red fascism but I suspect that is only a matter of time. Discott (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2022 (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)

Addressing "Anti-White racism" again

I just noticed that there are already a large chunk of people removing and re-adding "Anti-White Racism" as an ideology for the EFF. Right after I did it I realized this.

Based on my personal opinions and whatever opinions I can infer from other users, this is hellishly opinionated. I also doubt most of us are even from South Africa, so none of us truly know whats going on, even then, many SA users may be white rather than black so it is one sided. I still think it should not be there. Since I see Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging does not have "Anti-black racism" as an ideology, rather "White supremacy". Why not simply keep "Black supremacy" as a marker?

Even considering that, why are we condemming the opinions of a group of people who have been terrorized and violated by white british colonists for hundreds of years? It is not "Racist" to hold distain for a group of people who come to your country to harm you. Profesionally speaking, we are overdue for better diction, if we NEED to include statements EFF heads make about white people.

I see other articles (Such as AfriForum) rather than calling them "Neo nazis" and "WHite supremacists", it states "They are accused of these things" and then list sources and excerpts to explain why they are accused. Rather than stating an opinion as fact, it states the opinion is popular and proves why. Why not do the same here?

Please give your two cents 2603:8080:F600:14E7:95FF:FDA8:9832:542D (talk) 04:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

A discussion has been had on this multiple times, and interestingly the specific comparison to Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging was made in a previous discussion. To answer your point on this, I shall quote parts of my answer to November 2021 discussion: "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." and if you are complaining about a specific manifestation of racism being listed in the infobox: "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."

As for your claim that the it is not "Racist" to hold distain... that is your opinion, which you are free to hold. However we go by what reliable sources say, and it is certainly not a fringe view amongst reliable sources to accuse the EFF of anti-white racism and by that matter, anti-Indian racism. Alssa1 (talk) 11:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I used a comparison in a previous dicussion because I am not an idiotic blind bat. I read the entire page before I decided to participate.

From the talk page, it appears that "Anti-White racism" was not in the ideology section for about 7 years until you included it. And everytime someone questioned its inclusion you arrived to derail the conversation and justify it, repeatedly force it back in whenever it was removed. All of these people cite unreliable fringe sources and "NPOV" (Basically opinionated bias) as a point of question.

South Africa has ridiculous fringe groups on both sides, and to accuse the entire organization of hating white people because of the statements of a few of its members is odd. Again, considering my "Opinion", it's not ridiculous to assume other people's negative views of black people, perhaps yours, might influence whether or not they beleive "Anti-white racism" is a valid inclusion.

All reliable sources can confirm are statements made by individual members that could be percieve as "Anti-white" and were accused of being such. I would using better wording, or suggest removing "Anti-white racism" from ideology, and renaming the body section detailing statments as something like "Anti-white statements made by members" since that is all that appears to be there. If similar conclusions can be made for "Anti-Indian racism" or antisemetism, do that as well. But we are not discussing that now.

Remove the "Ant-Black" racism section because the only example for it would actually be considered an actual incident of "Anti-White racism". Would you consider a white man/woman racist against white people of they made a social media account pretending to be a black men playing into age old stereotypes claiming he wanted to assualt white women? That's esentially what the EFF councillor did, but pretending to be a white woman hating on black women. Allegedly.

As for NDP, there are quite literally more than 3 dozen non-fringe sources accusing them of neo-nazism. Don't see how relevant that is.

Other people are able to put their opinions in if they please, since more than just both of us were making these edits I feel like there should be more people discussing things here. 2603:8080:F600:14E7:E108:76F7:94F5:D761 (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The tone you are taking in this matter is inappropriate, please be considerate of WP:CIVIL & WP:AGF before continuing.

Mentioning/suggesting EFF's racial bigotry towards whites, Cape Coloureds, and Indians have been present in the infobox since at least March 2018. While I don't agree with the 'Fascism' label per say in that particular case, the idea that I imposed such a mention of EFF's bigotry on the infobox is just not accurate.

Now, to accuse me of derailing conversations over its inclusion is unfair, and I would challenge you to point and explain how exactly I've derailed any conversations in this matter. I'm entitled to respond to discussions just as you (and any other editor) is.

As for the suggestion that the racial prejudice expressed is simply confined to statements of individual members of the party, I would remind you that one of those individuals is Julius Malema, someone who has been convicted of hate speech in a post-Apartheid South African court. This is along with the numerous of allegations Fascistic behaviour in the party, which are covered by reliable sources.

On Wikipedia, we go by what the reliable sources say, and as far as I can tell, the reliable sources on the page currently support the inclusion of "Anti-white racism" (among others) featuring on the page and in the infobox. The suggestion we should not include them based fundamentally on WP:NOTAFORUM-esque arguments, is just not legitimate. Alssa1 (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

In South Africa, you can be convicted for "Hate Speech" simply for referring to its own history. History of genocide and colonialism committed by white british colonists against its black natives. Julius Malema is convicted every 5 months merely for referencing history. Many of his charges, such as him singing "Shoot the Boer", are dropped as theyr aren't seen as hate speech by the legal system, but said charge is still included in the page as an example.

This is where opinion bulge with "Fact" so I don't believe we shoud continue with that.

The sources used to accuse EFF of hating white people are consistently and by multiple users shown to either be NPOV or unreliable, whoever is forcing it in might have done so in bad faith, and we as future editors are simply unaware of it and just accepting it as status quo, which is also against wikipedia's rules. Hence why I am here to discuss it. With more people than just you.

As for "Derailing" you first accused an IP of making personal attacks merely by raising his opinion on the issue. When another user argues the "Anti-white racism" and "Black supremacy" labels are inaccurate since EFF rejects the accusaitons, while orgs like AWB would accept it (The latter (BS label) not my opinion but theirs) you did a dance to explain why you felt it was acceptable to accuse EFF of hating white people but not AWB of hating black people, despite both pages having sources that alleges such. Specifically referencing legal systems, which are themselves bias. Playing devil's advocate for a bit: The US legal system determined Kyle Rittenhouse and George Zimmerman acted in self defense, so why is it acceptable to have sections on top of sections explaining why some people think the ruling is bullshit or a miscarraige of justice? Why do their articles use sources that accuse them of being perpetrators or racists? The legal system also determined the murder of Emmett Till was justified, why does the entire Emmett Till article paint him as a victim of racism?

These are also opinions, but relevant opinions. You get my point. As I'm typing this I could reel back a bit. The idea of EFF being anti-white is just a relevant opinion, not an ideology or fact. So at best it should only remain as a relevant opinion held by some people. 2603:8080:F600:14E7:E108:76F7:94F5:D761 (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

It is not our job to read our opinions into an article, our responsibility as editors is simply to take what reliable sources say on a particular topic. Your opinion & my opinion(s) on particular topics are actually fundamentally irrelevant beyond what the reliable sources say. You may be believe that you can be convicted for "Hate Speech" simply for referring to its own history, and you are free to believe that; however it is irrelevant to this subject unless you can provide some evidence (from reliable sources) that Malema is a victim for simply 'speaking the truth'.

Apart from you, two users have made claims about the supposed NPOV of the article, one of those users made the claim 1 day after the official founding date of the EFF (27 July 2013), that is long before the sources now on the page had ever been written. The other person who made such a claim, was simply making an assertion; simply making an assertion does not make it true.

On the point about discussions, you and I are having a discussion right now about the subject matter. The fact that you and I are having said discussion does not pose a barrier to other users joining in.

As for the claim about me derailing a conversation, I have only highlighted one personal attack on this talk page, and that was in relation to an IP with a history of disruptive editing who said: "Admin "Drmies" is one of the racists forwarding white supremacy over Wikipedia." That IP was blocked from Wikipedia from an uninvolved admin precisely for their disruptive antics. The suggestion that pointing out a personal attack on someone (which was determined to be a personal attack by an uninvolved admin) is somehow a manifestation of me derailing conversations, is nonsense and does a great deal of damage to your own credibility.

In answer to your questions about Kyle Rittenhouse, George Zimmerman, and Emmett Till, the answer is very simple: the articles are the way they are because of community consensus around what the reliable sources say. If you genuinely don't understand that, I'm happy to direct to Wikipedia's resources/policies which will help with your understanding. Alssa1 (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I never said Malema was a "Victim", I feel like you're trying to pass me off as a certain type of person.

I understand what you mean about reliable sources but I don't understand how this allows you to selectively decide what stays based on your opinion while squandering the opinions and educated assertations of others. I have also never said assertation = fact, I just addressed people had said these things. why is their word suddenly irrelevant just because you dislike it?

I have also said some users posited the sources claming anti-white racism as an ideology were "Weak". Limiting my statement ot just POV to make it seem small and insignfigant is just bad.

And I dont accept your accusation of me not being credible. That user who was mentioned by the IP saw what was said about him and decided for himself it was a personal attack, after you haf jump ahead to brand it as such to paint him as a bad person. Completely ingoring their arguement. You only addressed their arguement when another user came to repeat it. That is why I said you derailed. And you are now stuffing words into my mouth. Derailing.

But I feel like we can agree this is going nowhere. I don't think we should waste our energy with eachother since neither seem to budge. I said what I wanted to say and people will see this for a good decade or two. 2603:8080:F600:14E7:E108:76F7:94F5:D761 (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

You didn't explicitly say he was a victim, but you did suggest that Malema is somehow unfairly prosecuted for hate speech for simply to 'referring to South Africa's history'. I don't consider it a stretch of the English language or a misrepresentation of what you've said, to point out that what you've said suggests you believe him to be a victim of unfair prosecution.

I haven't "selectively decided" anything, the situation is that we've got some things included on the page that are backed-up by a large number (and variety) of reliable sources. There are some users who disagree with the inclusion of this stuff on the page, and instead of providing a justification of why we shouldn't include this reliably-sourced stuff on the page, they instead assert NPOV (without justification) or they tread into WP:NOTAFORUM-esque arguments (like you did earlier). Simply saying that something NPOV (or you pointing out that others have asserted NPOV), doesn't really mean anything without further engagement.

As for the claim about anti-white racism not being an ideology, that's a topic of debate. However it is not unusual on Wikipedia to include key ideological positions (like anti-White racism) in an infobox, and the political party infobox guidance says nothing about not including such things in there.

If you're going to make the claim that accusing another user (without evidence) of being a "...racist forwarding white supremacy over Wikipedia" is not a personal attack, I don't see how you can have any credibility. Alssa1 (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I want to add my voice against the "anti-white" ideology section. The first source used is from John Campbell, who came from a career in State Department as a Reagan appointee. I don't think this counts as scholarly and detacted. The second source is a white South African, the paper concerns itself with theater, the "antiwhite" sentence wasn't cited or explained, and it was such a throw away sentence that wasn't concerning itself with the EFF.Stix1776 (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Are you talking about the section or the mention in the infobox? The section does not mention any sources written by John Campbell. It seems like you are instead talking about the mention in the infobox instead of an entire section. Also rejecting sources only because they are written by a certain category (such as race) of people is... problematic. Discott (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

You can ignore my points that the sources don't say that "the EFF has an anti white ideology" and that they're not historians if you choose. Yes, I'm talking about the infobox. It's filled with OC. Stix1776 (talk) 09:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Whether the sources were written by historians or not is irrelevent. I would argue that articles written by political scientists would be better but that is also aside the point. The point is that Wikipedia tries to distill and summarise the general public consensus on what is true on an issue, that includes sources written by historians and political scientists as well as news outlets and even (in cases like this) the subjects supporters and detractors. Indeed we already have at least one South African political scientist who has written an entire paper on why the EFF should rather be classified as "neo-fascist." I have no objection to removing (or keeping) the "anti-white ideology" description so long as there are good citations for it and, should it be included, is well contextualized. All I was doing was trying to get clarity on what you were saying whilst pointing some problems with what you were saying and not "ignore your points." Please don't jump to conclusions. --Discott (talk) 12:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

It's much easier to admit that Wikipedia has bias and no consistency. 2601:405:4881:B730:44F0:294D:FCC9:3623 (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2024 (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)

Political position removal

Because there is a lot of debate on The EFF's political position being either Far-Left or Far-Right, and the Ideology section having both historically and contemporarily Left-wing and Right-wing positions. I think that the best thing to do would be to remove the "Political position" section, like how it is with some other major political party's Wikipedia pages. N 7658777 (talk) 00:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I support this.Stix1776 (talk) 09:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

No. Reliable sources provide ample reason to label the party Far-Left 2603:7000:75F0:1680:5CC4:A109:A9ED:5B1E (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Is this a bot? it has a weird username, its only contributions have been this and one other on the same day minutes apart, and it hasn't provided sources for its claim. N 7658777 (talk) 23:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

No, this is someone without a registered account. In such cases, the IP-address is show. In this case an IP6-address. The Banner talk 00:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I support this as well, for every "far-left" citation there seems to also be a citation stating the party is "far-right". There is very clearly no public consensue on this issue and this should be reflected in the article.--Discott (talk) 12:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I want to expand on what I said, I support it so long as a section summarizing their publicly stated positions replaces it and there is a section describing the uncertainty around how to describe the party's political position.--Discott (talk) 13:01, 5 October 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)

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)

Add racism to ideology

according to some sources apparently reliable the EFF is racist, and I think it could be in the party's ideology, since it has references. Wiki libre 1919 (talk) 20:41, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

We'd need some reliable evidence that racism is in-of-itself a political ideology. Helper201 (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Not antisemitic

Antizionism is not antisemitism and I propose that we immediately remove the tag of antisemitism from their ideology. On top of that the only source is the Jerusalem Post, a newspaper with an obvious pro-Israel bias. Amalthea Little (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Antisemitism description

The sole source linked is from The Jerusalem Post and describes the EFF as being anti-Zionist, which would make the antisemitism descriptor to be inaccurate as the material of the source doesn't support the claim. An anti-Zionist descriptor would be more appropriate. Souliousery (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

The source from the Jerusalem Post categorises the story as anti-semitism, you can see it on the page... Alssa1 (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

And do you think that the Jerusalem Post is a neutral source about this? Do we have other sources at hand about anti-zionism/anti-semitism of the EFF? The Banner talk 00:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

It's a reliable source, which is the most important thing. Do you reliable evidence to suggest they are not neutral? Alssa1 (talk) 09:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Usually it is. But an Israeli source calling an unfriendly organisation antisemitic is NOT reliable. So do you have any non-Israeli sources that claim the EFF is antisemitic? The Banner talk 09:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Could you point the policy that supports that editing decision? As far as I can see, The Jerusalem Post is a reliable source, of which you seemingly are asserting that they are not reliable (or in some way biased in their reporting) simply because they are an Israeli news publication; that does not seem to be a editing principle that is legitimate. Alssa1 (talk) 09:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I guess you do not have the sources I requested? We have to maintain a neutral article per WP:NPOV. When I checked it last night, I could only find Israeli sources for the antisemitism accusation. The Banner talk 10:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion is about the Jerusalem Post, I assume you don't have an answer to what I just asked? Alssa1 (talk) 11:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I requested non-Israeli sources to prove that the EFF is widely regarded to be antisemitic. Not just by sources that are not neutral in this case. The Banner talk 11:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

You haven't provided any evidence that they are not neutral, you're just making an assertion. If you don't have evidence, do you have some specific policy guidance that you can point to? Alssa1 (talk) 11:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:NPOV. But I have already asked input from other editors. The Banner talk 12:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

But that is not what you said, you said that because they were an Israeli organisation, their claims were not reliable. Alssa1 (talk) 12:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

There is reason for doubt about their classification, yes. That is why I ask for non-Israeli sources to see if there is a wider coverage of the EFF being antisemitic. It is load and clear that the EFF is creepy but the article itself does not state that the EFF is antisemitic. It is just in the rubric antisemitism by choice of the newspaper. The Banner talk 12:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

The Jerusalem Post is considered reliable and neutral even with regard to Israel-related matters. However, in this instance, the source does not actually term the EFF anti-semitic—rather, this article on one press release is placed into the "antisemitism" category. Per WP:ECREE, this is not sufficient sourcing to label the EFF as anti-semitic. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Ideology

If the Eoconomic Freedom Fighters were white and had the same views, they would be listed as a white-supremacist party. Why is the fact they're a black supremacist party being removed from the ideology section? 2601:405:4881:B730:44F0:294D:FCC9:3623 (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

"The only white man you can trust is a dead white man." 2601:405:4881:B730:44F0:294D:FCC9:3623 (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Anti-white racism

The party is clearly driven by an anti-white racism. Why is such fact not mentioned within the article? 2003:DA:C72A:3D00:F52E:ECD6:D6CF:F8C8 (talk) 01:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Trotskyism

In their official publications, the EFF places support for Trotsky and his ideology, albeit with some criticisms. Can I add Trotskyism to the ideology info? Genabab (talk) 13:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

This would be a WP:PRIMARY source. Ideally they should be described as Trotskyist by independent sources. — Czello ^(music) 14:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@CzelloI found this:

1. "A movement which has set out a manifesto closer to an old Trotskyist transitional programme" https://africasacountry.com/2013/11/julius-malemas-economic-freedom-fighters-and-the-south-african-left

Alongside their own primary sources, this suggests they are Trotskyists Genabab (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Primary sources in infobox

The infobox contains a number of ideologies that are sourced by the EEF's constitution. These are consequently WP:PRIMARY sources that should either be removed or replaced. Is there a reason to keep these here? — Czello ^(music) 10:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)