Jump to content

Talk:Economic Freedom Fighters

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2600:8801:1187:7f00:65a1:f5cf:8721:9275 (talk) at 20:11, 30 August 2023 (→‎Political position: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]


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) [reply]

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)[reply]

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

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Partial-blocked for a spell on this range. Feel free to add additional targets. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]


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:
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)[reply]
  • No change Came here via a bot-announcement. I'm generally not comfortable using contemporaneous media sources when academic literature from specialists is available.[1][2][3][4][5] 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

  1. ^ Fölscher, Marine; de Jager, Nicola; Nyenhuis, Robert (December 2021). "Populist parties shifting the political discourse? A case study of the Economic Freedom Fighters in South Africa". The Journal of Modern African Studies. 59 (4): 535–558. doi:10.1017/S0022278X21000276.
  2. ^ Phadi, Mosa (2 July 2020). "The Economic Freedom Fighters: rethinking Du Bois in a tale of reconstruction". Review of African Political Economy. 47 (165): 416–431. doi:10.1080/03056244.2020.1805730.
  3. ^ Calland, Richard; Seedat, Shameela (2015). "Institutional Renaissance or Populist Fandango? The Impact of the Economic Freedom Fighters on South Africa's Parliament". Verfassung und Recht in Übersee / Law and Politics in Africa, Asia and Latin America. 48 (3): 304–328.
  4. ^ Essop, Tasneem (2015). "Populism and the Political Character of the Economic Freedom Fighters - a View from the Branch". Labour, Capital and Society / Travail, capital et société. 48 (1&2): 212–238. ISSN 0706-1706.
  5. ^ Mbete, Sithembile (1 June 2015). "The Economic Freedom Fighters - South Africa's turn towards populism?". Journal of African Elections. 14 (1): 35–59. doi:10.10520/EJC172991.
Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
FWIW, further sourcing.[1][2][3][4]

References

  1. ^ Adams, Rachel (21 December 2018). "South Africa's social contract: the Economic Freedom Fighters and the rise of a new constituent power?". Acta Academica. 50 (3): 102–121. doi:10.18820/24150479/aa50i3.5. Another example might include the way in which the EFF harnessed the will of the #feesmustfall student movement, demonstrating a leftist politics which moved fluidly from championing the rights of mineworkers to supporting access to higher education.
  2. ^ Roberts, Benjamin (2019). "Economic Freedom Fighters: authoritarian or democratic contestant?". In Schulz-Herzenberg, Collette; Southall, Roger (eds.). Election 2019: change and stability in South Africa's democracy. Konrad-Adenauer Stiftung. pp. 97–113. ...whether the EFF's brand of populist politics constitutes a challenge to liberal democracy.
  3. ^ Fölscher, Marine (2019). The Soft Power of Populist Politics: A Case Study of the Economic Freedom Fighters in the South African Context (Masters). Stellenbosch University. the main research question guiding this analysis is: Could the EFF have led to a shift wherein the ANC and DA became more populist in their political rhetoric and discourse? The research thus focuses on the populist party's 'soft power' – its ability to make others choose to follow its example through influence, not threats.
  4. ^ Yende, Nsizwazonke E. (1 December 2021). "The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) as a "super-sub" in the South African Parliament: Fostering Accountability in Organised Disruptive Chaos". African Journal of Development Studies (formerly AFFRIKA Journal of Politics, Economics and Society). 11 (4): 53–72. doi:10.31920/2634-3649/2021/v11n4a3. Furthermore, it assumed a left-wing of the working-class approach to political, governance and human rights issues, which has conspicuously been missing in post-apartheid South African politics.
Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Ideology

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I support this.Stix1776 (talk) 09:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Economic_Freedom_Fighters&oldid=1173023361"