Jump to content

Talk:Jacob Zuma/Archive 1

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

Should we have some quotes ? What comes to mind is his answer as to wheather or not he would describe the Shaik affair as a dark spot on his credibility : "Not at all".

Is he really "one of the few" Zulu politicians? I don't think they're that few. Though perhaps slightly under-represented. --Taejo 7 July 2005 11:23 (UTC)

One of the few in the ANC. Most Zulu politicians are in the IFP. Wizzy…☎ July 7, 2005 12:07 (UTC)

Hi, [Edited for ease of continuing this talk page--A lengthy explanation of why I thought his Zulu identity should not be foregrounded in the first paragraph of the piece, because of the political implications of doing so for an ANC official--viewable in earlier versions of this talk page]. Joewright

Yes, you have a good point. Wizzy…☎ July 8, 2005 14:37 (UTC)

Corruption Charges were NOT dismised

Zuma brought a case to stop this specific indictment (against him) on the grounds that correct procedure had not been followed because of interference by his political rivals

At the beginning of his ruling, Nicholson warned Mr Zuma that by dismisssing on procedural reasons does mean that the director Public Prosicution can bring a new indictment to court again, so long as correct procedure is followed.

This is a quote from the ruling:

"At the outset I must emphasise that these proceedings have nothing to do with the guilt or otherwise of the applicant on the charges brought against him. They deal with the disputed question of a procedural step that the State was required to comply with prior to instituting proceedings against the applicant. If there are defects, at best for the applicant, the present indictment may be set aside. Once the defects are cured, subject of course to any other applications that are brought, the State is at liberty to proceed with any charges they deem meet." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.67.164.37 (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree - The fact that new charges may be brought doesn't change the fact that the charges against him have been dismissed. --HiltonLange (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Yet it's important to make the distinction between charges being dropped on a substantive basis or for procedural reasons, as happened here. Without context, it could easily be believed that he was acquitted of the charges against him, which is not the case. — Impi (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree´- It would be the SAME charges; it is the indictment that has been dismissed. The indictment is merely the document that contains the charges. Its like applying for a loan, the indictment is the “application form” and the judge has said that the form was not filled in correctly – he has not refused the loan, just the form. Hence the Judge´s statement: these proceedings have nothing to do with the guilt or otherwise of the applicant on the charges brought against him. and Once the defects are cured........ the State is at liberty to proceed with any charges they deem meet. If the charges WERE IN FACT dismissed then the state would NOT be able to bring the same charges to court because of Double jeopardy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jalipa (talk • contribs) 06:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Rise to National Leadership

Is it really appropriate to have details of his divorce under the "Rise to National Leadership" section. I would have thought that this belonged under details of his personal life. Is this a mistake, or is something being insinuated here? Regards, anon 13 March 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.235.215 (talk) 11:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Zimbabwe

(1) Is the following statement really true: "Due to South Africa's proximity, strong trade links, and similar struggle credentials, South Africa is in a unique position to influence politics in Zimbabwe". People who assert this are normally of the opinion that South Africa _should_ be trying to influence politics in Zimbabwe, but I have seen no evidence that South Africa would be able to exert some kind of influence on Zimbabwean politics or (as I think is meant in this case) the Zimbabwean government.

(2) The following statement is also interesting: "Western diplomats have attempted to persuade South Africa's President Thabo Mbeki to take a harder line with Robert Mugabe." No one can deny that there was some difference of strategy between some western countries and the South African government at times. At the same time, why is this so important to be mentioned under Zuma in Wikipedia? For a more nuanced or sophisticated view of the differences (and agreement) between South Africa and some Western countries over handling Zimbabwe, you only need to look at the 2003 meeting between Mbeki and Bush: "The president [Mbeki] is the point man on this important subject [Zimbabwe]," Mr Bush told more than 200 reporters. "He is working it very hard. He’s in touch with the parties involved. He’s making good progress, and the United States supports him in this effort." http://news.scotsman.com/zimbabwe/Mbeki-accused-of-lying-to.2442658.jp The main controversy surely seems to be that the Zimbabwean opposition (and some South African opposition and ANC allies) have problems with Mbeki's strategy. The US (and other western governments) were relatively satisfied with Mbeki's approach for most of the period. I personally would have liked Mbeki to be more robust, but I can't really agree with the opinion as expressed in the article here and I wonder if it even fits in to an article on Zuma? Regards, anon 13 March 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.235.215 (talk) 11:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Rape charges

Thanks to Joewright for details on the rape charges - but aren't we being a little harsh to spread it so thick when charges have not even been laid ? I guess the next week will tell us more. Wizzy…☎ 07:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Wizzy, My perception of the challenge here is that the charges are so much part of the political reality right now--with news stories about it, news reports purportedly citing sources close to Zuma saying he might resign, COSATU and the SACP distancing themselves, etc--that to not put them in the Wiki would be to ignore a big story--but I think we should keep revisiting whether we're doing Zuma justice in airing rumors. I'm open to any and all ideas about how to balance newsiness with fairness to Zuma. Joewright 18:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Update: I have tried to revise the page with regard to Wizzy's concern. Joewright 21:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

"The charge of rape is considered much more serious in South Africa." This sentence makes no sense. Much more serious than what? More serious than other charges? More serious than rape charges elsewhere?

Jacob Zuma rape trial

Hi, I have taken the liberty of creating a new article dealing with the rape trial and related issues. The implications are that this article can be cleaned up and material incorporated in to the Jacob Zuma rape trial as deemed fit. Regards, Gregorydavid 08:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Cited elsewhere

Whether I'm proud of this or disturbed by it, I still haven't decided, but the M+G cited this article and even used one of its phrases ("widely welcomed by the business community") in a recent JZ timeline: [1] Joewright 21:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Attention template

This article has some sources, but not nearly enough to support all the unattributed "views" in later sections. The early parts are mostly uncontroversial and factual (but could still use better sources), but after his criminal charges, there's a lot of discussion of this group and this expression of support and too many weasel words. The article could be greatly improved if much of this were trimmed to only the necessary encyclopedic discussion, and POV expressions are given authoritative citations. --Dhartung | Talk 21:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


The more urgent reason this article needs attention is that it represents breaking news as his trial develops. Unfortunately I do not have the time to devote to it as I did in earlier months. I hope others--especially South African wikipedians--will step in soon.
I'm glad to review the article further if you want to be specific about where you think it goes wrong (or just be bold and edit), but as far as I can tell from a quick look back, the attributions of groups supporting him or opposing him are all from the news articles cited in the article or in pages found in the external links. The reason for the last sections are that from his corruption charges to the current day, Jacob Zuma is not just a man, he is a political symbol. His story represents a major event in post-apartheid South African history and at several points his story has represented a potentially explosive political crisis within the ANC.
Some have also argued that the cultural and linguistic politics of the Zuma story are also important. For various reasons unique to South African politics, these have been only obliquely discussed in verifiable sources, and I have regularly deleted discussions of these issues that are not supported by verifiable sources.
At any rate, for these reasons and probably more, I think the article does require discussion of the larger political meaning of his current place in South African politics. Joewright 06:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I have updated some of the news portions of this article, while leaving in much of the political analysis. Based on my point of view about the article, I have removed the cleanup tag. I also removed a POV tag since I read the original objection as not really a POV objection but a feeling that there were too many vague statements about various players' POVs. Others can feel free to reinstate either or both tags if they feel the page needs them, but please provide explanations of what needs to change in your view--or be bold. I feel strongly that the article needs to contain explanations of the significance of the Zuma story, rather than simply a recounting of events; but would be very pleased if others were prepared to improve these portions with further citations, etc. I also would appreciate South African wikipedians' involvement in this issue--i.e., perspectives on what is and is not important about this story from an SA politics point of view. Joewright 09:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

uncited assertion

I removed this clause from the Rape charges section as I could not find any mention in either of the two references:

and argued that because she was an AIDS activist, the accuser would not have sex without a condom

-213.219.184.204 22:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

unencylopedic commentary

I've also removed this commentary from Analysis:

Whether or not Zuma ever recovers from his current situation fully enough to vie for the Presidency himself, the story of the charges against Zuma and his firing as Deputy President remains one of the most important in post-apartheid South African politics. Zuma's story is a highly dramatic beginning to the succession struggle for the Presidency, and also sets a precedent for how post-apartheid South Africa will deal with office holders who are alleged to have committed crimes. The saga of how South Africans responded to the corruption charges against Zuma also provided a vivid and public example of some of the rifts within the ANC and its constituencies -- divisions which may well shape the future of political debate in South Africa.

-213.219.184.204 22:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Zuma vs. The Media

I have added a new section to this entry regarding Zuma's sudden decision to sue almost all the media outlets that dared to challenge him during his rape trial. This is South Africa's largest lawsuit filed by a single person to date.

It would be great if someone from the media could flesh this out, because I know for a fact that many SA media outlets use Wikipedia as a source (although, usually not cited.)

Stuart Steedman 07:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Conservative Party?

We have a conservative party in South Africa? And they have MPs?

What are you refering, too?! is it relevant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.54.202.250 (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

The Conservative Party is now defunct. However the advocate was an MP while the party was still represented in parliament. I have changed the entry by adding 'Former' to the description.

As to relevance, that is debatable. Many news reports on the lawsuits referred to this fact (www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=276142&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__national ; www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=3011&art_id=qw1152097203968B255 ; www.minesandcommunities.org/Action/press1149.htm · Cached page; www.iafrica.com/pls/procs/SEARCH.ARCHIVE?p_content_id=652862&p_site_id=2 ; www.iafrica.com/pls/procs/SEARCH.ARCHIVE?p_content_id=652862&p_site_id=2 · · . I guess it's simply that journalists see it as ironicalthat of a former member of a right-wing party advancing white interests only, would represent a black politician who is viewed as being more on the left side of the politcal spectrum. As to the advocate's (former?) political views, see for example www.iss.co.za/Pubs/Monographs/No81/Chap2.html · Cached page

Zuma Controversy and Apology

Added the bit about Zuma's apology with the appropriate source. This may need some fleshing out from someone else in the know.

Stuart Steedman 15:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The infamous shower scene

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but didn't Zoomer later say that the reason why he had the shower was not because he was getting rid of the HIV (according to him the chances of him contracting it were negligible) but rather because he knew that he had had sex with a filthy person and he knew what type of person she was and he wanted to get rid of the filth (even less intelligent response)? Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 01:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You're thinking of a report such as [2] - if you look at the cited reference though he did seem to initially state he took the shower to reduce his chances of being infected [3]. Probably need to see the court transcript though. Greenman 09:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Money laundering

Zuma had allegedly been involved in a little tax evasion and money-laundering - issues that had not come up in the Shaik trial. --196.208.71.62 23:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

At ANC rally's Zuma loves to sing the struggle song Awuleth'Umshini Wami. South Africa's minister of defence Mosiuoa Lekotha has openly criticized Zuma on the use of the song, saying that it belong in the past. Directly translated Awuleth'Umshini Wami means "Bring me my machine(gun)" --196.208.71.62 00:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Timeline, politics, charges

I would like to keep his political timeline above the detailed discussion of the court cases against him. The article needs :-

  • Intro para
  • Early life
  • Political history, to present day, perhaps including a summary of court cases
  • Court cases detail
  • Private life

Wizzy…☎ 10:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The corruption charges are now spread throughout the article. I suggest that the meat of them be put in South African Arms Deal, and a summary be put in one place here. He has not been convicted yet, and there seems too much emphasis here. Wizzy…☎ 15:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Political positions

We really need a section on his political positions. South African politicians are not _only_ about scandals and controversies, right? --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I must say that the scandal is pretty pervasive here though. I'm not entirely sure what his positions are on many things - clearly his stance on certain things is obvious/reported on, but on many issues he appears almost silent or, alternatively, his quotes are not reported.

Random other comment: I wish people would think before editing these articles. Barack vs. Hilary - DOES IT MATTER? The Democrats remain, in principle, the same regardless. One person doesn't make the party. Ditto Mr Zuma, the ANC still has principles which he will be expected to subscribe to, this is not the end of the world as we know it. Kit Berg (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Jacob Zuma set to be president of south africa

Immediate update. Jacob has been elected the new president of the ANC at a conference in polokwane. Im not sure how this is gonna end up, but I have doubts about it being good. T.Neo (talk) 14:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hell no is this good. But hey, WP isn't really the place... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.240.69.105 (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Opinions about the matter are totally irrelevant here. Verifiable, neutral, statements of fact only please. Roger (talk) 19:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I was stating that we need to update the article based on current events. T.Neo (talk) 07:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words

User:196.212.27.11 has now twice added the following comment:

Analysts say the impact of his song "Bring me my machine gun" on the ANC delegates and their votes must not be underestimated.

I have now reverted it twice on the grounds that it constitutes weasel wording which needs a citation to make it useful. We need to know which analysts say that and what the probable impact would be. --Slashme (talk) 13:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Pronouncing his middle name?

Can someone fluent in isiZulu please help with pronounciation and also explain the meaning? Roger (talk) 13:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what it means, but I'll see if I can quickly whip up an IPA pronunciation guide. Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 20:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


Try this: [geɮejiɬekisɑ]. Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 20:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Off-Topic

He is a Social Democrat

I watched [this|http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPZ0bUizV_Q] on Youtube and thought, Jacob Zuma seems like a social democrat. My proof is that his habitus is the kind of habitus, which originates from the contemporary middle class families, who embrace capitalism regardless of the Western country and participate in politics just to gain personal power. I used to go to the Finnish Social Democracy Party where I saw this kind of habitus. What striked me was that they are very arrogant and mediocre minds, who think they can get everything they want but don't have any good ideas to offer. The smile is just a front used to gain power. They don't actually deserve to be elected. They are not evil, but weaklings in moral judgements. I might be wrong but I believe I can stereotype and spot a Social Democrat anywhere. Then I saw that his affiliation with the Socialist International, the Social Democratic organization and thought, what did I say! It is important to fix Democratic Socialism as Social Democracy, as they actually are 2 separate articles on Wikipedia, for example in regards to Socialist Revolution and the Welfare State. Teemu Ruskeepää (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The introduction is getting a bit top heavy with speculation and analysis

We need to tidy up this article and move all speculation, developments and analysis into the appropriate sections..Gregorydavid (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Weasel words

In regards to the comment that "certain analysts" and "his supporters" say that he is likely to be the next president of SA, please see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. If you know who said it, provide a citation. If you don't, just leave it a bald statement. If you feel that it's a doubtful claim, put in a {{fact}} tag. --Slashme (talk) 06:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Archbishop Tutu

Is there any reason there's no mention of his apparent strife with Archbishop Desmond Tutu? Tutu's own article has many references to Jacob Zuma. Obonicus (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is a reason to exclude it, so go right ahead and add it, just be sure the material meets the BLP requirements. Roger (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

No Zumatello section?

It was quite controversial and alot of people from USA have been asking me about it, wat it is and where it came from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.211.18.42 (talk) 11:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Socialist and Communist

The entry lets clear that is still a member of the South African Communist Party, but from what can be interpreted by his political stances is much more in line with the moderat socialist views of the ANC then with orthodox communist. That´s why I think he also should appear as a socialist.81.193.214.25 (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Article weight

One of the weaknesses of this article (it's a common Wikipedia problem) is that's it's unduly weighted to recent events, sometimes even trivia. For example, there's an entire section on the (non) declaration of his assets, while his work towards bringing an end to the low-level civil war in Kwazulu-Natal, or his mediation in Burundi, which, looking back at a person's life would be far more noteworthy, are hidden and don't get sections of their own. A fix would involve trimming down the trivia, as well as expanding the more noteworth historical events. Greenman (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Corruption charges

It should be emphasized that the Squire judgment is absolutely clear (and indeed goes into great detail) about Zuma's role in the criminal activities of Shaik. Zuma is a virtual co-accused in this trial.

Although the judgment is long and complex, there is no reading of it, however politically biased, that could ever show Zuma as an innocent by-stander or a victim of a frame. Any fair trial that would prosecute Zuma to full and fair conclusion would not reach an acquittal, but rather would serve the purpose of putting a precise number to the years of jail time owed.

The judgment displays a flagrant violation of any decency, responsibility, or respect for offices of government; and to the sole benefit of the wealth of the perpetrators, and the perpetuation of their status and power. At the same time the judgment also shows arrogance and opportunism, and supreme confidence that they were above the law; traits that Zuma continues to flaunt into his presidency.

Indeed it would appear that those who criticize the media's harsh portrayal of Zuma, have not read the judgment at all, or worse, outright condone his actions as the right of a leader in Zuma's position.

Any encyclopedic article about Zuma can fairly ignore difficult-to-prove claims that he is a sociopath; but cannot ignore decades-ongoing acts of a criminal mastermind when these acts are a matter of public record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulsheer (talk • contribs) 15:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, what you've written above is a mix of fact and interpretation. To be included in the article, the facts need to be backed up by reliable sources. The interpretations can be included too, if they can be cited to a particular reliable source, but not if they are the result of your own synthesis. There is no such thing in legal terms as a "virtual co-accused". Beware of inflammatory statements like "criminal mastermind". See WP:NPOV. Zaian (talk) 06:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Please explain how the 50000 word Squires judgment is not a reliable source? Your comments fall precisely inside the category of those that "have not read the judgment at all" - an example if ever! Please read the full transcript here: http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/Shaik_trial/0,,2-7-1708_1718857,00.html I have not "interpreted" anything. Indeed my summary is not even as damning as the court record. On the other hand, to say that it is possible that Zuma has not grossly violated the law - this statement is a skewed interpretation of the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulsheer (talk • contribs) 08:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I didn't say it wasn't a reliable source, and I didn't even dispute the contents of what you said, although I think your phrasing on this talk page has POV issues which would be out of place in the article itself. What I said is that your comments include facts which can be sourced, and statements (such as "there is no reading of it...") which are clearly interpretations of the judgment. Interpretations can be included in the article, but only with reliable sources to back them. Do please read WP:SYNTH though, because even if there are (say) 100 references to cheese in the document, selectively counting those references may fail the criteria that "This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves" (from WP:RS). The fact that Zuma is such a polarizing figure means it really is critical to follow these policies carefully, and I'm encouraging you to do that. Zaian (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, here's exactly what I've been trying to say: "Our policy: Primary sources [including trials] ... may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source." From WP:OR. Zaian (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
My phrase "there is no reading of" is not in the main article, but on the discussions page. I have read WP:SYNTH. None-the-less, in the case of this Judgment, it is written in plane English, and is an unequivocal and factual indictment of Zuma, on the bases of which Zuma's briber was sentenced to 15 years in prison. How does one explain what is in the judgment without in some way interpreting? Shall I copy and paste the entire judgment into the article? Of course not - this is why we have encyclopedias: to condense and pool knowledge. Very simply, if a number of independent Wikipedia reviewers read the judgment and agree that a summary is representative, this should be enough to say something which is true. I would certainly try and avoid the complete opposite approach - i.e. to ignore a source because no one has the time to read it, and because it may-say-not-nice-things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulsheer (talk • contribs) 08:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

"How does one explain what is in the judgment without in some way interpreting?" Zaian just explained that: You need to find a good secondary source that makes this interpretation, and cite it correctly. You can't come that conclusion by yourself and then place it into the article. ManicParroT (talk) 05:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

ANC Head Title

Can someone change Jacob Zumas current ANC title back to whatever the correct title should be. I dislike Jacob Zuma enourmously but such an edit is obviously inappropriate.

Done. Next time you encounter vandalism on a non-protected page, please revert it yourself.  Andreas  (T) 17:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Will do, thanks Andreas, I tried but couldn't figure out how. I'll look into it deeper next time. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.157.210 (talk) 09:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I recently cleaned up this articles external links section in accordance with our guideline and there were a few reliable sources which didn't belong in the section but would be useful for article development purposes so I'm list them below if anybody would like to use them for citations.

ThemFromSpace 23:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Family business deals

I came here just to clean up some of the weasel words that had been added to the article (disputed, controversial, opaque, grabbed), but upon reading the sources think it's prudent to remove the entire section. Reasons:

  • M&G source says "is just a step removed from" and "may hold a stake", never asserting or verifying that he does. Information comes from an anonymous source.
  • Business Day source says "is reliably understood", again an anonymous source.
  • The submitted changes contain mostly text copy-pasted from the articles, and even took speculative statements and edited them to appear as fact.

Article headline:

Duduzane Zuma, President Jacob Zuma's son, is just a step removed from and, although it is denied, may hold a stake in the opaque BEE company that controversially grabbed rights worth billions from under the noses of corporate giants Kumba Iron Ore and ArcelorMittal.

Submitted text:

Duduzane holds a stake in the opaque BEE company Imperial Crown Trading that controversially grabbed rights worth billions from under the noses of corporate giants Kumba Iron Ore and ArcelorMittal.

I don't believe that the claims are baseless, but I don't think that the accuracy and verifiability of the submitted text or references is close to encyclopedic.--HiltonLange (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Bold names

Is it correct to bold the names of other people mentioned in the article such as his wives and children? As I understand it, the MoS requires only the article subject's full legal name to be bolded only once in the introduction section of the article. Roger (talk) 12:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Is he HIV positive?

If he had unprotected sex with a HIV positive woman, then he ought to be HIV positive himself now. SO the next question is, does he have or will he develop AIDS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.77.239.121 (talk) 10:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Melcom Smit - I think citing his HIV status is unconstitutional and should be avoided. I belive that it is legally protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.110.218.136 (talk) 13:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

incitement to genocide

Like other ANC leaders before him, he is on public record to incite genocide: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHLTKZ05zM4 --41.151.91.8 (talk) 05:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Number of children

I am pretty sure he has at least 20 children - you can count them up in the Personal Life section. http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Politics/Zuma-love-child-No-comment-20100201 also says 20. As does http://mg.co.za/article/2010-02-06-zuma-deeply-regrets-lovechild-pain - a pretty good reference. Wizzy…☎ 07:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Full Gospel Church of Southern Africa

There would appear to be no such church with this name. Further, the cited link does not support Zuma's membership of a church with this name. There is, however, a church established in 1910 that would become known eventually as The Full Gospel Church of God in Southern Africa whose headquarters are at 8 Jan Smuts Avenue, IRENE, 0062 (The URL of the church is http://www.fullgospelchurchsa.co.za ) On the face of it, therefore, it would appear likely that Zuma is a member of The Full Gospel Church of God in Southern Africa and not, as currently claimed, of the non-existent Full Gospel Church of Southern Africa 101.163.21.119 (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

>> S Africa's Zuma criticised for home upgrade (Lihaas (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)).]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jacob Zuma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Protestantism and Polygamy

The infobox describes him as both as a Protestant and having three wives. Anyone want to tell me how that works? Is polygamy legal for everyone in South Africa then? (86.129.42.84 (talk) 17:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC))

You can not be a Protestant and practice Polygamy at the same time! He believes in traditional African religion, Witch Doctors, Aninal sacrivices and the spirits of his forefathers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.82.10.65 (talk) 11:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Only blacks and muslims can be polygamist in South Africa, although as i understand it, it is considered a cultural marraige and not a civil one --Scottykira (talk) 09:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much, yes. The law recognises, to a certain extent, polygamous marriages which are traditional in certain groups, notable amongst which are Muslims and Zulus. It does this largely to protect the wives (who would otherwise be unrecognised) in situations like inheritance, divorce, and so on. A person can only have one civil marriage or civil union recorded on the Population Register. - htonl (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Polygamy is allowed under the South African constitution, as long as the marriage is performed as part of what the law deems "customary marriages". In these cases, a person is allowed to practice polygamy, but the law will only recognise the first marriage as a "civil union". As for Zuma being a Protestant, he's a church-goer inasmuch as it's politically expedient. His most prominent religious association is with a pastor whose religious ministry is also fairly controversial amongst South Africans. SmallMossie (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

School attendance precision

"He only attended school up to standard 3 (now called grade 5)."

Right but it would be great, if the information is available, to specify until witch age he attended to school cause for people not used to the south african school system it's not obvious.--Kimdime69 (talk) 12:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have specific info about JZ but the normal age for 5th grade would be about 11-12 years provided one starts school at age 6-7 and don't repeat any previous grades. Are terms like "5th grade" really not understood all over the english speaking world? Roger (talk) 14:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, as many other users here, I don't come from the english speaking world. :) --Kimdime69 (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
See Educational stages. The term grade is primarily used in North America (and I guess South Africa). Other terms like year, primary/standard + secondary/form are commonly used in other English speaking countries. The term grade may be known from exposure to American culture but we shouldn't presume all readers understand such terms. Nil Einne (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I have amended the wording of the article to state "the 5th grade of school". I suggest that this is the most accurate and universally understood description. A minor technical comment: These days many schools in South Africa do have an additional grade ("Grade 0"), which would make the current Grade 5 the 6th grade at school. However, this was not the case when Zuma was a child. Zingi (talk) 10:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I have heard from a number of South Africans that Zuma may actually be functionally illiterate. I really don't know if this is idle speculation, malicious (presumably politically motivated) gossip, or has some bearing in fact. Anyone know anything (ideally with reliable sources)? AuntFlo (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Zuma's biography on the ANC website confirms that Zuma did not receive formal schooling.[1] However, from internet searches I cannot find any support for the allegation that he is functionally illiterate - other than strongly worded opinion on both sides. See for example the opinion piece of Johann Wingard. I therefore suggest that the article should not venture into this arena.Zingi (talk) 10:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I have seen Jacob Zuma read from a printed English speech, which would mean that he definitely can read. I would therefore believe that rumours about him being functionally illiterate are just that: Malicious rumours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.211.98.155 (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
How about searching Youtube for "Zuma can't count" before you say that he is not functionally illiterate. He cannot count, and has on multiple occasions failed to read a number out loud. This is functionally illiterate in that you would expect somebody running a country to be able to understand a number larger than 783. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO83b6wbKU4

Something that a lot of the comments above haven't taken into account is the fact that Zuma would not have attended a "mainstream" school during any part of his education. Unlike Nelson Mandela and Govan Mbeki, Zuma would not have been allowed to attend either a missionary school or what would later become known as a "Model C" school. Under the Bantu Education Act of 1953 schools were racially segeregated -nominally "African" schools were notoriously underfunded and teachers were poorly trained. The most widely accepted historical opinion is that the schools which were part of what was called the "Bantu Education" system were put in place to provide education that would make separate development easier to enforce by keeping anyone deemed "non-European" by the government uneducated enough to prevent them from being able to compete with whites in the job market. As such, I wouldn't say that Zuma is illiterate, but compared to the high quality tertiary education that Mandela and Mbeki both received, his educational background could definitely not compete. SmallMossie (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Zuma's biography on ANC website, accessed on 30 May 2009.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Jacob Zuma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Attempts at ignoring Zuma's responsibility for the H. naledi fossils

Attempts are being made [4] at removing Zuma from the article about Homo naledi. My view is that is questionable; his opinion is notable since he is the top representative of the owners of the fossils. --Here to sway (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The National Heritage Resources Act of 1999 may make the fossils public property, but that doesn't mean that Zuma's opinion on the matter is especially relevant. You wouldn't ask David Cameron for his opinion on academic archaeological examination of one of the stones at Stonehenge, because it's got no impact on policy, economics, or to any other aspect of his job as the head of state. What would be more relevant would be a comment from Naledi Pandor, or someone else high up in the Department of Science and Technology. It would be much more informative about South African politics and science policy to hear what the science-based department thought than what the president though. 197.88.76.7 (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Garbage Article

This whole thing reads like a tabloid, nothing about Zuma's actual policies or their effects, nor the legislation that was passed, it looks like it was written by the national enquirer, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a tabloid magazine about how many wife or kids he has. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hernanday (talk • contribs) 02:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

You raise a good point, a greater effort should be made to expand on his policies and legislation passed in his time and their effects on South Africa.--Discott (talk) 09:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
As I've discovered in my attempts to fix the Eskom page over the past couple of years, Wiki articles on South Africa tend to degenerate fairly quickly once people discover how to make edits. You eventually spend as much time removing vandalism and POV edits as you do adding useful information and reliable citations. It's largely why I still prefer traditional encyclopedias, peer-reviewed research, and old-fashioned university printing presses to Wiki articles. SmallMossie (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Presidency of Jacob Zuma, Kate Mantsho, Gertrude Sizakele Khumalo and Jacob Zuma dismissal of Nhlanhla Nene

Merge - there is nothing in those articles that doesn't belong in this article, and the length of the main article isn't excessive at this stage. Zaian (talk) 13:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The Presidency of Jacob Zuma "article" is completely unsourced (thus a violation of BLP policy), full of obvious errors and contains nothing of any value that isn't already better covered in Jacob Zuma anyway so I am simply going to redirect it. One down, three more to go... Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree with your redirect, and similar comments probably apply to all four pages. I was holding off somewhat in order not to bite the newcomer, which has happened a lot to User_talk:Kapia76. Most of the pages she/he has created have been proposed for deletion, but then tidied up by other editors and are useful additions to Wikipedia. Zaian (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I've merged Kate Mantsho, and I think Jacob Zuma dismissal of Nhlanhla Nene should be merged as well, but I think Gertrude Sizakele Khumalo possibly has enough content to be a separate page. Zaian (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I've merged Jacob Zuma dismissal of Nhlanhla Nene. Zaian (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
No comments on Gertrude Sizakele Khumalo so I've removed the merge tags. Zaian (talk) 18:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jacob Zuma. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 18:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Official presidential portrait sitting photograph?

The infobox currently uses a photo provided by the U.S. State Department and is in the public domain. The image is encoded as a jpeg with an aggressive compression threshold and was cropped affecting its quality. Is there a better quality and/or "official" replacement with a compatible license?

Full-disclosure: I am a South African citizen, and although many would agree that this man does not deserve a 1x1 transparent gif, let alone a political office, for the sake of the Encyclopedia can somebody please fix this...

The official state portraits are here: http://www.gcis.gov.za/content/resource-centre/multimedia/audio-visual/photo-gallery-faces-government

Our government believes in copyrighting online resources that is funded by our tax, and requires permission first: http://www.gcis.gov.za/content/help/using-gcis-web

Note: that the government currently does not use HTTPS or TLS encryption. This is probably due to budget allocations for important public infrastructure works.

197.87.172.12 (talk) 11:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

A great question. I am sure editors would love to use the official photograph for Zuma and other South African politicians and government officials. However Wikipedia has very strict copyright policies regarding the use of photographs and other media. In theory an editor might be able to use the photograph in a very particular and careful way if they could argue fair use (as is the case with company logos) but as a rule of thumb all images and photographs of people must be CC-BY-SA copyright licence for them to be usable on Wikipedia. So until the South African government -like the US and Russian governments which default to some form of creative commons copyright licence- changes its copy right policies regarding government generated content then it likely that it will not be usable on Wikipedia.--Discott (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jacob Zuma. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 19:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

In desperate need of an article overhall

As has been mentioned before on this talk page this article is in desperate need of a shake-up and overhaul so that it is more in line with the Wikipedia pages of other world leaders like Barack Obama or Vladimir Putin that focus more on Zuma's policies and legacy in government than on his personal life. This does not mean sections expanding on his polygamy or beliefs should be deleted but rather that they should be moved to their own article pages in a way that has also be done on other world leaders pages. This will be a big job and given the political sensitivities surrounding this individual right now it will likely have to wait a bit. However I do want to open up a discussion on this topic here for anyone who is also interested in reforming this article in the future.--Discott (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Agreed, it's in a terrible shape. I made a start on that a couple of days ago by trying to reshuffle it into approximate chronological order. Zaian (talk) 21:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • The reason it's in such terrible shape is because the subject is such a nothing when it comes to governance and policy. The page is about everything else because there's an absence of anything to note where other leaders have shit to offer. AWildAppeared (talk) 20:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
AWildAppeared, lets try to keep this NPOV :-) Discott (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Jacob Zuma. 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) 05:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Lede rewrite

The lede probably needs to be rewritten to reflect the overwhelming focus of his presidency, which have been corruption and dealing with the Gupta family. I'll get around to it some time soonish, or feel free to contribute. AWildAppeared (talk) 09:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely. The article as it is today, is still out of date, and neglects some crucial developments concerning the Guptas. We require the contributions of a user who is up to date with these developments. JMK (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with a full rewrite of the lede. I think the lede deals well with events prior to about 2016, which are still worth covering there and don't need to be drastically rewritten or removed, but I agree that it should be updated to include recent developments / revelations. Zaian (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Jacob Zuma. 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) 10:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2017

President Jacob Zuma of South Africa is an untrustworthy human and his term in office has been plagued with corruption charges ranging from things as serious as rape to that of treason. He should be jailed for his crimes against the people of South Africa. In short he is a disgrace, and his page needs to reflect his crimes as it does not accurately do so. PeterPumpkinEater (talk) 13:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Also, please make sure to read WP:BLP regarding edits in biographical articles, especially in controversial ones. GermanJoe (talk) 16:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Criticism of his leadership

In an interview in Johannesburg on Tuesday, November 2nd 2017, Ronnie Kasrils reviles that he believes Jacob Zuma is a dangerous and conniving president. Kasrils has recently published a book called "A Simple Man: Kasrils and the Zuma Enigma" which is highly critical of Zuma and his actions as the 4th president of South African. Kasrils says that Zuma portrays himself as a hard-working man who only has south Africa's best interest in mind, but Kasril believes Zuma is "sly‚ tricky‚ cunning‚ deceitful and manipulative". Zuma once worked under Kasril and was only brought into the ANC (African National Congress) by himself and other political leaders. Kasril claims he knows Zuma personally and knew back in late 1980s and 1990s that Zuma was not a simple man. He warned Nelson Mandela and Thabo Mbeki about Zuma's "social backwardness‚ homophobia‚ cruelty to fellow comrades and ethnic and tribalistic tendencies." Kasril's book about Zuma warns that their country can never again fall for a man like Zuma and the crisis that their country has fallen into. Kasril warns readers that if they don’t "check" Zuma or the leaders that follow him, their country is headed for pure catastrophe. "The president's keeper" is another book that questions not only Zuma being in power, but those who keep him power. Clearly, Zuma is a very controversial leader to some Africans. [1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertScalise24 (talk • contribs) 23:11, November 8, 2017 (UTC)

@RobertScalise24:, welcome and thank you for your contribution. That said, there is a message at the top of this page stating: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jacob Zuma article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." This message appears to be the former rather than the latter as you have not suggested any specific improvements or changes you think are required. Merely stating that Zuma has been criticized is not a request that can be acted on, especially since there are already large "Criminal charges" and "Controversy" sections. Please read those sections and post the specific changes or additions you think are necessary using the Edit Request as above. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.timeslive.co.za/politics/2017-11-08-kasrils-jacob-zuma-is-dangerous-deceitful-and-has-betrayed-his-country/

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jacob Zuma. 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) 17:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Jacob Zuma. 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) 07:59, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2018

Under Controversy -> "Shoot the Boer" song, it says "The song is controversial as the word "Boer" refers to both farmers and the Dutch population of South Africa" There is no Dutch population in South Africa. They're called Afrikaners. They don't speak Dutch, they speak Afrikaans. They have their own culture and history. There is a very big difference between the two. Curvian (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I have changed "Dutch" to "Afrikaner" as the request seemed pretty clear to me, and reasonable. Zaian (talk) 04:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Jacob Zuma in the news

Jacob Zumah is in the news at the time of typing (February 2018) so should this have a note stating that this figure is in the news and information may change as more up-to-date information comes to light? Vorbee (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

There probably exists a "breaking news template" to accomplish that, though I'm not sure where to locate it.--Quisqualis (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

It was just announced, on the evening of February 14 2018, that Zuma had announced his resignation. Vorbee (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

For more info

Zaian (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Resignation date

Technically, his resignation date should be on 15 Feb 2018 when his resignation letter reached the speaker of parliment [5]. (After it was announced around 23:00 SAST on the 14th) MoHaG (talk) 09:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Nominated at ITN

{{ITN nom}} -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Linking the new president - Cyril Ramaphosa

Here's the wiki page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_Ramaphosa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwu (talk • contribs) 21:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2021

His predecessor is not linked despite having a page on Wikipedia. It should be linked in the info-box at the top. 95.146.239.17 (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Thabo Mbeki is already linked in the infobox; see WP:REPEATLINK. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

5th President?

Please correct your text. Zuma is not the 5th president of South Africa. He is the 5th preaident of the New South Africa. 196.15.149.41 (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

The post was called "State President" pre-1994 and was renamed "President" afterwards. This means that he is the 5th "President" (since those pre "New" South Africa were "State Presidents", not "Presidents") MoHaG (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

The legal issues should belong in their own section of the article.

Maybe in the controversies?

BlitzkriegCat (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done I agree that it makes sense for there to be a dedicated section for the corruption charges; I’ve moved that to after the biographical sections, since the charges now span almost the entirety of his post-1994 political career. But I have put the rape trial back into the biography (which is where the Nkandla legal issues were already), since that trial took place over a short, fixed period of time. Assuming that the corruption matter won’t be resolved for some time, it might make sense to create a separate article about the Zuma corruption case, c. 1999-present? Jlalbion (talk) 15:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Please could this English version of Jacob Zuma be linked to the Sesotho version (st). I do not have the necessary permissions to make the link.Phillip (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ptpare: Did you mean st:Jacob Zuma? I've just now linked it in the Wikidata entry: Jacob Zuma (Q57282), so it should appear now in the sidebar. Interlanguage links are now handled through Wikidata, see Help:Interlanguage links for information specifically about the interlanguage sidebar links. – Anon423 (talk) 05:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

It seems reasonable that section Corruption charges should be split into a separate page called something like Jacob Zuma corruption charges (or Jacob Zuma corruption trial? but so little of it has actually involved a trial). Analogously, there is already Jacob Zuma rape trial. Reasons in favour of the split might include:

  1. This page is very long and is getting unwieldy to edit.
  2. The section is long enough to be a separate article, and it is independently notable.
  3. In fact there are notable links between the trial and other events (the spy tapes saga, Thabo Mbeki’s resignation as president, the disbanding of the Scorpions) that are out of the scope of the Zuma page, and therefore aren’t fully discussed.
  4. There is maybe more detail in this section than someone looking for information about Zuma's life would be interested in.
  5. The section is likely to grow significantly longer when the trial resumes.

But I'm happy to defer to more experienced editors on this! Jlalbion (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

There was no engagement (and the SA politics wiki is quite quiet in general) so I went ahead with the split boldly. Jlalbion (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2022

SamuelBrian22 (talk) 12:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

It's to change his personal life status, I've found new information

To change his personal life status. New information revealed SamuelBrian22 (talk) 12:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jacob_Zuma/Archive_1&oldid=1170079268"