Talk:Jacob Zuma

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

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)

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Conservative Party?

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)