Talk:Crime Expo South Africa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

This article was nominated for deletion on August 4, 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

/Archive 1 (31 July 2006 - 30 September 2006):• People is trying to make this article one-sided • Controversy/Media Corruption Debate • Official 2010 FIFA World Cup Site • Notability Section • Interesting link I suggest adding • LINK REALSOUTHAFRICA?? • This link • Moneyweb article not to be deleted as Reference • Sabbotage of this website • External links • Thanks for help • vprotected? • WHY DO YOU REMOVE MY DISCUSSIONS ? • Rewrite of 16:39, 15 September 2006 • Proposal to channge title to Crime Expo South Africa • PREVIOUS VERSION RESTORED ON 16-09-2006|PREVIOUS VERSION RESTORED ON 16-09-2006|PREVIOUS VERSION RESTORED ON 16-09-2006 • The strong objection against this article (and complete information on it) can only be expected from: • Neutrality of article is disputed • Pieter Boshoff's anti-Crime Expo South Africa Campaign • Is Crime Expo really exposing the truth???

[edit] Recent events: closure of the site and accusations that it was all a scam

I've written in information provided in a series of articles by The Citizen newspaper, presenting in-depth investigations that they conducted into the matter. It seems likely that the whole thing was an elaborate scam by Juan Uys, in an effort either to make a lot of money, or to generate publicity for a stint in politics. Anyway, it will be interesting to see how things develop. -Kieran 19:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a feeling the citizen is a bit biased towards the whole thing - although I'm happy with the way you have presented the info in the article. Would be nice if we could get a viewpoint from the other side tho... SparrowsWing 19:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ATTENTION: Prospective sockpuppets

Please take a look at WP:SOCK. If you don't want anyone realising that you're yet-another-sockpuppet of Jackes, then you might consider working on other articles first (don't just pop out of nowhere and start with this one) and at least try not to sound the same as the other sockpuppets (even if you initially pretend to have a different agenda). That means you, Malanjacobs. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 13:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Zyxoas, sorry, but I'm getting very frustrated with NW and his supporters. I mean, NW himself is telling potential tourists that they will be "slaughtered and excecuted". It's nothing more than lies, but I agree, Wikipedia must inform - I actually think it's quite a balanced article. ;)

Go to this article and to its source, and see how the crime statistics is changed to suit the ruling government.

This isn't a soapbox for you to vent your spleen against the SA government. You can do that on the blog, but this is an encyclopedia. Also, could you please sign in and sign your posts? Thanks. --Guinnog 03:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is an encyclopedia and it should not be bias. The facts should speak for itself. You have made statements, and I provided references to the statements that you made. This is also not a place to promote the South African Government, by deleting information that they don't like.--NdlovuX 12:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moneyweb article

Reference is provided to the Moneyweb article. http://www.moneyweb.co.za/blogs/mike_stopforth/781476.htm During previous discutions it was mentioned that the Moneyweb Article is a Blog. A Reference link to this blog is made as proof of the International blogs that have articles on the Crime Expo SA website.--NdlovuX 22:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zunaid, Impi & Guinnog contributed nothing to this article

It is my opinion that the editors Zunaid, Impi & Guinnog had nothing to contribute to this article. The only contributions made was to delete information & links that provided references and information. They also deleted information on other articles related to South African crime & politics. All types of excuses are used to justify these actions, but it made articles one-sided. It appear as if they don't want the facts to speak for itself, but they sistematically delete information that (in my opinion) makes the articles one-sided. It also appear as if these editors are the same person (sockpuppets) working as a gang to delete information that is not in their political or other interest. These editors have not provided any information or references to this article, but only deleted information.--NdlovuX 12:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Do they need to contribute information or references to this article, to warrant their right to delete information from it if they feel they have good reason? Just a question. --WickedHorse 19:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

"The only contributions" I made are to balance articles in order to reflect Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy, which is one of the three core policies that every article MUST adhere to. I have repeatedly and endlessly asked editors, including yourself, to provide reliable references to statements made in this article. Information was "systematically deleted" because of a lack of reliable sources and POV pushing in certain cases, nothing more, nothing less. I would encourage you (again) to read the undue weight section of the NPOV policy. The fact that articles seem imbalanced to you is because that reflects the prevailing view of the available reliable sources. It might be instructive to read a just concluded POV dispute I was involved in over the Honda S2000 article. The Talk page archive and History shows the content dispute that raged there. It eventually required an arbitration case in order to settle the dispute. The fact is that even if there are numerous sources supporting a certain POV, it should only be given prominence in proportion to the majority POV, as reported in reliable sources. Zunaid 08:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I have posted your concerns at the Help desk for more discussion by a wider range of editors. One suggestion received so far is to consider dispute resolution measures if you feel strongly that we are in the wrong. Zunaid 10:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

NdlovuX, on Wikipedia, all users are termed "editors", not "contributors". The reason for this is that the editing process - deleting unnecessary, POV or incorrect information; cleaning up articles; and generally making those small edits that count - is just as important as the initial contribution of information that both creates and adds to articles. While I am an occasional contributor on stuff I know about (see my user page), I am primarily an editor, seeking to improve those Wikipedia articles that already exist. There is absolutely nothing wrong with, or improper about, people like me editing the article even though I have contributed nothing to it. Indeed, I would argue that the opposite is true: external editors are likely to be less emotionally attached to the content and will likely be more objective. Oh, and the claim about Zunaid, Guinnog and myself being sockpuppets of the same editor is just laughable, seeing as though you're free to check both my edit history and the articles I have created. Though I guess that's more difficult than just making a nebulous claim of "conspiracy!" — Impi 18:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd go further and say I am very proud of the work I have done in helping others to remove and enforce the removal of political propaganda from our encyclopedia. Have you, NdlovuX, ever contributed anything not related to bashing the SA government, under any of your identities? Maybe you should, because it seems you care too much about this issue to edit dispassionately. See also WP:OWN. --Guinnog 18:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SAISS placed the 2005/06 Official Crime Statistics into context

http://www.issafrica.org/index.php?link_id=5&slink_id=3752&link_type=12&slink_type=12&tmpl_id=3

This info more properly belongs in the Crime in South Africa article, not here. IMHO this article should discuss the website itself and related issues pertaining to the website. While providing some context into crime is useful to the reader, as it currently stands it contains too much detail and the article loses focus because of this. I will not revert just yet, but am interested in hearing others' opinions first. Zunaid©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 10:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I was tempted just to remove it, but I thought that might be unpopular with, ahem, some contributors to hte article, so I tried to bring balanced info from the source instead. I wouldn't have a problem with you removing it and moving it into the CiSA article instead, assuming it isn't there already. It'd be a shame if the work I did was completely wasted. --Guinnog 10:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Move to CiSA page as suggested. This article is about the website, not the subject of the website. --WickedHorse 11:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Good grief...the CiSA page is in quite a state as it stands, will need the same sort of ground-up rewrite to remove POV and unreferenced statements as one or two articles I've seen around. I'd say comment out the section so long, that way it is readily available for a cut-and-paste into CiSA when needed. I just don't have the time or bandwidth to do the research myself these days. Zunaid©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 11:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

References were made to websites that placed the situation in better perspective, but this article does a better job than tose websites. It should be mentioned here.

[edit] South African leaders tolerate plaque of violence

http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=2539 http://www.crimexposouthafrica.org/node/3415

There are several references in the Crime Expo website referring to the fact that SOUTH AFRICAN LEADERS TOLERATE PLAQUE OF VIOLENCE.

If you look at the info on these two websites, it is not putting the situation in perspective. The situation is placed into perspective by the SAISS. The SAISS placed the 2005/06 Official Crime Statistics into context in the following article: http://www.issafrica.org/index.php?link_id=5&slink_id=3752&link_type=12&slink_type=12&tmpl_id=3

Mention to these two websited does not belong in this article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.36.19 (talk • contribs)

Damn that plaque! They should probably brush better. — Impi 06:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL. --Guinnog 07:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• The Institute for Security studies is in a better position to evaluate the crime situation in South Africa, than individuals.--222.155.111.32 10:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Colgate does it all in one, mom. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 13:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Riaan (alias Pieter) Boshoff exposed

The motives and credibility of Riaan (alias Pieter) Boshoff is questioned after he lied under oath to the police when filing a case of “death threats” against CESA supporters. The real name of Pieter Boshoff is Riaan Boshoff. He is the co-owner of Boscor Internet Solutions and he has interests in the South African Tourism industry. Boshoff registered misleading domains in an attempt to confuse CESA supporters & Internet browsers.

http://www.crimexposouthafrica.org/node/3461

It should therefore be noted in this article, that the "perspective" brought by the website of Boshoff is highly questionable.

I took out the version that was there as it seemed to be a bit POV. Can you source this somewhere other than the website itself? --Guinnog 02:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

We should also consider WP:BLP. --Guinnog 03:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see how this qualifies as 'discrediting' Pieter Boshoff. The so-called research CESA conducted was nothing more than looking at the links from Boshoff's site and making the assumption that it reflects on him. Thus a link to a gay internet cafe suddenly becomes proof that Boshoff himself is gay, which is an incredibly ridiculous assumption. Indeed, it smacks of the kind of homophobic reasoning which decrees that anybody with gay friends and/or links to the gay community is, by extension, also gay. Further, I don't see how Boshoff's efforts in promoting South Africa abroad can be seen as a disqualifier for his views. Neil Watson's in the business of denigrating South Africa abroad whilst Boshoff's in the business of supporting South Africa abroad, so where's the difference? If we can use Boshoff's pro-SA efforts as a discrediting factor, then so too can we discredit Watson. Does CESA not realise this while they pump out their ad hominem (and slanderous) 'exposés'? — Impi 08:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

COMMENTS ON DELETED SECTION: Shaun Thompson stated on the CESA website that Boshoff has started a Jerry Springer type smear campaign against it, after CESA linked Boshoff with a guy website and child pornography. [1]

POV ISSUE ON THE ABOVE. ARTICLE NEEDS BALANCE!!!!!!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.17.176 (talk • contribs)

Go find a dictionary and look up a little thing called argumentum ad hominem, so that you may understand why CESA's pointless name-calling and mud-slinging do not invalidate Pieter Boshoff's statements or actions. Then I suggest you read through the comments section on CESA's "exposé" posts, in which Mr Boshoff is threatened with death or severe bodily harm on more than a few occasions (so much for CESA's claim that the death threats were a hoax). After which, I suggest you go back and read the article you just posted, in order to discover that none of the slanderous accusations are either sourced or backed up, forcing us to take CESA's word for it. (Riiiight). Finally, CESA has proved to be an unreliable source and as such fails Wikipedia's Reliable Sources guideline. Until you can back up your accusations with reliable sources, don't bother posting them here. We won't listen, no matter how many exclamation marks you use. — Impi 11:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Why use a dictionary? Wikipedia has everything!. You may also want to (or maybe you don't want to?) read up on logical fallacy. Zunaid©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 09:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Traffic to website

There should be a section pertaining statistics of traffic to the website.

On the website www.alexa.com, independent statistics was found on the traffic to the CESA website. This organisation is independent from CESA, and would therefore not benifit from any stats:

The Ranking of the CESA website is: 79348 http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.crimexposouthafrica.org

The lower the ranking, the more popular the website.

I think we should nominate this article for deletion again. It is a vanity article, whose purpose is to promote a website. Wizzy…☎ 09:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Posting content contained on CESA

Wikipedia is not a free web host. This article is about the website itself, not a reposting of the announcements made by the site. I have thus removed the additions to th lead-in section made by an anon, which was simply reposted content from the website. Zunaid©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 09:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The CESA website was started by Neil Watson. As from 7 November 2006, Shaun Thompson (USA-based) replaces Neil Watson as the international campaigns coordinator. Neil Watson becomes the USA-based CESA political advisor. This refer to the ownership of the website, and is therefore very relevant to this article. http://crimexposouthafrica.org/node/3458. The ownership of a website is very relevant to a website.--222.155.29.235 19:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CONTRAVERSIAL ISSUE

It is very clear that there is a need for the contraversial banner on this article. People opposed to the Crime Expo South Africa website, will try and vandilise this article in an attempt to systimatically remove information. It affects the neutrality of the article.

The facts cannot speak for itself when it is continuously being deleted.

Yes, you don't get any respect when you delete other peoples work Impi. THIS ARTICLE IS REVERTED TO INCLUDE SECTIONS DELETED BY IMPI. Neutrality disputed due to systematic deletion of information.

On certain issues there will never be consensus, because the only aim of certain editors is to delete information, whilst failing to provide new information.

[edit] Protection requested

There is continuous systematic removal of information to this article. (Blanking) The facts cannot speak for itself. There is people that are opposed to the Crime Expo South Africa website [2] that does not like this article due to personal reasons. They do not improve contents in the article, they just delete entire sections to make an article bias. The article is on a contraversial issue, and it is the reason for this reaction. There are many sockpuppets working together to vandilise the article, and it appears to be institutional vandalism, and not only individual editors.--222.155.2.141 04:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

If you continue to blatantly flout the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia, I daresay it won't be long before you find yourself temporarily banned from editing. Not only did you add a template which only administrators can or may add, but you have steadfastly refused to abide by Wikipedia's principle of Neutral Point of View while continuously insulting other editors. That is not, by any measure, editing in good faith.

The additions you keep trying to make to the article, for which you cry "vandalism" when removed, do not belong in a neutral Wikipedia article about CESA. The excess information about Shaun Thompson and the site's Alexa rankings do not add anything of value to the page, which is why very few of the articles on websites here feature sections on Alexa rankings. I have compromised, by adding that Shaun Thompson has joined Neil Watson, but don't expect Wikipedia to become CESA's news service. As for the ISS report, it belongs elsewhere. The purpose of the Wikipedia page on CESA is NOT to argue whether or not crime is indeed bad or being ignored, it's merely to report on the nature of CESA and the controversy surrounding it, nothing else. That is how an encyclopedia is supposed to work.

And I find your accusations of sock-puppetry puerile and pathetic. Every editor here has an editing history going back thousands of diverse edits over many months, making sock-puppetry impossible. This is because we have the conviction to register user names (unlike you and your IP) and have been involved in thousands of other articles and issues aside from this one (again, unlike you). But I suppose it's easier and more comfortable to make silly ad hominem attacks than debate the issues, in much the same way as your beloved CESA attempts to discredit Boshoff by making wild allegations about his supposed homosexuality - "He's gay! He can't be trusted!"

Lastly, I find it curious that you're so vehement about the crime issue in South Africa, considering the fact that you're currently in New Zealand. Yet you're perfectly happy to denigrate South Africa in any which way possible, making things more difficult for those of us who actually live here (unlike you and Shaun Thompson). What makes you so special, eh? — Impi 06:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

http://crimexposouthafrica.org/node/3528 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.40.138 (talk • contribs)

That's your reply? Wow, our arguments have been slayed by the detective work of CESA and its 'agents'! How can we overcome this terrible setback? (cue some theatrical eye-rolling). By the way, I'd suggest you read this morning's Citizen for both a clearing of Boshoff's name as well as some decidedly interesting facts about Neil Watson (or is Shaun Thompson?). Oh wait, that's right, you don't GET the Citizen because you're in New Zealand and not South Africa. Silly me. — Impi 09:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

What does The Citizen say? Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 13:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It's quite fascinating really, and I'm keen to see how it pans out. Essentially, the Citizen has found some interesting links between Neil Watson and Juan Uys, the head of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance (GLA). Now, the GLA is a shadowy group which continuously claims thousands of members and caused a massive controversy a short while ago when it claimed thousands of its members had secretly donated blood without revealing their sexual status, until further investigation discovered that Juan Uys was really its only member, making up sockpuppets to create the impression of further members. He was also allegedly arrested in 1999 for possession of child pornography and paedophilia. So anyway, it turns out the address used to register the Crime Expo site was 37 Strand Street in Cape Town, which is the GLA's reported address. More interestingly, when Watson was asked whether he would accept cheque donations he insisted that they be paid into the Standard Bank account of one "JD Uys". This has led to speculation that Watson and Uys are one and the same person, which at once might explain both the bizarre attacks on Boshoff's alleged homosexuality (projection, perhaps?) as well as Neil Watson's lack of desire to appear anywhere in person.

Further, it appears that Neil Watson and Shaun Thompson, the supposed new member of the CESA team, edit the site from the same IP address. Seeing as though Watson is supposed to be in Cape Town, and Thompson in the USA, this suggests strongly that Thompson is just another sockpuppet identity designed to deflect attention away from Watson. To add insult to injury, it appears that Watson lied when he claimed to have been an insurance broker, since he is not registered with the Financial Services Board (all past and present brokers must be registered with the FSB) while CESA does not have a tax registration number and all donations are paid into a private bank account, which may be a violation of SA's tax regulations. The Citizen also contacted the website in the Netherlands to which CESA has linked Pieter Boshoff, but it appears that the two Pieters are actually entirely different people and share only the same name. So much for the research from CESA's 'agents'.

At this point, I'd refrain from adding much of this information to the article, save perhaps for a mention of the story. This just broke today, and I have a feeling it has legs for at least a few more days during which more details will probably be forthcoming. It should be an interesting few days, I think. — Impi 19:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sock puppet editors uses dictator Robert Mugabe style censorship

It has become very clear that some editors are misusing their positions to delete “unwanted” information in the same way as the dictator Robert Mugabe have removed unwanted information by bombing newspapers that report on undeniable facts, but that is not his point of view.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20031028/ai_n12721183 http://www.iol.co.za/?click_id=68&art_id=ct20020712205958399Z5162727&set_id=1 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/01/30/wzim30.xml http://cryforzimbabwe.blogspot.com/2005/01/mugabe-signs-repressive-new-media-law.html

These editors do not have information to proof the given facts wrong; therefore they remove it, using all types of pathetic reasons. The sockpuppet(s) gang together to achieve this collective goal.

The latest comments provided is proof of the fact that the editors are bias (Pro Boshoff), and therefore it can be anticipated that they will remove any information that places facts into perspective. This is a typical method used in the African media. In Africa the media is not free, because the dictators does not like critics based on facts, like mentioned in this article:

South Africa's Free Media Have No Friend in Mbeki http://bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu/publication.cfm?program=ICP&ctype=article&item_id=464 These Robert Mugabe style editing has become part of this article, as well as on other articles written on Africa Politics- Well Africa is the continent of the Dictator Robert Mugabe !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.102.235 (talk • contribs)

Again, no attempt whatsoever to debate the issues or answer any of the pertinent questions. Just more of the same pathetic ad hominem attacks and vague accusations which prove nothing other than that you're one seriously paranoid person. Anybody who can look at four editors with thousands of diverse and substantive edits each and claim that they're sockpuppets has evidently got some serious psychological problems. Are you aware that you can pay people to sort that out for you?

Until you make a convincing case for why your information should be added to this article we will continue to revert the additions you make. I have explained above why they do not belong in the article, referring to existing Wikipedia guidelines and rules in my explanation, yet you reply with nothing except baseless insults. This is not just editing in bad faith, but it's the silly rantings of a person who is evidently unused to the idea of compromise or civility.

Indeed, I believe I have seen your type before. The disgruntled expat, living in a place like New Zealand and keen as hell to denigrate the 'old country' while telling everybody who'll listen just what a shithole the place you've left has become. To this end sites like CESA serve not as a method to reduce crime, but as a rallying point around which all the pessimists can amass, creating an echo chamber in which they can have their darkest predictions and perceptions about the home country verified by others like them. Never mind those of us who still live in South Africa, sharing a common desire to do whatever possible to bring the crime rate down so we may live ordinary lives in this beautiful country of ours. Whose side are you on anyway? — Impi 19:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I miss JackAss and the ElephantX man.

Interesting conspiracy theories there about Niel Retardedson. I never knew that the GLA claims were proven fraudulent (though I'm still not going to donate blood anytime soon -- I'm just not happy with the way the SANB are behaving, and what the hell is a "celibate homosexual" man anyway?). So the second dude is from America yet he has the same IP as Retardedson, who might also be the sole member of the GLA? Perhaps I should start reading The Citizen then, hey? Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 21:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Quite. Like I said, it should be an interesting few days. This morning CESA carried an announcement claiming that the original CESA team had been disbanded, to be replaced by a new and unrelated group calling themselves 'Team Fed-Up', allegedly retaining Neil Watson and Shaun Thompson on as advisors. They're also promising to 'reveal the truth' and institute legal action against the Citizen, which should make for fascinating news. After all, the Citizen's main source is a woman who was until recently the CESA site's moderator. Honestly, this is more entertaining than any soap opera plot and decidedly more bizarre. — Impi 07:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I would urge all "common sense" editors to stop engaging this WP:TROLL on any talk page as it does not facilitate improvement of articles and wastes time for everyone concerned. Please just ignore. Zunaid©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 13:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "This account has been suspended"

Ah well, it was fun while it lasted... You would think with all the loony tunes posting snippets from the Twilight zone there that some of them would at least donate some money to the site! Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 16:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The question now is, for how long do we leave the article in the present tense? I wonder if there are any WP guidelines for this. Ideally, some time, the article should be changed to the past tense, if the website remains down. --WickedHorse 16:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I would actually not have put that in just yet, and especially not used the word "currently". Preferably wait say two weeks before updating the article, and then use past tense. We shouldn't be updating articles "on the go" when it is something that may be transient or intermittent. I say revert so long, and update the week after next. Zunaid©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 16:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, the fact that the website service is suspended, is VERY relevant to this article, since there has been numerous rumours about the authenticity of Niel Watson and his true motives with the website, and that it is all a money making scheme, and once he has gathered enough "funds", he will simply run away with the money and leave the website account to expire / suspend / whatever (since he obviously won't pay any more money for its hosting). I did not mention these rumours in the article, maybe someone else with some reliable references to these rumours (!) can do that, but the bottom line is that the suspension of this website is not just "another website suspended", but an incident with significant relevance. Also, it has been alleged that the hosting is (or is not) very cheap, and questions were raised as to where the funds for the hosting service is derived from, so this subject alone already adds to the relevance of adding mention of the website suspension to this article. --WickedHorse 17:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Due to racist and abusive content, hey? I do remember a short while before the suspension seeing an unbecoming notice on the site asking for people to not post racist comments (in all capitals, naturally); of course, their understanding of "racist" obviously was not the same as that of their host.

Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 13:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Just found the following interesting article on News24.co.za: Cape Town - ID Cape Town leader Simon Grindrod on Thursday challenged Crime Expo SA founder Neil Watson to come out of hiding and explain the situation surrounding the closure of the site. "Now that I have pressed charges at Caledon Square Police Station, it would save the Commercial Crimes Unit considerable resources if Mr Watson, whoever he is, would come forward and explain what he has done with the money," says Grindrod. The Commercial Crime Unit agreed to investigate allegations that the Crime Expo SA website solicited money from the public without registering as a Section 21 company. "The ID has today asked police for an investigation into why monies donated were banked in a private bank account allegedly linked to Gay and Lesbian Alliance founder Juan Uys," Grindrod said. The site was suspended by the service provider for non-payment and was being investigated by an internet monitoring authority for carrying racist and offensive comments. "It is a scandal that someone is able to capitalise on the highly emotive issue of crime and then simply pocket money donated by the public in good faith," said Grindrod.

Link: http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_2034972,00.html

Should we place some of this information on the article? I think it is rather relevant. --WickedHorse 13:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The most recent edits to the article (between my last edit and today, 24 November 2006) come across as extremely POV and should be toned down appropriately. The article is now heavily skewed in taking an anti-CESA stance, and reports in far too much detail on this aspect. It is not necessary and not good encyclopedic style to repeat everything contained in the Citizen and other newspapers. A mention of the issues with a relevant reference to the newspapers is enough. Furthermore I think the Citizen is highly biased and sensationalist in its reporting, and don't feel it is appropriate to use it as a reference. Zunaid©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 08:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

A big 'Howzit' from the New CESA team, we're BTW on www.crimexposouthafrica.net - I'd like to discuss finishing off this extremely entertaining Crimex discussion by offering to liase with all of you about what should be kept and what should be ditched, then just bring it up to date with our new URL. I previously did modify the 'Gun Politics South Africa' section but feel this needs more attention. Nice reading all your posts. Please contact me on <email removed> if we can work together.
Martin Hedington
Team CESA
<contact details removed>
(Not a ficticious person, [like Watson] LOL!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin two (talk • contribs)

The URL is not working so I doubt the site is up again yet. As to the content of the article ("what should be kept and what should be ditched"), that is dictated by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on neutrality, verifiability from reliable sources and what Wikipedia is not amongst others, rather than what editors/owners/interested parties want or don't want represented in articles (except in the special case of biographies of living persons). I've removed your contact details from your post as they may be captured by web crawling software and used to spam you. It is NEVER a good idea to put your contact details anywhere on the web that is publicly accessible. Zunaid©® 09:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The new site

Is at http://crimexposouthafrica.net Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 10:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

That site gives a 404 - is this the correct URL? http://crimexposouthafrica.net. SparrowsWing _(talk) 23:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

wasn't grinrod wrong though? i don't see that featuring any ware! maybe we should create an article called ID grabbing any opportunity to may stupid comments and contradict themselves!

[edit] Correct spelling and URL of new CESA website

The CESA 2 website is available at http://crimexposouthafrica.net/crimexp/

Take note that there is only 1 "e" in the name, and that this error resulted in the error message of the above note.--Grasshut 09:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This link is not working. If there was ANY working CESA site anywhere, Google would surely have be able to find it. Since a search brings up nothing, I've removed the reference to the "new" site from the article. As and when CESA is relaunched, this article will be updated accordingly. Zunaid©® 11:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think that would be such a fantasticalisticationary idea.

This article is about the NOTABLE and ORIGINAL CESA site. The original site was controversial, caused various newspapers and high profile individuals to comment on it, and was part of a scandal perpetuated by its notable (and slightly imbalanced) owner. The "new" site is merely an insignificant copy with the same name -- there's no real reason to even mention it in a Wikipedia article, let alone change this article to pretend as if this is an ongoing event (it stopped several months ago).

Let's not confuse the two.

Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 12:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Court Appearance of Juan Uys

Mnr. Juan-Duval Uys appeared in court on 20 August 2007. The magistrate (Phindi Norman) stated that she was "confused and astounded” by the State's decision to refer the case back to the Director of Public Prosecutions, to decide if the prosecution of Uys is to continue. According to magistrate Phindi Norman there is no evidence against Mr. Uys. According to Uys, Neil Watson is in the USA and involved with a new website. [3][4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.127.58 (talk) 10:36, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalised information

CESA 2, www.crimexposouthafrica.net After the closure of the first CESA website, some former commentators decided to create a New CESA or CESA 2 (www.crimexposothafrica.net) and perpetuate the exposure of violent crime in South Africa.

A meeting between former commentators was held on 6 December 2006 in Pretoria and Wayne Möller was chosen to head the New CESA project. Mr. Juan Uys was invited to this meeting, but did not attend.

The members decided that the New CESA would be non racial, encourage diverse views on crime and that it would serve as a platform for all people to reasonably debate the crime situation in South Africa from all angles. It would further have a policy of transparency and core members would post under their real names.

On 11 December 2006, the day that Juan Uys was suppose to launch his political party at the IEC in Sunnyside, Pretoria, the New CESA 2 members gathered in front of the building, but Mr. Juan Uys did not show up and the CESA political party was never formed.

In an interview with Radio 702 and Beeld newspaper, Mr. Wayne Möller, the head of New CESA publicly distanced the New CESA 2 and its members from Mr. Juan Uys and the former website.

On 30 December 2006 the new website www.crimexposouthafrica.net went online and continues to expose the violent crime situation in South Africa, albeit in a controversial way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.174.135 (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:V and WP:NOR before posting this to the article again. Information in Wikipedia must come from previously published sources, not first-hand accounts. I've twice reverted your edits. Zunaid©® 07:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)