Talk:Crime Expo South Africa/Archive 1

Archive 1

People is trying to make this article one-sided

There is people that want to make this article one-sided. They want to remove any information that shows that tourists have the right to be informed about the crime in South Africa. One sided information on this article is promoted.

Controversy/Media Corruption Debate

Another source was added. It appears as if there is a deliberate attempt to sabotage this article. More additional reliable media sources will be added in due course. There was also a BBC program about Crime Expo SA.

The South African media (media 24 is the largest newspaper / media group in South Africa) reported about the Crime Expo SA website before it was launched.

The name of the Crime Expo SA website changed from a .co.za website to a .org website.

Therefore the name changed from http://www.crimexposouthafrica.co.za/ to http://www.crimexposouthafrica.org/

Herewith the additional source:

http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_1964283,00.html

The logo of Crime Expo SA Needs to be added to this section.

The meaning of the word "exasperated" (greatly annoyed; out of patience) was obtained from TheSage English Dictionary and Thesaurus. (It is a complete dictionary and a multifaceted thesaurus of the English language.)

Which section of this page refer to "Advertising or other spam". What needs to be removed?

Pretty much the whole thing. Just because there is a website (run, apparently by one guy), doesn't mean Wikipedia has to have an article on it. See Wikipedia:Notability for details.

Could you please sign, by typing four tildes (~~~~) so I know who I'm talking to? Thanks. --Guinnog 01:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Guinnog. I do not agree with you. Please be precise in the areas that you do not agree with. I have a problem with your comment "run, apparently by one guy". This was probably a derogative /negative statement made by an official that is against the Crime Expo website for personal reasons. It is personal opinion, and does not belong here. Microsoft was also founded by an Individual, if that is your problem, then delete the Microsoft web page. It appear as if Crime Expo have 2 moderators at the present moment. It does not include the owner. The website received attention from BBC and CNN. BBC America had a discussion on this website. Mark 01:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, ok, you don't agree with me. If it gets to be as famous as Microsoft, your soapbox will have more legitimacy. As it is, the article is just using Wikipedia for free advertising, something our policy forbids. Are you connected with the organisation? --Guinnog 02:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not associated with Crime Expo. It is your opinion that this is a soapbox. The Microsoft website is then also a soapbox, as is the FIFA article, etc. I have noted that when the first version was submitted, there was an argument that there is to little reference. The moment that more references were provided, this article received other critisism. To date you have made no constructive contribution.

What is your connection with Wikipedia? Mark 02:50, 4 August 2006

Delete this article. Wipe it off the face of the Earth, and list crimeexposa.org as official spam not welcome on Wikipedia (such as those Nigerian mooo.com sites). South African editors are tired of this nonsense. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 14:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This will be a test for the impartiality of Wikipedia. I believe the South African editors is also tired of the farm murders section. This section is marked controversial and it appear to be correct.--Jackes 07:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

No Single person has made any constructive remark why this site should be removed. It appear as if personal opinion is the reason for requesting the removal. This does not belong here. I sincerely hope that Wikipedia have editors that is reliable and independent. --Jackes 08:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The comment made by Zyxoas "Delete this article. Wipe it off the face of the Earth" is offenseive and consititutes hate speech. This is not a neutral point of view. Please indicate the reasons why you say that the Crime Expo Article is spam. You do not give reasons for your statement. It would be ipropriate to ask your South African "friends" at wikipedia to delete this article, because they will then biast and not neutral. Neutral editors is required. --222.152.236.27 12:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

"Hate speech"!? That's funny. Doesn't it strike you as perhaps being a slight tad on the somewhat mildly perculiar side that none of the South African editors (the ones who are getting hijacked, robbed, raped, and killed daily) thinks that this article and site are appropriate? Actually, don't answer that, I wouldn't want you thinking that I want to discuss this with you, or something... Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen (unless if it has something to do with Crime Expo SA, THEN DON'T BOTHER)) 12:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I want to answer yopu to your comment: "none of the South African editors (the ones who are getting hijacked, robbed, raped, and killed daily) thinks that this article and site are appropriate?" Well the ANC government is currently controlling the media in South Africa. The editors are not allowed to write freely, or if they do, the information is not published. It is under the same ANC Government that all these crimes are committed. The media is not free. The crime statistics show a differnt story.--Jackes 08:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You have nothing to contribute to this article, other than hate speech. Therefore your comments should be ignored. It is also not neutral.--210.86.107.71 02:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

After examining the Crime Expo website, the conclusion can be made that it try to expose crime in South Africa. People that are against this website, would therefore be against people that expose crime. Criminals and people favouring genocide, murder, rape would therefore be opposed to this website. Another group of people that is against the website is people from the tourist industry that does not want any negative reporting because it may affect their business. The argument is that when tourists are informed about the crime situation in South Africa, the tourist may decide not to visit South Africa, costing the tourist industry money. Tourists should however have freedom of access to information.--222.152.243.172 05:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

This page is in dire need of some sanity. Anon's comments about "hate speech" are a case in point: It is not hate speech, nor could it ever be considered hate speech, to suggest that a website be erased. "Hate speech" applies only to speech that poses a threat to, or incites violence against, a person or a group of people. And Jackes, not only have you missed the point, but you appear to be spectacularly uninformed.

First, Zyxoas was referring to the S.African editors of Wikipedia, meaning people like myself. I have been hijacked, mugged and held-up (unlike Neil Watson, I might add), and I sure as hell don't think the site is appropriate. I'm as desperate to see the country's high crime rate reduced as anybody else is, but I do not think CrimeExpo SA is the correct way to achieve this. Rather than offering up a solution, a new way of looking at the problem or even a way to aggregate crime data, the site has set out to do one thing and one thing only: To hurt SA economically. The thing is, any half-way intelligent person knows that a growing economy is the only way we're going to have any chance of bringing the rate of crime down and that causing the economy to suffer will probably cause the crime rate to go up, not down. Or is this what Mr Watson actually wants?

Secondly, you're delusional if you really believe that "The editors are not allowed to write freely, or if they do, the information is not published." Unlike the situation before 1994, South Africa today has a free press with zero government censorship. Editors may publish what they like when they like, while the government is forbidden by law from interfering. Indeed, Neil Watson is allowed to continue operating his site unhindered despite the fact that he's a S.African citizen and his site is hosted in SA. But yet you cry censorship? Do you realise how silly this makes you sound? — Impi 00:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Impi, please read this article.--Jackes 06:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

State of media freedom in South Africa of great concern--Jackes 08:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This refers only to one case of govt interference which has not even taken place yet. The other areas of concern are judicial rulings (in which the govt may not interfere) and the use of civil lawsuits, which again the govt cannot fairly prevent. This takes place on a daily basis.

• I am not dilutional that the editors are not allowed to write what they want. Proof me wrong. Give me the statistics of the time opposition politicians have to view their point of view on SA TV. This must include the DA, IFP, ID, VF+, and the small ones. Even Eugene Terblanche must be allowes to view his point of view if the media is free and open.

How on earth do you go from speaking about news editors to complaining about the SABC? But I digress, there's no censorship of these people, even such scum as Terreblanche. While he doesn't get as much airtime as Mbeki (big surprise there), he's certainly not prevented from airing his views when he actually has something to say. Similarly, the major newspapers regularly carry columns from politicians on all side of the political spectrum. This is absolute nonsense, ask the Freedom Front Plus.

• Crime Expo is not the public media. The public media include the SABC and the main newspapers.

Actually, CE forms part of the public media, and it would certainly be subject to any censorship that existed. Yet Neil Watson is allowed to operate his site unhindered and the government does not harass him. So much for censorship.

• The public media is controlled in SA. This include the SABC, newspapers, etc.

Nonsense, only the SABC is state-owned and controlled. All the major newspapers, e-TV and 702 (amongst others) are independent and free from government control. This is also nonsense.

• I believe the fact that the SA media is not open, is a reason why the crime EXPO website was created. Carte Blanche stop reporting on farm murders. They stop reporting on corruption in government. Why?

Carte Blanche stopped reporting on farm murders because A) The rate has gone down, and B) They wanted to move on to other stories. Besides, I don't see your point here, Carte Blanche is produced by Multichoice, an independent company. As for the claim that the local media has stopped reporting on government corruption, well which planet are you living on? I guess the continued Arms Deal coverage and wall-to-wall coverage of the Zuma trial are a figment of our imaginations, eh? It is nonsense that crime has gone down in SA. Farm murders is genocide that is kept quite. Zuma trial is politics to prevent him from becoming president.

• How do you grow an economy with corruption in government?

Corruption does harm growth, but it's not as if SA's all that bad when it comes to corruption. While it's a concern, our recent growth rate spike is proof enough that it's not exactly crippling our economy. How do you explain the 50%+ unemployment in a good economy.

• Do you know that newspapers that expose corrupt officials help the economy? How many corrupt officials was exposed by the SA newspapers? List them here.

Nobody said there should be no reporting on crime and corruption. The debate here is what the best approach to reporting on crime and solving it is. Crime is already reported in massive detail, there's no need for some shock site displaying graphic and disturbing images of dubious origin, and myself and many others believe Crime Expo SA will do less to help solve the crime problem than other approaches, and it might actually make it worse. You did not answer the question.

• Give me a list of new TV programs in Afrikaans.

Not relevant to this discussion. Besides, what percentage of the population is the Afrikaner minority in SA? You did not answer the question. Is it because you cannot answer this question?

• Public debate is completely removed from SABC TV. There is no true debate where sufficient time is allowed for persons to view there point of view without interruption or negative comments from the presenters.

SABC TV does not equal SA's media. In any case, how often does Tony Blair appear in televised debates with his opponents? I've yet to see one, and the reason is that SA and Britain both have Parliamentary systems where the President/Prime Minister has to appear regularly before Parliament and answer questions about his actions and policies. While I think public debates in the US style might not be a bad thing, it's ludicrous to claim that their absence implies censorship. Yes, the are absent because they are not allowed on the SABC.

• How many TV presenters does the SABC TV have that is not ANC supporters? Please list their names?

This is ridiculous. How is anybody supposed to know the political preferences of those working for the SABC or any other organisation? You might as well ask how many of the BBC's presenters voted Labour or Tory; it's a dumb question to ask and an impossible one to answer.

• Please provide a list of public debates between Mbeki and the opposition on TV?

See above. You did not answer the question. List all the public debates between Mbeki & opposition politicians, oh I remember Mbeki said he is of a to high status to debate with others when Tony Leon asked for a open debate.--Jackes 10:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC) The SABC TV presenters is openly in favour of the ANC.

• Write a article from a right wing perspective and try to publish it in one of the public newspapers, or try to have a program on this. I dare you to do this one as an experiment.

Right, so that's why Dan Roodt and other right-wingers don't get their overly-long letters published? Oh, wait, they do. Oops. Yeh, right! If one letter appear, then you say the media is free.

• Write an article from a left wing perspective any try to publish is.

See which one is published.

See above. Besides, this is irrelevant: Our discussion is about government censorship, not the political stance of media organisations.

• On which SA newspaper /TV program did you see the video where mandela sings to kill whites? [1] This is promoting violence against whites, and should be publicly condemned. Please provide links to newspaper articles in SA that condemn this. If the media was free, articles should have been written about it.

Um, this is old material, as in pre-1994 old. Any newspapers that reported on it then will not have it in their online archives. That aside, I don't see what the big deal is. Not only did Mandela not sing along during the controversial bit (watch his lips), but it's worth noting that in the parlance of MK fighters "Boere" was used most often to refer not to all whites but to the police and defence force. Hence the alert, heard often in the townships, of "the Boere are coming!" even though the police and soldiers deployed were often black. Fact is, the ANC was not a racist organisation (as opposed to the PAC), and it had many white members in its ranks such as Erwin, Kasrils and others. Kasrils is a Jew and not white- this explain why is is singing. Mandela never publicly condemned violence. The ANC is a revolutionary political organisation. It cannot be revolutionary without promoting violence. You did not answer the question: "Please provide links to newspaper articles in SA that condemn this" Mandela singing to kill whites.

• I think you are dilutional to think the SA media is free.--Jackes 13:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

In this entire piece, you have not presented a single piece of evidence to prove that the SA media is not free. Instead, you have veered off into non-sequiturs about Afrikaner TV shows and the like, seemingly in an attempt to confuse the issue. So I'll ask you again: Can you prove that the SA media is not free, meaning that it is subject to serious and systematic government censorship? If you cannot, I suggest you withdraw the claim. — Impi 18:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Impi, please read this article.--Jackes 06:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The South African media is going in the same direction as the media in Zimbabwe. --Jackes 11:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let's try organise this somewhat. First of all, I have read the Harvard link, and once again I need to point out that it refers only to the SABC and then only to a proposed change. Sure, it's not exactly a great thing, but it does not amount to censorship of the independent media in SA. You seem to be reluctant to admit this, but there's a massive difference between discussing the SABC (which is government-owned and controlled) and discussing the independent media in SA, which is vibrant and free. You're attempting to focus on the SABC's deficiencies while extrapolating them as an example for all media in SA, a move that's patently ridiculous. For that reason, it doesn't matter how many Afrikaans programs the SABC has or similar issues, instead the important question whether SA's media is free or not. You claimed it wasn't, and yet you provide absolutely zero evidence about government control of independent media such as 702, eTV and the major newspapers. Stop obscuring the issue with your off-topic attempts at political point-scoring and provide evidence for your claim that SA's media is government-controlled and censored, or withdraw the claim. It's as simple as that. — Impi 12:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Look at the Wikipedia internal link Media in South Africa--Jackes 04:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

"However, there has also been criticism of certain aspects of the freedom of the press in South Africa. It has been pointed out that almost all the large daily newspapers are owned by just four large media firms, which could lead to pro-Corporate bias. In addition, the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC), which is the state broadcaster, is argued by many to carry a fairly strong pro-ruling party (African National Congress (ANC)) bias, especially considering the fact that the majority of its management and executive staff are either ANC members or ANC aligned."

"Some media aspects of the Oilgate scandal [1] have also been a cause for concern as was the banning of the publication of the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in South Africa by Judge Mohammed Jajbhay on 3 February 2006"

South claim to be a democracy. A conception of democracy is that it is majority rule and is justified under utilitarian reasoning. The advantanges of democracy seen under this conception is that the majority of the population are satisfied with the governance they live under. The disadvantage is that the minority live under the power of the majority sometimes termed the tyranny of the majority, or mob rule. This can lead to the marginalisation of large portions of a population if the will of the majority is not restrained by a strong and just constitution and legal system. Black Economic Empowerment and Affirmative action is discrimination against the minority in South Africa, and justified by the ANC majority.

• Threaths to SABC’s independence are symptomatic of a wider trend in media control

• Article of Cosatu on "Capitalism and Social Oppression" Cosatu, the African National Congress and the South African Communist party is in alliance.

Official 2010 FIFA World Cup Site

http://www.2010cup.co.za/ is not the official web site for the world cup. I have removed the link from this page as it is misleading. The official web site appears to be this site for now: [2] --Rballou 21:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Notability Section

I have removed one link about that claimed to be to the official South Africa web site for the world cup. I have commented out another link because it claims to be part of the "Citzen newspaper", but actually redirects to the blog section of a web site [3]. Reinstate this link correctly if it is appropriate for this page. --Rballou 21:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting link I suggest adding

Since this "article" is nothing but a badly written editorial plus a whole bunch of links to external sites, I suggest spicing it up with a link to this page; you know - "NPOV" and all that jazz. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 00:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

LINK REALSOUTHAFRICA??

This link is nothing but advertising!!

This link

[4] is a pay site. A free one would be very much preferable. --Guinnog 20:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Moneyweb article not to be deleted as Reference

A article redirected from the Citizen was previously deleted. This article contains very useful information and references, and should therefore NOT be deleted. Persons againt, or critics of the Crime Expo SA article should want to have it deleted because of its value. The title of the article is: "Crime doesn't pay. Or does it?" It was written by Mike Stopforth

http://www.moneyweb.co.za/blogs/mike_stopforth/781476.htm

Firstly, sign your posts to the talk page using four tildes so we know who is commenting. Secondly, I have nothing against the Crime Expo SA, I do have trouble understanding why the page remains pourly formatted and why my changes to try to help the page are constantly removed and are considered "vandalism". Thank you for correctly attributing this article, nonetheless. --Rballou 01:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Sabbotage of this website

There is constant people deleting sections of this article. It appear as if it is people that is opposed to the existance of this website. They want to remove any critical aomments. This article is in need of protection against vandalism.--NdlovuX 23:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Requests for protection go to WP:RFPP, but this article has suffered little or no vandalism so will not be protected. --pgk^(talk) 23:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Sections of the article is deleted without obtaining consensus on it. Sections written is deleted. Links to references is also being deleted without proper discussion or consensus.--NdlovuX 23:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss your specific issues here. I hope I haven't annoyed you with any of the trims I've done. I think I can justify all the edits I made, but welcome discussion if you disagree with me. --Guinnog 23:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Mnumzala Ndlovu, siyakunamukela lapha kwiWikipedia! Mina ngibona ingathi wena uyena uJackes kodwa ucabange ukuthi uma ungasebenzisa igama lesiZulu muhlawumbe abantu bazakuyegela. Inkinga ukuthi mina angikholwe ukuthi uyasikhuluma isiZulu, futhi ubala isiNgisi ingathi uyena uJackes. Uyazi, yisono ngawe mntana'bantu! Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 23:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

And I repeat what I said to you in your user page, NdlovuX. Very well done for your work in balancing and broadening the article. My edits of your edits weren't intended against you, but to make the article better by introducing references, deleting that which was unverifiable, and cleaning up the English a bit. As above, any specific points I will gladly discuss with you here.

Dumela Zyxoas. I'd be delighted if you would translate the above into Sekgoa, even in summary. Tsamaya sentle, rra. --Guinnog 23:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Jackes/NdlovuX might like to have a look @ WP:SOCK. Btw, if you're leaving (which, idiomatically, is what happens when you sign your name after leaving a comment) then you'd say "sala sentle". You used to live in Botswana, right? Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 00:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I was assuming that someone with the name "Ndlovu" would understand isiZulu... Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 00:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry. Yes, I taught there for two years in the 80s. It was a long time ago and my Setswana has not been used in a while. 'Sala sentle' was clearly what I meant. For what it's worth, I thought it looked wrong the moment I posted it. My Zulu was restricted to 'Sabona', sadly, it sounds a beautiful language. I totally see the point you are maknig now. --Guinnog 00:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. It's "sawubona" ("we see you") in isiZulu. I neglected to tell you that I made a mistake when I corrected you earlier. "A o itse Setswana" is correct in Setswana but I misread it as the incorrect "O a itse Setswana" since in Sesotho "A X" is not a valid question (rather "Na X", "X na" and "A na X"). Sorry about that. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 08:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

External links

I have updated one of the external links to demonstrate how I think the external links should be worded. They should include the author as well, but the BBC article did not disclose an author. I believe this should be done because several of the article titles are suggestive about the nature and controversy around this site. Nonetheless, check Wikipedia:Cite your sources for more information on how you can improve this article. Thanks. --Rballou 02:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Also you should remove the external links to foreign web sites unless it meets the following criteria: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Foreign-language sites. I do not think these links meet this criteria. --Rballou 16:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for help

Thanks for helping improving this article. There is a lot of information available to improve this article. information for and against this article should be provided to make it as balanced as possible.--NdlovuX 04:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Guinnog, I was busy editing when information is deleted. I was still looking for additional references when information was already being deleted. It sometimes takes some time to find the appropriate references in a short perios of time. I want to thank you for contributions made. --NdlovuX 04:40, 20 August 2006

vprotected?

When was this article "protected"? By whom? Because of what "vandalism"? If it is indeed protected, then how can The Elephant Man continue to add thin, unsubstantial filling to it? Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 07:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing the tag as I see no evidence for it. --Guinnog 09:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

WHY DO YOU REMOVE MY DISCUSSIONS ?

It is very clear that people is trying to make this article one-sided by removing information that I have placed.

I has a discussion here that was deleted? Why? Are you corrupt?--NdlovuX 23:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Which discussion do you believe was deleted? Who do you think deleted it? And why do you think this article merits the controversial tag? Please remain WP:CIVIL when discussing changes to an article; focussing on properly referenced NPOV additions we can make to the article would be more productive than these general attacks on other editors. Thanks --Guinnog 23:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• The article was made one sided by removing information from it. Guinnog, you trimmed a previous heading and just made it tourism. Now that link was removed and joined under another heading, that is anti-crime expo. The person that removed the information, did not contribute anything positively, or constuctively to this article. They only delete information that they don't like- for personal reasons, and not to write a good article.--NdlovuX 00:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• All the "pro" crime expo links are deleted all the time, so that just the anti- crime expo links remain. This makes the article one-sided and unbalanced. I have added pro- and against- crime expo SA links, and the only the pro- crime expo links gets deleted without reason. It is uncivilised to remove justifiable information in an attemp to make the article one-sided.--NdlovuX 00:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• I believe personal opinion is starting to take over in this article. The controversial banner should be placed on this article for obvious reasons. (There is pro- and agains - crime expo points of views, and all the pro- crime expo links gets deleted. Links that shows that tourists have the right to be informed about the crime in SA is also being deleted. Why?--NdlovuX 00:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• No reasons are given in the edit summary why links should be deleted.--NdlovuX 00:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• No reasons are given in the discussion summary why links are deleted.--NdlovuX 00:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You as Guinnog edited the article yourselves, and now that work is being deleted in an one sided attempt to distort the article. I think we should restore it to the previous version.--NdlovuX 00:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you referring to the work that I did? If so my user name is Rballou and you should not blame Guinnog for my edits. Again, if you are referring to my edits, then you should note that every single one has an explaination of why the edits were made. To expalin a bit farther here: 1) I compacted several facts into fewer sections because several sections only had one sentence in them. Case and point: [5]. Notice that "Alternatives to the Crime Expo SA website" only has one sentence in it that does not actual constitute any information. The purpose of the sentence is solely to link to outside information. If alternatives were suggested in the article, they should be explained here with the citation. From Wikipedia:Guide to layout: "Just as for paragraphs, sections and subsections that are very short will make the article look cluttered and inhibit the flow. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading, and in these circumstances, it may be preferable to use bullet points." 2) I removed the Tourism section (see the link above) because it repeated the same information that was available in the Travel Industry section (which was above it in the article, so I removed the tourism section). If I mistakenly deleted a link, please add it to my changes. Or revert. Note that I am trying to give you and other editors ideas on how I think the article can be improved. I gain nothing and frankly do not care to gain anything by editing this article. My primary interest in this article came from the spamming that was occuring on the 2010 World Cup page. In fact, I'm done working on this article. Best of luck. --Rballou 02:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Rballou, I have restored the article. Would you and others please stop deleting sections of this article. Why did you remove the link to the Crime Expo Website? Please express your concerns here before you delete sections of the article.--NdlovuX 03:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Rballou, Please try to contribute by finding information to alternatives to the Crime Expo SA website. Everybody shouts that there is no need to the website, but can you list the alternatives?--NdlovuX 03:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Rballou, I have no problem to the link you placed that refered to crime in South Africa. This can be incorporated, but it has no purpose to make the article one-sided by removing selective sections of the article. Rather find proper references to alternatives for the Crime Expo SA website. This section did not have a lot of information because I was still looking for it.--NdlovuX 03:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

NdlovuX, I'm done working on this article for now. The article for this web site isn't something I'm interested in working on right now. I think some of the links to Wikipedia:Manual of Style articles that can be found on this talk page will explain everything that I was trying to do. Good luck. --Rballou 13:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

NdlovuX, I'm disappointed you have restored what seems to me a less good version of the article. I request you read Rballou's lengthy explanation of changes made, followed by the links to MoS, and see if you can appreciate why the changes made were valid. --Guinnog 13:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite of 16:39, 15 September 2006

I've rewritten the article, using what was already there and what I could find from the references. Changelog:

1. Removed LOTS of weaseling and narrative from the article to give it a more "arm's length" and neutral feel (i.e. reporting ON the website itself rather than reporting WHAT the website SAYS).
2. Removed any quotes or statements referenced to blogs. They are NOT reliable sources.
3. Removed the "Logo" subsection, it does not serve an editorial purpose in the article itself.
4. Condensed and combined the various criticism sections into one section titled "Reaction".
5. Lumped the "Anti" websites into a "Response" section only mentioning the most prominent two and leaving out blogs as per above.
6. Removed the section "Crime Expo SA warning to Tourists". As mentioned above an encyclopedia article should report ON the website, not report the website's CONTENT.
7. (in conjunction with the next point) Created a "Press coverage" section to give some idea as to how far the story has been carried internationally.
8. (in conjunction with the previous point) Removed the External links section as all the stories covered are sourced from the SAME Reuters article. Created a "Press coverage" section instead to simply list the different INTERNATIONAL media that have carried it (that the story has been carried in local media is not "encyclopaedic" information to the casual reader).
9. Formatted all the references using the "footnote" style. I think it looks nicer.
10. Removed multiple references to the same article or website.

Zunaid 14:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice work. Well done. --Guinnog 15:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. Wizzy…☎ 15:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :) However I now have a small concern. The article coverage is now biased against Crime Expo SA. However this is not necessarily a WP:NPOV violation, as I have not been able to find reliable sources (i.e. news stories, NOT blogs and NOT the website itself) in support of the site. If anyone can dig up something RELIABLE please add the info to the "Reaction" section. Zunaid 15:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to channge title to Crime Expo South Africa

Since the site has changed its name the article should too. Someone be bold please! Zunaid 15:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Guinnog 15:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem to change the title to "Crime Expo South Africa".--NdlovuX 10:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

PREVIOUS VERSION RESTORED ON 16-09-2006

The article was made one sided by deleting important information. No references was provoided for statements made: e.g. on Reuters There is continuous attempts to make the article one-sided, and all kinds of excuses are used to justify it. Information that should be in the article include:

• Crime Expo SA claim that the "The South African Tourist industry" does not inform tourists about the crime in South Africa. They just show the "positive side" without showing the negatives.
• Articles that are "pro-Crime Expo", or have reference to it is deleted or removed from this article. Both pro- and against articles should have equal mention in this article.--NdlovuX 10:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• There is continuous attempts to try and discredit any information in this article that is "Pro- Crime Expo South Africa". Are none of you guys capable of writing a balanced article? , or are you part of the South African Tourism industry, and therefore trying to discredit Crime Expo SA? All I want to do is to create a good article, but it cannot be done when the article is continuouly being changed into a one-sided and ant- crime expo SA article. You can rather list all the negative aspects under the heading created for it.
• There should be mention made to the FIFA 2010 world cup. From the available media it is clear that the Crime Expo SA was created to warn FIFA supporters about the crime in South Africa.--NdlovuX 10:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• There will be politicians that would like to have this article removed from wikipedia, especially those whom are embarressed by Crime Expo SA. These politicians are trying their best to discredit crime Expo SA.
• Wikipedia should only have articles that are unbiast, and it should have references to both sides of a story, therefore the pro- and against sections in the article. Persons against this article should not be allowed to remove certain sections in an attempt to make the article 1-sided. It will affect the credibility of Wikipedia. It is very clear that there have been many attempts to make this article 1-sided.--NdlovuX 10:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Politicians and their supporters want to "sabotage" this article.

• These comments were made in the article: "The Crime Expo SA website is an embarrassment towards politicians responsible for safety and security in South Africa. Supporters of these politicians may also be opposed to the website, and would therefore express their criticism. These individuals would prefer not to have any exposure of crimes committed in South Africa." These persons would also like to "sabotage" this article, and they would like to have a one sided Wikipedia article- that discredit Crime Expo SA.--NdlovuX 10:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted back to Zunaid's version above as the changes made are thoroughly explained in the section above. Rather than trying to maintain substantially the version that was so poorly written that it only just survived the AfD not so long ago, the way forward for you if you feel the article is now biassed, is to add properly-referenced material (in line with WP:V) to balance it. I am not happy with having what seems like an advert for the views of this marginal scare site on our encyclopedia, I hope you understand that.

Your relentless failure to assume good faith on the part of other editors is also noted. Please desist; working productively with other editors to improve the article should be your goal here. --Guinnog 11:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• NdlovuX, do you have any RELIABLE reference (i.e. news article or editorial) for your statement about politicians' embarassment? If so please add it back in and add the reference too. I certainly hope you're not accusing me of supporting politicians (for the record I don't, I haven't seen any evidence that any of them (ANC, DA, ID or any other for that matter) are not there but for their own gain). I've been a Wikipedia editor for over a year and all I'm doing is making sure the article follows the policies and guidelines of the 'pedia. I do pretty much the same for any article I come across when I have the time (see my contributions to Bergie, South African Farmer Murders, Honda S2000, Mazda RX-8 and Nissan 350Z for example, all articles which I have at one point extensively rewritten or helped with editing, by hunting down reliable references and removing unsourced statements). The ONLY reason the statement was removed was because there was no RELIABLE reference for it. WP:RS and WP:V both refer here. I MYSELF raised concerns about bias in the article (see above). I'm hoping someone has more luck than me tracking down a good reference that shows support for the website, because all I've found are blogs and forums, which are NOT considered reliable references. I also removed references to one particular Moneyweb blog which was extremely ATTACKING of Crime Expo, for not being a reliable source. To echo Guinnog, if you have concerns about the article, IMPROVE THE ARTICLE through adding reliable information, DON'T ATTACK OR ACCUSE other editors of having an agenda. Zunaid 13:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC) I believe you have an agenda on this article. I believie you are trying your best to make this article one-sided by removing information that you don't like for your own personal reasons.--219.89.59.168 21:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Zunaid, I have a problem with the method in which you work. Your involvement with this article, as well as the "The South African Farmer Murders" section is very intersting.--219.89.59.168 21:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Zunaid, you made this article one-sided, and your version of this article is extremely poorly written & one sided. It appear as if you don't like the sources provided, and now you want to discredit them. It is your own personal opinion. The large media houses reported on Crime Expo SA, and it appears as if you don't like it, because of your own agenda's. It appear as if this article hit on a raw nurve that you don't like for your own personal reasons.--219.89.59.168 21:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

219, you may want to read Zunaid's careful description above about why the edits were made, and my agreement above. As I said to NdlovuX, if you want to include any properly-referenced info to balance the article, that is fine. Trying to make it the shabby soapbox it was before will only be reverted though. --Guinnog 21:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

As I said, trying to revert to a poorer version will not work. Why not argue it out here instead, point by point, with reference to policy, and answering Zunaid's points above? Please try to assume good faith as well. --Guinnog 21:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

IT'S THE ATTACK OF THE MUTANT SOCK PUPPETS!!1! RUN WHILE YOU STILL CAN!!!!eleven!! Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 05:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC) ARE YOU A "CRIMINAL" FROM WHICH PEOPLE MUST "RUN WHILE YOU STILL CAN"? THIS MAY EXPLAIN THE 'CONTRIBUTIONS' YOU HAVE MADE TO THIS ARTICLE.--219.89.59.168 02:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Guinnog, I am disappointed by you making this article one-sided, by deleting properly written sections and replacing it by a one sided version without proper reference. You state that sections are blogs, when information was taken from leading newspapers. Therefore I strongly condemn your actions.

The strong objection against this article (and complete information on it) can only be expected from:

1. Criminals & their supporters. 2. ANC, ID, etc. politicians & Their supporters- especially those in favour of crime, or those whom does not like the exposure of facts as exposed by the Crime Expo SA website. Not all ANC supporters are in favour of crime, but some are. 3. The SA tourism industry want to hide some of the information that the Crime Expo SA website exposes to the world. Strong reaction can be expected from individuals in this field. 4. FIFA supporters- that does not want the public to know the truth. As the reference to the book 'FOUL' showed that "men in suits" are more interested in profit made from games, than for the intersts of FIFA supporters. 5. The treads above indicate the type of persons we are dealing with here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.59.168 (talk • contribs)

Neutrality of article is disputed

I have a problem with the neutrality of this article. A more neutral version is constantly being deleted, and replaced with a poorer version that is incomplete and where information is omitted in an attempt to make the article biast. I believe by deleting information the persons behind the deletions are trying to remove information from the article they don't like. An article may be found on an blog, but it was originally posted by a leading newspaper. The aim of this article is to provide an overview of the Crime Expo SA article, with the reasons for its creation, and critisism of the website.

The reasons why it was created, and information supporting it should not be deleted because some individuals don't like the information provided, or they don't like internal links to other articles in wikipedia. This article is not about proofing major support of the Crime Expo SA website, it is only an article that provide information about the website, just as Wikipedia provides information on other topics.

As long as I am not happy with the bias on this article, I will consider the article being biast. References that I provided should not just be deleted, without proper reason.--NdlovuX 22:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

And yet Zunaid explained very clearly just above exactly why the changes were made. Why don't you read these comments, check the relevant policies, and come back if you are still unhappy? --Guinnog 23:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Zunaid said: " I MYSELF raised concerns about bias in the article (see above). I'm hoping someone has more luck than me tracking down a good reference that shows support for the website, because all I've found are blogs and forums, which are NOT considered reliable references. I also removed references to one particular Moneyweb blog which was extremely ATTACKING of Crime Expo, for not being a reliable source. To echo Guinnog, if you have concerns about the article, IMPROVE THE ARTICLE through adding reliable information, DON'T ATTACK OR ACCUSE other editors of having an agenda. Zunaid 13:45 " This article was properly improved, but you did not like it because it was done to well, and it was to close to the truth.--219.89.59.168 06:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

What is Zunaids problem. BBC, CNN, and other leading newsagencies reported on the Crime Expo SA website. Articles were posted all over the world, written by International news agencies such as Reuters. Articles are written by International newsagencies and posted on blogs, and Zunaids does not consider it being reliable references. Then all other similair references in Wikipedia needs to be deleted. A internal refence to the UK independent newspaper was also discredited when the article was posted on a blog for comment. I believe personal objective from Zunaids are the reasons for his comments. I want to have all articles listed that are critical of the Crime Expo SA website, as it contribute to this article being more more neutral. It should just be listed accordingly. I do not have to proof "support" for the crime expo SA website to justify this article, because it merely report on the existance of the website, the reasons for its creation, and comments (negative or positive) on it, and other relevant facts about the website.--NdlovuX 23:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

When the initial article was written, there was complaints about "to little information on it", and a "to short" article, and to few references. When a single fact is not substantiated, there were requests to proof the facts. When the fats were proofed, then requests were made to remove the links to the facts, because "it it not necessary" to have references to all the facts.

The latest version is incomplete and it is biast.

How about we allow The Elephant Men to revert it to the unbiast version, and then put it up on VfD again this time noting their painfully unbiast behaviour? Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 05:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Ndlovu and 219 (the same person?), PLEASE try to track down reliable info and add it into the CURRENT article with proper citations. I have been unable to find any thus far. But don't simply revert to the previous version, which also had its problems as I've highlighted above. Zunaid 08:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we have come to a point where we need a mediator. I am not happy with the current version, because the previous version was mush better written, and you can rather add information to the better (more complete and balanced) version. By deleting information from an article, you are making the article biast as indicated by Wikipedia policy. All sides of the article should be noted, and it should not be only a one sided review. Your version is just the "better written version" where selected sections were deleted that you didn't like because you wanted to make the article one-sided and biast. Rather note all your concerns, with proper references, that are not from BLOGS (that you are against). Please indicate reliable sources that show that the Crime Expo South Africa website does not have significant support. The refernces should be of the high standard you are requesting from others. (e.g. BBC, CNN, etc.)--219.89.59.168 22:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The version by Zunaid is far superior to the version by NdlovuX, 219... and whomever, it complies with wp:npov, which the previous version did not. Leave it, and build on that. Frankly, this page should have been deleted long ago for non-notability and for making a serious contribution to the systemic bias that plagues wikipedia (and the internet, the media, rhetoric around crime in South Africa, etc). Lionchow 15:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• The version of "Zunaid" is nothing, but the "previous version" minus all the references to substantiate facts, and important information to make the article neutral. In the so-called "far superior" page information was also deleted to make is one sided and biast. The last version is a very poor article, and the previous article should be restored.--NdlovuX 08:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I nominated it for deletion in July and it survived. We should really have a link to the deletion discussion on this page. Obviously, as we have all said, Zunaid's version is preferable and meets the NPOV concerns. Just because the website is a single-issue scare site doesn't mean our coverage of it should be likewise. As we have all said, NdlovuX/Jackes/219 (however many people that actually is) should only add verifiable info if he/they is/are concerned with making it more balanced, which is in itself a valid thing to want to do. Reverting it to the badly-written POV version shouldn't be entertained. Mediator? I don't think we are anywhere near needing one yet. Ndlovu, any chance of answering the question I asked you on your talk page? --Guinnog 20:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Please make a list, with numbers, rising all your conserns about this article. I went to the article written on Nelson Mandela and noted that the authors did not have proper refernces to all the statements made. I think there is a situation of biast here, that needs to be addressed.

On notability, all the persons whom expressed their concerns here, as well as the methods in which they have reacted, showed that this article is very notable. If it wasn't this notable, then there would not have been this large an outcry. Furthermore we definetely need mediation, as properly written sections was deleted. Even Guinnog himself worked on the section that he now wants to delete. The International media as well as tourism agencies are increasingly reporting on crime in South Africa, and asking the public to avoid South Africa, as a result of the crime in South Africa. There is also debate to which other country should host the 2010 soccor due to the fact that the Government is behind schedule in building stadiums, etc. It is therefore understandable that the ANC want to delete this article, but it will not change the reality in South Africa.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.59.168 (talk • contribs)

Guinnog, and others. Why are you interested in this article, when you have no positive contributions to make? Deleting sections, and removing information & references is not constructive contributions. Deleting facts to make an article biast does not contribute to an article.--NdlovuX 08:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I am interested in this article because I am an editor on Wikipedia who is interested in South African topics. Unlike you, I have contributed to a wide range of articles, and I try to follow our policies on verifiability and neutral point of view. You on the other hand would appear to be a single-issue editor, trying to push a particular POV about this website. I am getting a bit tired of your continual assumptions of bad faith here too. If you have a problem with the Nelson Mandela article I suggest raising it at Talk:Nelson Mandela, not here. --Guinnog 16:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Guinnog, I believe you have not contributed constructively to this article. You are not acting in good faith by supporting the deletion of information in an attempt to make an article bia, and you can't blame the reaction of others due to your own behaviour & your actions that speeks for itself. I am also tired of your actions that is completely irrational, unless you have hidden agendas. Your actions, combined with the actions of others that are against the existance of the Crime Expo SA website are doing their best to discredit it as far as possible, therefore the deletion of information. Why don't you want to list your concerns (critisism of the website) under the section provided for it, and list all the alternatives for the website under the relevant section. Look at the WP:NPOV information, and you will note that biast can be promoted by the deletion of informnation, therefore the assumtion of bad faith. You do not want the facts to speak for itself and you support the deletion of information that you don't like on this topic. You can't blame others for the reaction created by yourselves.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.59.168 (talk • contribs)

We are all responsible for our own actions. While you are right that my contributions to this article have been to argue towards the deletion of unverifiable and NPOV parts of it, it is a stance supported by several other editors here, and, I believe by our policy. I repeat, I am getting tired of my efforts being labelled by you as being badly intentioned. I say again, if you have good, verifiable material you want to add to the article to balance it, then do so here first and wait for consensus to include it in the article. That is the way we work here. Also, it's easier if you remember both to sign in to your account and sign your comments, so people know who they are talking to. Thanks. --Guinnog 21:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The wikipedia page describing the website is not here to duplicate the content of the website itself. It is not here to drive traffic to the website, or otherwise boost publicity. The wikipedia page has a (IMHO) tenuous claim to exist at all, but it has survived VfD. It should confine itself to introducing the website, and cover reactions to the website, and point to other relevant topics on wikipedia that a reader might be interested in. Other single-issue blogs are not relevant to the wikipedia page - they violate NPOV and look like Original Research. Wizzy…☎ 10:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Pieter Boshoff's anti-Crime Expo South Africa Campaign

Comments are made about Pieter Boshoff's "anti-Crime Expo South Africa Campaign" on the website of "Why South Africa is Crap" at the link http://southafricaiscrap.blogspot.com/2006/09/war-of-websites-boshoff-cracking-up.html [6] On this blog comments are provided about Pieter Boshoff's anti-Crime Expo South Africa campaign. This blog used the IOL website's information as source: http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=3015&art_id=vn20060926135134641C198636 [7]--NdlovuX 06:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Once again, the "South Africa is Crap" site is a blog, in other words, it is the personal opinion of the person running it and the views expressed on it are not subject to any verification process or accountability in the way newspaper articles and journalists are. It is therefore not considered a reliable source. Mentioning it in the article gives the impression that the information it contains is as trustworthy or reliable as what is reported in the major media. This is NOT the case, and I have therefore removed the one sentence you added that mentions it. Zunaid 06:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

By removing the link to the "Why South Africa is Crap" website, you have again made the article one-sided as it does not indicate the fact that it appears as if Pieter Boshoff's website is actually an anti-crime Expo South Africa website. [8]

The IOL website is used as a Source for articles. Why did you delete this?

• Firstly, the IOL reference is still in the article, I did not delete it. I've just removed the sentence referring to the blog. Secondly, the IOL website in this case is used as a source for the blogger's opinion, not for an article. As for the article being one-sided, the first SEVEN PAGES of a google search for "crime expo" brings up NOT A SINGLE article or editorial defending the website, but does bring up plenty of articles quoting people critical of it. The only defense of the site comes from a handful of blogs, which, again, are the bloggers' personal opinions and are not a reliable source. The article seems one-sided because it reflects the reality of the information out there. I urge you to read WP:V and WP:RS with a fine-tooth comb. Zunaid 08:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Zunaid, Have you listed all the reasons why the Crime Expo SA website was launched?--NdlovuX 14:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• No, I just quoted the main one directly from the website itself, in the same way I did for the two main competing sites. Wikipedia is not a free webhost, the encyclopedia isn't here to promote websites or mirror their content, but only to report on the sites themselves, in a verifiable and dispassionate way. Zunaid 14:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Could someone please archive this talk page? Before it ends up looking like Talk:Black people (or even User talk:JackyR :P). Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 18:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Is Crime Expo really exposing the truth???

Hi, any reasonable, rational South African will see that Crime Expo SA and Neil Watson is blatantly lieing about crime in SA. How on earth can they claim they "expose the truth"? They ONLY post comments which are helping their cause (i.e. crahsland the SA tourism industry and foreign investment). It's nothing more than a propaganda campaign.