Talk:John Hlophe

Untitled

I disagree that the content of this page qualifies for deletion as db-attack. It is factual in content and neutral in tone. The subject is a prominent South African judge with a high public profile. ChapmanHB 12:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

In my view User:ChapmanHB is correct. Template removed.--Anthony.bradbury 13:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I have added COI and POV tags. It needs to be cleaned up. Remove those tags when they get cleaned up. Bearian 16:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidence? Argument? for tags

What is the ostensible conflict of interest supposed to be? There should be at least some evidence of such a claim esp. as the COI tag carries with it a threat of removal that does not seem justified. Lack of sourcing certainly is problem, though one that should not be hard to rectify with refs or links to reputable S.A. papers such as the Weekly Mail & Guardian or Business Day or Cape Times -- but the sourcing problem is not worse here than at many other articles not under similar threat.

Also I really do not see the supposed POV. Personally I would make the article title the man's full name with a link from "Hlophe" (which interestingly enough means 'white'). And the article is short, hence classified as a stub. But within that limit, it recognizes Mandlakayisa's educational achievements, describes a controversy and his position in it, for which he is particularly well known, and cites later allegations against him as allegations, still under investigation, without stating a conclusion as to their truth or falsity. This all seems balanced enough and to fall within reasonable NPOV.

I would like to ask for a) identification and evidence of ostensible COI, or removal of that tag, and b) more description of the claimed POV problem, so the claim can be evaluated, and if it is reasonable, addressed.

Thanks, Chris Lowe 04:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes to this page are of questionable objectivity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.113.55 (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The article also still has problems with unsourced material. I will be going through it in the next few days removing anything for which there is no source. If you want it back you can source it... --Adam Brink 13:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's a long way past 2007 now, and it seems the latest tag was placed/replaced there in 2009. How are we faring with POV in the latest version? I added citations to my update regarding the latest developments regarding the ConCourt saga, so that should help, hopefully. — Gk sa (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Hlophe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720092917/http://antieviction.org.za/2008/03/10/259/ to http://antieviction.org.za/2008/03/10/259/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.eyewitnessnews.co.za/printprog.aspx?id=9351

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)