Talk:Jacob Zuma

Corruption charges

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

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

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

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

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

OK, what you've written above is a mix of fact and interpretation. To be included in the article, the facts need to be backed up by reliable sources. The interpretations can be included too, if they can be cited to a particular reliable source, but not if they are the result of your own synthesis. There is no such thing in legal terms as a "virtual co-accused". Beware of inflammatory statements like "criminal mastermind". See WP:NPOV. Zaian (talk) 06:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Please explain how the 50000 word Squires judgment is not a reliable source? Your comments fall precisely inside the category of those that "have not read the judgment at all" - an example if ever! Please read the full transcript here: http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/Shaik_trial/0,,2-7-1708_1718857,00.html I have not "interpreted" anything. Indeed my summary is not even as damning as the court record. On the other hand, to say that it is possible that Zuma has not grossly violated the law - this statement is a skewed interpretation of the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulsheer (talk • contribs) 08:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Holy shit, I didn't say it wasn't a reliable source, and I didn't even dispute the contents of what you said, although I think your phrasing on this talk page has POV issues which would be out of place in the article itself. What I said is that your comments include facts which can be sourced, and statements (such as "there is no reading of it...") which are clearly interpretations of the judgment. Interpretations can be included in the article, but only with reliable sources to back them. Do please read WP:SYNTH though, because even if there are (say) 100 references to cheese in the document, selectively counting those references may fail the criteria that "This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves" (from WP:RS). The fact that Zuma is such a polarizing figure means it really is critical to follow these policies carefully, and I'm encouraging you to do that. Zaian (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, here's exactly what I've been trying to say: "Our policy: Primary sources [including trials] ... may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source." From WP:OR. Zaian (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

My phrase "there is no reading of" is not in the main article, but on the discussions page. I have read WP:SYNTH. None-the-less, in the case of this Judgment, it is written in plane English, and is an unequivocal and factual indictment of Zuma, on the bases of which Zuma's briber was sentenced to 15 years in prison. How does one explain what is in the judgment without in some way interpreting? Shall I copy and paste the entire judgment into the article? Of course not - this is why we have encyclopedias: to condense and pool knowledge. Very simply, if a number of independent Wikipedia reviewers read the judgment and agree that a summary is representative, this should be enough to say something which is true. I would certainly try and avoid the complete opposite approach - i.e. to ignore a source because no one has the time to read it, and because it may-say-not-nice-things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulsheer (talk • contribs) 08:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

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

School attendance precision

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

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

I don't have specific info about JZ but the normal age for 5th grade would be about 11-12 years provided one starts school at age 6-7 and don't repeat any previous grades. Are terms like "5th grade" really not understood all over the english speaking world? Roger (talk) 14:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, as many other users here, I don't come from the english speaking world. :) --Kimdime69 (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

See Educational stages. The term grade is primarily used in North America (and I guess South Africa). Other terms like year, primary/standard + secondary/form are commonly used in other English speaking countries. The term grade may be known from exposure to American culture but we shouldn't presume all readers understand such terms. Nil Einne (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I have amended the wording of the article to state "the 5th grade of school". I suggest that this is the most accurate and universally understood description. A minor technical comment: These days many schools in South Africa do have an additional grade ("Grade 0"), which would make the current Grade 5 the 6th grade at school. However, this was not the case when Zuma was a child. Zingi (talk) 10:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Zuma's biography on the ANC website confirms that Zuma did not receive formal schooling. However, from internet searches I cannot find any support for the allegation that he is functionally illiterate - other than strongly worded opinion on both sides. See for example the opinion piece of Johann Wingard. I therefore suggest that the article should not venture into this arena.Zingi (talk) 10:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I have seen Jacob Zuma read from a printed English speech, which would mean that he definitely can read. I would therefore believe that rumours about him being functionally illiterate are just that: Malicious rumours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.211.98.155 (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Archbishop Tutu

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

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

No Zumatello section?

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

Socialist and Communist

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

Is he HIV positive?

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

• HIV transmission rates are not 100%. I have not seen any reliable source suggesting he is HIV positive. Zaian (talk) 14:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Article weight

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

ANC Head Title

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

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

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