Talk:Iqbal Survé

Recreating

Iqbal Surve is a significant figure in SA, as head of a major media group and for his political history, and it is easy to find many references in reliable sources for this. He is also controversial. Although this page was previously deleted (possibly as it was autobiographical), it is appropriate for Wikipedia to have a NPOV page on this subject. Zaian (talk) 10:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree, Survé is clearly a notable person who is deserving of an article. If memory serves me correctly the original version of the page was deleted because it was not NPOV and there was a chance that the author had a conflict of interest on the subject. I decided to create a redirect because I did not have the energy in making an attempt at starting a new version of the article at that time and because he is closely associated with Sekunjalo Investments. So a redirect made sense at the time. Thanks for starting this article Zaian.--Discott (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Reverted edit

I wholesale-reverted a large edit by ElProfesori. Warning signs: editor has not edited before but knows all about wiki markup (so a possible WP:SOCK or meatpuppet), unexplained removal of cited reference which casts doubts on Surve's relationship with Mandela, unexplained replacement of information about the PIC investment in Sekunjalo which reflected negatively on Surve's company, and addition of "Dr Surve" throughout which is a common trait of Surve's employees. Parts of the edit are probably salvageable, but I'd rather revert it and leave it to the editor to "try better" rather than spend my time sorting the facts from the hagiography. Zaian (talk) 06:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Dr Iqbal Survé.webp

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• DrIqbal Survé.webp

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality

Article is being heavily edited with a particular POV, for example this addition, which added "and his dedication to fostering business ideas that serve the bottom line of the investor and creating opportunities for the improvement of working-class lives". I don't have time to go through all of the recent edits, but it's quite clearly become unbalanced, with all criticism of Survé having been watered down or removed. Greenman (talk) 13:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there's a lot going on. Several users and IP editors who have no history on Wikipedia but are very familiar with wiki markup have been blocked in recent days for probable WP:COI problems (although always denied when challenged). A bunch of sockpupppets (admittedly less skilled, but clearly COI) were blocked a few months ago. The neutrality tag was recently removed by a brand new editor - I have restored it so a proper discussion can take place first. Zaian (talk) 06:07, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Waitron09 - making you aware of this discussion in case you have not seen it. Your edits here were an improvement on neutrality. These edits were an improvement y recognising that a Youtube promotional video by the company is not a proper secondary source. However it's not clear that a promotional article in a Surve-owned newspaper is any better, given Independent's regular series of sycophantic articles about their owner.

Also, given the pattern of COI accounts on this page, and that your account was created immediately after User:JournoZA and other probable WP:COI accounts were blocked, please declare your own interests if any, and that you are not engaging in sockpuppetry / block evasion. Zaian (talk) 09:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, a CheckUser was done and (surprise!), yet another sockpuppet has been blocked. Zaian (talk) 09:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Introduction was improved to add other important context in support of a Neutral POV, however, Controversies section must be populated further to better the neutrality of this page. Gevaarlik (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality (again)

Looking at users @Gevaarlik and @Joker1Joker they are heavily editing this article in a negative bias. Within their short life spans (both created in January 2024, the latter only a week ago), they have made a collective 101 edits all with negative contributions only towards articles connected to the Sekunjalo group. Whilst removing positive information with verifiable sources. As per the Wikipedia COI guidelines, they appear to be "single-purpose accounts" (existing for the sole or primary purpose of promotion or denigration of a person, company, product, service, website, organization, etc.,). JayFacts (talk) 09:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @JayFactsI am countering the years of ongoing positive only content on this page that aims to sanctify Iqbal Survé. I have edited other pages as well. Gevaarlik (talk) 09:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

My interest is in South African media and I have made edits in that regard. As for you, @JayFacts, your interest is only in this page, writing positively about Iqbal Survé. Last year a bunch of sockpuppets working for Iqbal Survé were banned from editing Iqbal Survé pages, as mentioned above. Gevaarlik (talk) 10:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@Greenman @Zaian @ToBeFree

The accounts @Gevaarlik and @Joker1Joker are clearly running a coordinated attack against the Sekunjalo group. In the past ~3 weeks they have made over 110 edits to pages linked to the Sekunjalo group. Namely: Iqbal Survé, African News Agency, Independent Online, The Sunday Independent and Sekunjalo Investments. All the articles have been edited with an extremely negative bias which is in no way neutral. JayFacts (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

This is not true. My edits share both sides of the story. I cannot help if the truth is that Survé has participated in dodgy delas. The pages had a vast amount of PR content promoting Survé and so as to neutralise that, controversy topics were added. My interest is in South African media hence I have made edits in this regard. JayFacts JayFacts, on the other hand, uses rhetoric that is very similar to that used in Survé newspapers and from Survé himself such as "coordinated attack". If you have a conflict of interest, or if you are Survé himself, or a friend or family member, please declare it. Gevaarlik (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Based on a long history of pro-Survé editing by people associated with Survé's companies, I second the suggestion that JayFacts might need declare any possible WP:COI. Zaian (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, if Gevaarlik and Joker1Joker are sockpuppets or meatpuppets (coordinating offline), that would be a problem too. Zaian (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

True, but that would be something to be discussed elsewhere (WP:SPI or WP:ANI); we should focus on content here on the article's talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@ToBeFree @Zaian Thank you for getting involved here. I would like to declare that I am in no way linked to the subject and do not have any COI, however this is a topic I follow very closely and I am knowledgeable on. If you look at my edits they are only factual without any bias or POV added. I have never removed anything to do with controversies etc as users @Gevaarlik and @Joker1Joker have been doing to neural or positive content.

I am happy to discuss constructive edits to ensure the page is neutral and factual as it should be. JayFacts (talk) 09:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of Sources / Conflict of Interest

This article quotes many sources from News24, Daily Maverick, and Mail and Guardian, just to mention a few, which are known competitors and critics of Survé and the Sekunjalo Group. Many of these pieces referenced are also opinion pieces written by individuals who are also known critics of Survé's. Can these sources be used as reliable references when there is known conflict between the groups? JayFacts (talk) 10:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

You're listing several of the main media houses in South Africa, and they're widely used as reliable sources across Wikipedia. It's true that they are competitors and critics of Survé, but on its own that doesn't mean they can't be used. Zaian (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, the article uses many primary sources and sources linked to Survé, newspapers owned by him and IOL owned by him. Those sources are not reliable, especially since editorial interference by Survé is well-documented, with under-oath testimony in that regard. Secondly, News24, Daily Maverick and Mail & Guardian all subscribe to the Press Council and have been deemed fair and ethical in their reporting standards. They are internationally acclaimed media houses known for impartiality. Survé's media on the other hand left the Press Council and refuse to be independently assessed in that regard. Survé's IOL and Independent Media are internationally acclaimed for fake news and inventing a decuplets pregnancy. Survé overruled his own Ombud who asked for consequences against the editor who invented the fake news story of decuplets. That you @JayFacts refer to these competitor media as critics to Survé for simply reporting on this dodgy deals which began long before his purchase of Independent Newspapers is troubling, because if these media were attacking a competitor, they would unfairly attack each other as well but no such occurrence exists. Rather, they report on Survé and Sekunjalo fairly despite how many tedious it must be considering his many controversies. Gevaarlik (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Recent concerns

Recent single-purpose accounts were pushing pro- and anti- Survé POVs here and on related pages. This went to WP:BLPN resulting in the pages being put under extended protection meaning that only extended confirmed users can now edit them. One of the users involved posted concerns to WP:ANI (Single Purpose Accounts Being Used To Denigrate An Organization), but that didn't raise any interest, with responses "Erm ... you do realize that you are a single purpose account, with far fewer edits than they have, and exclusively editing on the Iqbal Survé and the Sekunjalo Investments articles, yes?" and "Not only that, but from the edits I've looked at, the OP appears to adding peacockery to the article [1], whilst removing perfectly well sourced edits that just happen to contain negative material [2]. They are right in that the other editor shouldn't be using POV terms such as "scandal-ridden", but on the other hand it is not as if the multiple reliable sources cited aren't actually using the word "scandal" about the various issues, so it's only a semantic issue." Zaian (talk) 10:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Request for Changes

Hi There. I work for one of the companies within Iqbal Survé's group. I would like to contribute some information for this article. Can I make requested changes or additions here for review? Terryspeaks (talk) 07:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for guidelines on paid editing or how to approach editing a page where you have a conflict of interest. Zaian (talk) 08:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Zaian. Thank you for your reply, as per the guideline I have declared my COI on my user page and will do so here as well. I would like to contribute information with references that can be reviewed for publication. Can I proceed?

This user has publicly declared that they have a conflict of interest regarding these Wikipedia articles:

• Iqbal Survé
• Sekunjalo Investments

Terryspeaks (talk) 08:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

You can make suggestions here. If they're good, someone might implement them. Zaian (talk) 14:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)