Talk:Zackie Achmat

in response to a question on my talk page:

I've removed the material from Brink's "indictment" of Zackie Achmat, for a couple of reasons: 1. Most news reports seem to agree that it's not a serious effort to place a criminal charge. 2. It amounts to hate mail in its ending portion, in which it recommends torturing Achmat as a punishment, which not only is hateful but represents a punishment which in itself would violate the rules of the Hague's court. Therefore I have to conclude that: 3. The "indictment" is a publicity stunt without seriousness of intent; that it has no chance of being pursued; and that to put it on Achmat's page thus only serves to promote a piece of pretty nasty hate mail, providing a link to a proposal to torture the page's subject, which I think is a bit beyond the pale of reasonable political discourse.

To the extent that it has succeeded in making publicity, I'm fine with putting a brief mention of it into a portion about TAC's battles with Brink and others who share his views, probably on the TAC page, or perhaps in a section on this page about how AIDS "dissident"/"denialist" groups have targeted Achmat for criticism. But in the context of a biographical piece about Achmat, I think this particular episode should not be a major part of such a portion; to highlight it is to give a seriousness to it which it clearly does not warrant as a piece of Achmat's biography, and to link to it is to give prominence to what is really a pretty hateful ending portion.

Biographies should highlight criticism of their subject, but the criticism needs to be put in its context--e.g., criticism of George Bush should be placed on his biographical page, but making that section mostly devoted to the criticisms lodged against him by Osama bin Laden wouldn't be a reasonable way of constructing the biography, nor a way of explaining or contextualizing criticisms of the biography's subject on the whole. If we are to write about Brink's indictment on this page, it should be placed as a brief portion within the context of the larger battle between people who deny the link of HIV and AIDS, versus TAC; and versus Achmat as TAC's most visible public symbol.

Joewright 15:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Should Zackie be listed as a Muslim Activist or a LGBT Muslim? He is an athiest.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.100.79 (talk)

Nothing in the article supports his being categorized as a Muslim (or as an atheist for that matter). I've deleted the two categories in question. Aleta 22:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm unsure where Fig Trees should be mentioned in the article. Fig Trees was a video opera about Zackie Achmat, the opera was created by John Greyson and David Wall. Oakville Galleries seems to have a good piece about Fig Trees (http://www.oakvillegalleries.com/249.htm). (As an additional reference, there's the hardcover book Fig Trees: A Video Opera (credited to "John Greyson") that is available at Amazon.com. --EarthFurst (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Maybe start a new section with the title Fig Trees under Awards. Queerudite (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply