Talk:Nelson Mandela

Ubuntu
The policy wasn't called Ubuntu, the guiding principle behind it is called Ubuntu. You could loosely translate it as "humanism".

-- Riaan 196.35.158.181 13:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Dead
He has, sadly, died. This page should probably be updated.

Supporter of the rich?
I found an article that details how Mandela protected the rich of South Africa. While he removed apartheid, the article claims that he did nothing to change the fundamental social divide of the millennium - class, not race. It points out stats on AIDS, yet it fails to mention what he's done for AIDS after leaving his presidency. Does this article have any basis in fact and can we add this to his article here? Serocco (talk) 09:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Largely bloviating. The minute apartheid ended you had massive capital flight in the white supremacist equivalent of Going Galt.  Putting further pressure on the bastards would have probably exacerbated the problem. Osaka Sun (talk) 10:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Squashing the rich? I'm for that Scherben (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Puff piece
Guys let's be real - and I believe Mandela was an inspirational, historic figure who deserves to be remembered fondly - but there isn't one word of criticism in here. He really was not the best president - he tended to favor the rich and he also allowed corruption by those he had trusted in his liberation seeking days. Not to gloat - but I actually have some pretty good sources that I use at cp:Nelson Mandela (unfinished - also please don't ask about the Gadaffi picture ...) - the New York Times, the Independent and the Telegraph all cite his presidency as a black spot on an otherwise mostly-impeccable life - I cite them all.--Iduan (talk) 03:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "Tended to favour the rich." Conservapedia: Where income inequality is only a big deal when politicians aren't politically-aligned with you. (Also, do you think this could have been solved in four years? And I'd love to know what you think of South Africa's AA laws.)


 * You are right that the origins of South Africa's current corruption could be found in his term, but if you think preventing the country from falling into civil war and one of the most modern constitutions on the planet is a "black spot," I don't think you'll have many supporters. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Dude find bias in any article I've written - your snideness is a pathetic defense mechanism - you're just being lazy. I cited literally four sources - of varying political viewpoints (although to be clear - I don't agree with the argument that editorial boards affect news reporting teams - I don't believe the New York Times has biased articles - I think they have a liberal editorial staff) that all say he lost some of his luster during his presidency. And when I say favor - I'm not talking taxes - I'm talking access - taking donors phone calls whenever. Whatever.--Iduan (talk) 04:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * While you're at not reading the article I sent - he also failed to make AIDS a big deal until after his presidency because condom usage and HIV weren't the most kosher of topics.--Iduan (talk) 04:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't question that he "lost some of his luster," I question the fact that you're exaggerating. His Spear of the Nation days are the more controversial ones of his life, and ones which we give weight to.


 * Also, funny you mention AIDS. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't question that he lost his luster and yet you don't mention anything bad in his presidency section - because his more controversial period was earlier and you mention that. That makes total sense. Congratulations. And nice job finding bias in any of my articles while you continue to lump me in with people! 10 gold stars.--Iduan (talk) 04:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Is that how you spell 'lustre' in America? Or did he lose some of his sex drive? --Scherben (talk) 22:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)