Talk:Dan Roodt

Links to English Defence League

Someone recently added a sentence saying that the EDL (English Defence League) subscribes to Roodt's views of 'Anti-White Apartheid' in South Africa, linking the EDL's website as source. I checked out the site and could find no trace of links (or even mentions!) to either Roodt or Praag. If in time a proper source for this comes to light, or the EDL actually does post videos of Roodt on their site, I think it should be added to this page. Creating fake links between far-right groups, however, has no place on Wikipedia. Johannes Jaar (talk) 07:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

References

Dutch is my mothertongue. I listened to the YouTube reference . This reference DOES NOT SAY ANYTHING in relation to the allegations in the sentence Roodt reportedly held talks with Flemish nationalist Filip Dewinter, one of the leading members of Vlaams Belang, who has in the past been known to show sympathy to the causes of the Nazis during World War II and expressing racist and homophobic views. Therefore I am deleting it because of an obvious try to mix fact with (NPOV) fiction. --Stijn Calle (talk) 15:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I have erased the sentence: who has in the past been known to show sympathy to the causes of the Nazis during World War II and expressing racist and homophobic views. Firstly, it is not about Dan Roodt, but about Filip Dewinter. Secondly, it is not fact, but fiction. It is a reference to a thesis, publicised here [1]. This thesis is a patchwork of quotes, interviews, personal opinions and references to other personal opinions made by well know political opponants of Filip Dewinter and Vlaams Belang. The allegation about being racist, homophobic is not literally illustrated, but conceived as a summary of the implied thoughts formulated in this thesis. No synthetical case is made, without any objective facts. It's NPOV. Furthermore, It is a third degree piece of information. Because it does not relate to Dan Roodt (first degree), but only to Filip Dewinter, alleged to have met this person (second degree). And it tells a highly subjective story of Filip Dewinter. If people want to know this kind of information (third degree) on Filip Dewinter, they can easily click through, and find a concrete and well referenced, objective set of opinions there. The only reason to mention this kind of dubious info here is to maximise the mix up of extreme right wing bias and fact, in order to paint a negative picture of the subject of the article. This is not scientific, this is political.--Stijn Calle (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

The article as it has existed until my recent changes, displayed extreme bias towards Roodt, suggesting that he had neo-Nazi sympathies. Not only is this untrue, but it could even be libellous. The authors have used selective negative quotations in order to portray Roodt in a bad light.

Drawing on both published and unpublished sources, including current biographical research on Roodt, I have completely revamped the article so as to give a better and more complete reflection of his biography, beliefs, interests, activities and publications.

More references will be included as I find time to complete this project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ysgravin (talk • contribs) 10:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Unpublished sources can not be used at all. See WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources. Roger (talk) 14:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

According to WP:Verifiability: "However, in practice it is only necessary to provide inline citations for quotations and for any information that has been challenged or that is likely to be challenged." What information are you challenging? User:Ysgravin —Preceding undated comment added 14:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC).

Unpublished material is not a reliable source so it cannot be used - regardless of whether it is cited or not. Roger (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I rewrote this article quite some time ago, removing much of the unpublished, unreliable material. The article was as a result much shorter, but at least utilised verifiable and reliable sources. As the article currently stands, it is entirely unencyclopedic, and to be frank, ruined. I suggest removing all of Ysgravin's changes, and only including new material for which there are verifiable sources. Johannes Jaar (talk) 08:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree and Done. I've taken it back to before User:Ysgravin's highly POV editting spree and also reverted User:Pretoriaduiker's unreferenced additions. Roger (talk) 08:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed then. As you were doing this, I also added a new discussion topic about this. Either way, I believe the article can be improved and its disputed neutrality can be resolved through discussion and the use of proper sources. Let's hope! Johannes Jaar (talk) 08:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

New issues arising from rewrites by Ysgravin

I understand that this article's neutrality is currently disputed by Ysgravin. However, this cannot be corrected by removing all information in the article (which utilised verifiable and reliable sources) and rewriting it by using entirely unverifiable and unreliable information (which utilises no given sources), in fact returning the article to the unsourced mess it was before a major rewrite was undertaken some time ago. If the neutrality of the article is disputed, it should be discussed and changed by using the correct kind of sources. Not only has Ysgravin's recent additions been unsourced, some of the information included in the article has no place in an encyclopedic article on a public figure. It is not a biography of this person, it is an encyclopedia article. What his father read to him when he was a child is but one exanple of this. The list goes on, but I won't labour the point. I therefore suggest that the article be rolled back to an earlier version (before the various edits by Ysgravin). Issues with the neutrality of the article can then be addressed by discussion and by citing verifiable sources. Please voice your opinions on this. If there are no objections, I shall soon implement this idea. I am very open to the idea of improving this article, but it should be an improvement that follows the rules of Wikipedia and maintains an acceptable encyclopedic standard. Johannes Jaar (talk) 08:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I see that user Roger has agreed and implemented my idea. I still hope that this article can be improved, and issues of neutrality can be resolved through discussion and the use of proper sources. Johannes Jaar (talk) 08:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Dead link

Is available in the way back machine [2] to more easily correct any misrepresentations. WilyD 09:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I fixed it. Roger (talk) 09:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Article is now less clear

This change: [3] has removed the name of the groups he met. Removing information like this means we know don't know, from the article, who he met and need to check the original sources. This is undesirable. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Add the froup name - but fddo not add the "guilt by association" gratuitous connections with "neo-nazi" which belong in the article on the group, but not in McCarthy-like allusions in this BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dan Roodt. 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/20120327182417/http://www.praag.co.za/dan-roodt-magazine-178/7373-afrikaners-behoort-nederlandse-sokkerspan-te-ondersteun.html to http://www.praag.co.za/dan-roodt-magazine-178/7373-afrikaners-behoort-nederlandse-sokkerspan-te-ondersteun.html

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) 21:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)