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)

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Drawing on both published and unpublished sources, including current biographical research on Roodt, I have completely revamped the article so as to give a better and more complete reflection of his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 * Unpublished sources can not be used at all.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 * Unpublished material is not a reliable source so it cannot be used - regardless of whether it is cited or not.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I rewrote this article quite some time ago, removing much of the unpublished, unreliable material.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 to more easily correct any misrepresentations. Wily D 09:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


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

Article is now less clear
This change: 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.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)