Talk:Springbok Club

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] NPOV tag

This article seems to take a very negative view of the associations alleged right wing agenda. There are two problems with this:

1. This is not adequately sourced
2. Even if proved; the article requires balance

Note: I am addressing this from the point of view of Wikipedia policy. I have no sympathy for extreme political views but I would like to see a fair appraisal of the organisation. It appears the author has an agenda.

Ros0709 (talk) 12:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to be as fair as possible about this far-right organisation, but I can see where you're coming from.

Perhaps you would like to give a few areas where you think improvements could be made to achieve balance. I've included plenty of links to the Club's own website so you may wish to checkout their own statements. Mark Hasker (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Mark Hasker (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Would appreciate further discussion

I'd appreciate further discussion so this issue can be resolved.Mark Hasker (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I know nothing about the Springbok Club and have no connection with it. I first came upon the article whilst patrollng new pages and as it stands makes some bold claims about the club's extreme views. Its lead paragraph refers to it as a white supremacist group which immediately calls to mind images of the Ku Klux Klan and Nazism. The problem is that the references, most of which are the group's website itself, paint a somewhat different picture. Per WP:REDFLAG, the claims in the article require some serious justification.

From the referenced material, the Club is a society for South African expatriates and it would therefore be somewhat unsurprising if it did not have members which supported the values of Apartheid etc. Whether this is the case or not, I see nothing to suggest that its reason for being is to be a white supremacy group. The article's lead should explain what the society is and then later, if appropriate, introduce cited criticism etc in a balanced way.

The version of this article created by an anon IP here seems a better starting point for the article. It was reverted by a bot because it replaced the entire article, and its use of the phrase "it advocates a return to civilised rule in South Africa" is extremely problematic on several levels.

As it stands, I think this article should be taken to AfD.

Ros0709 (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response by Mark Hasker

Thanks. The article is extensively referenced back to the Springbok Club's own website, from which you will see that it openly supports, as you say "a return to civilised rule (sic) in South Africa". I interpret that as support for the former White Supremacist regime.

The founder and organiser of the club is an Englishman, at one time resident in South Africa, who is a former member of the National Front, and one leading member, now deceased, was a senior member of the British Ku Klux Klan. I don't know how many more indicators you need to suggest that this is a far right group.

The version of the article created by an anon IP raises a number of problems.

Firstly the anonymity and lack of accountability of this contributor is itself undesirable. Please note that this editor's first revision - which you apparently favour - was totally unsourced. The second revision amounted to a virtual blanking of the original article.

Secondly you will find that this same ID was responsible for vandalism of the Swinton circle article by the introduction of blatant nonsense replacing references to antisemitism and racism. That particular article was approved in its present form by a consensus of Wikipedians, and as it contains references to some of the same individuals as the Springbok Club article the good faith of this contributor must be called into question.

However, it is likely that the editor in question is closely involved with the Springbok Club and I have therefore incorporated almost all the apparently factual material he/she has supplied into the first section of the article. I have also toned down the opening reference to the (self-evident) extremism of this organisation. Mark Hasker (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right: "civilised rule" is there not just once but at least three times. Not good. Still, per my original comments, balance is the objective and it my opinion you've done a good job of the revised lead section. I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the article beyond that given that I have no contribution to make to the content, but I certainly would have no complaint if the neutrality tag was removed - I'll do that. Ros0709 (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Much appreciated. Mark Hasker (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)