Talk:Suidlanders

Advertising tag

Just as a starting point, Wikipedia doesn't subtly validate WP:FRINGE perspectives. This includes the unscientific beliefs of Siener van Rensburg's followers. Wikipedia should not say that he was a prophet, and should not imply that he was one by saying that these extremists are "guided" by his prophesies. Grayfell (talk) 07:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Described as racist by mainstream German broadcaster

I started this topic for anyone who would like to argue that they are not a racist organization. I cite as my source this piece, which explicitly describes them as racist and volkisch. I've included the citation text as well as a translation in the citation. If you have countersourcing, this would be a great place to post it. -Furicorn (talk) 04:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Like "terrorist" or "freedom fighter", "racist" is a highly contentious (and subjective) label and the Suidlanders (or any political organisation) being explicitly described as such is undesirable. It is not inaccurate to state that they are described as racist by others, including the mainstream German broadcaster. My rationale for avoiding the use of contentious labels can be found here, where I go to great pains to explain why the use of these labels is problematic on Wikipedia.

In addition, use of the term "volkisch" here is also inappropriate, as there is no evidence to suggest the Suidlanders ascribe to the particular Nazi ideology described in the linked Wilipedia article for that word. The source cited seems to be using "volkisch" as a synonym for ethnic populist rather than a reference to the particular political philosophy espoused by the Nazis. --Katangais (talk) 06:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Katangais here. We can't just call them racist, especially in the lead. Those terms should be used in the body (if at all) and only in the context of a quote, or something like "German media outlet X have described them as racist". Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

First of all, I am fine with describing them as "racist populists" instead of "volkisch," although I think volkisch is technically more accurate - per german page on Volkisch Movement the post-Nazi usage of volkisich is partially in reference to racist ideologies with mystical overtones (like neo-pagans for example). I think a group with ideology based on the prophecies of a racist mystic definitely counts as volkisch in a specific, technical sense. But back to sourcing, have you found any that argues they are not racist? I've found lots of sourcing suggesting lots of racist associations, as well as an article directly calling them racist. I think it would be one thing if there were reliable sources arguing they are definitely not racist, but I haven't come across them. If there is sourcing suggesting people are mistaken to call them racist, lets throw it up. While it is certainly controversial to be racist, and this group certainly courts controversy, there doesn't seem to me to be much controversy that this group is racist. -Furicorn (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not disputing whether or not the Suidlanders are in fact racist, but whether labels like "racist" are appropriate when presented as base assertions on a Wikipedia article. "Racist", like "terrorist" or "freedom fighter" or "pervert", is an example of inquantifiable, loaded language which is discouraged as a matter of Wikipedia policy. It's unencyclopedic and violates the manual of style. Let's present the facts (including the fact that mainstream media outlets have often described the group as racist) and let the readership come to the conclusion from reading the article that the Suidlanders are racist, rather than telling the readership straight off the bat that they are racist (even if that assertion is backed by citations it's still an opinion and should be presented as such).

Again, as I stated in my case against contentious labels, which I linked to in my last post, it's OK to say that XXX source describes the Suidlanders as racist, as opposed to simply stating that they are racist. Per WP:ASSERT: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but don't assert opinions themselves." --Katangais (talk) 03:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

White genocide

Why is there a link to the wiki page "white genocide" discribing a conspiracy theory in this article?

To my understanding, this group have a (grounded or ungrounded) fear of actual genocide of White South Africans. They are not subscribing to the conspiracy theory described in the link. Diego1999X (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Because there's a whole section on South Africa and the Suidlanders, and their active promotion of the conspiracy. -Furicorn (talk) 07:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Mainstream media is not a credible source, as per Wikipedia guidelines.

This is very clearly a far-left smear article that doesn't follow any encyclopaedic guidelines whatsoever, other than to claim everything against the globalist movements is "racist". Do better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:9C7E:C500:A815:A4B9:D9E2:937A (talk) 10:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. The section you removed was supported by such reliable sources. So unless you have some sources that say otherwise, it will stay. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Which portion exactly is that please I would love to see? IamNeutrality (talk) 08:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

So "it will stay until you prove a negative", really? You people really are fascists.

Fascist "genderqueer" mod locks edits for insisting mainstream media isn't a reliable source. Imagine my shock.

Wikipedia, this is why the public don't trust you anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:9C7E:C500:913D:9E1D:B69B:AE46 (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

POV Tag

@Xcalivyr: I see you added a POV Tag. What do you take issue with and why?CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

It seems certain sources used have been specifically selected primarily based on the bias of the journalist who wrote them, e.g. 3 and 24, or misused, e.g. when it is claimed that the group has "publically supported Neo-Nazi rallies", the citation provided seems to contradict this. There has not been any citation provided from the actual website of the organisation themselves (besides 26). As such the information provided in the Wiki article strikes me as being somewhat cherry-picked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcalivyr (talk • contribs) 07:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Xcalivyr, We basically never trust what organizations say about themselves, I highly doubt the Suidlanders would self describe as far-right or as supporting neo-nazis, just as the KKK wouldn't call themselves white supremacists (even though they obviously are). That is why we say what reliable sources say about subjects. You are right though that source 15 doesn't seem to support that claim. But I think sources 3 and 24 are proper. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Save lives, stop misinformation!

This article has a big sign on that says it needs improvements.

In war

The current article will highly probable kill innocent civilians because you scared them off by mislabeling SL as “far right”. So when SL sweeps in to the rescue they will be too scared and have no where else to run!

This is a Civil Defence Organization in terms of International Humanitarian Law.

Stop blocking people who fact check the article and save lives!

IamNeutrality (talk) 08:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The account IamNeutrality now indefinitely blocked for not being here to work on the encyclopedia, and, it appears, for being a sockpuppet. David notMD (talk) 13:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)