No edit summary |
→Controversy: Response. |
||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
:The above is an explanation for my own actions and I think that the section you've added is a big improvement. [[User:Bloodofox|:bloodofox:]] 01:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC) |
:The above is an explanation for my own actions and I think that the section you've added is a big improvement. [[User:Bloodofox|:bloodofox:]] 01:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC) |
||
::if that is so, then why the hostility? The cold facts are that this is a journal of the ultra-right fringe of rather dubious notability. Why did you feel you had to rant against me and complain of my "nasty attitude and penchant for insults"? I have edited straightforwardly, presenting my rationale on talk as I should. I really don't see the problem, and I frankly resent that you should turn a content issue into a personal vendetta. Personally, I find the ideology reflected in this journal absolutely despicable, representing the absolute worst of neopaganism, and, as the Northvegr reviewer said, a stain on the 'faith'. In the article, I have no intention to use emotional terms like that. But I insist to point this thing out for what it is. Since you appear to take what you consider "insults" against the journals as insults against your person, I would like to ask you if you are in any way involved with this publication. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 07:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC) |
::if that is so, then why the hostility? The cold facts are that this is a journal of the ultra-right fringe of rather dubious notability. Why did you feel you had to rant against me and complain of my "nasty attitude and penchant for insults"? I have edited straightforwardly, presenting my rationale on talk as I should. I really don't see the problem, and I frankly resent that you should turn a content issue into a personal vendetta. Personally, I find the ideology reflected in this journal absolutely despicable, representing the absolute worst of neopaganism, and, as the Northvegr reviewer said, a stain on the 'faith'. In the article, I have no intention to use emotional terms like that. But I insist to point this thing out for what it is. Since you appear to take what you consider "insults" against the journals as insults against your person, I would like to ask you if you are in any way involved with this publication. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 07:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::First of all, I am not involved with Tyr in any way shape or form. With this said, my personal opinion of the magazine is officially irrelevant and so is yours. We are only here to state referenced information about the magazine without interjecting our own personal opinions into the matter and that is all - it's policy. There's still a lot of unsourced claims here, including calling the entire magazine "New Right" without a reference to back it up.. And, of course, once we do have the reference we must state that the reference said it. None of this is anything personal, it's just policy and keeps things from being misrepresented or feeling the wrath of someone's personal crusade. I would expect anyone else to be just as iron clad about my own edits, as I am. -- [[User:Bloodofox|:bloodofox:]] ([[User talk:Bloodofox|talk]]) 17:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:33, 16 November 2007
Notability
This looks like a simple vanity page. It's just an ad for the publication. Catherineyronwode 09:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Controversy
The Nouvelle Droite / Neofascist bent is plain as day to the casual observer. "Radical Traditionalism" is obviously in the "Perennialism" (Evola) tradition. It doesn't get any more neo-fascist than that. Hell, Monsieur Nouvelle Droite Alain de Benoist himself is contributing, along with uber-occultist Stephen "Edred" Flowers. But let's hold ourselves to WP:RS. I seem to get some 600 hits on google. Amazon sales rank for vol. 2 is at 605,000, and for vol. 1 at 885,000. The only review that appears to pass any sort of notability threshold I can see is that by Northvegr's Ári Óðinssen. [1]
- primarily from the 'Odiann' school of philosophy. In brief, it begins with Thorsson's rallying call against the corruption and degradation of this age, moves into Alain de Benoist's determined stand for the 'tripartate-function' view of Indo-European study, gives Moynihan's argument for the Hagen figure in the Nibelungenlied being Othinn himself, and wraps into a round of praise and admiration for the likes of Julius Evola, Herman Lons, and the dark master of chaos himself, Karl Maria Wiligut.'
any questions?
- One could, article by article, contest these views to the contrary and be in very good standing within the [Asatru] faith. In order for the 'cultural morass and chaos' that we are challenged by these writers to be foundering in to begin to right itself, it will take a league of firm voices calling out from the side of right and order. ... In other words, we should not be allowing the voices we hear in this publication to be the only voices pushing the edge of philosophy in this age. They are, by our silence, representing us. I repeat this to make it clear: they are, by our silence, representing us.]
Tyr is a publication of the neo-fascist, neo-racialist ultra-right fringe within Asatru. That's fair enough, but we need to state this up front. dab (𒁳) 11:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Dab, as with anywhere else, cite the sources and if it's against their own position place it in a "criticism" page and fully explain it neutrally. You are not doing anyone a service by just slapping terms like "fascist" and "Neo-Nazi" on things without citations with a complete and careful explanation. We've been over this regarding Odalism and Thor Steinar before. I am only interested in proper documentation on Wikipedia, like any other topic. Just the cold facts, please.
- I could find reviews stating random things all day - including unexplained insults - and apply them as opening descriptors of subjects in articles and it wouldn't make them any more neutral. Your calling this group "Neo-Fascist" (something which Tyr denies) is blatant original research. Of course, if you create a "criticism" section stating that they have been accused of it but deny it, then that is perfectly fine as it represents both sides. There's a huge difference between stating it and stating that someone else has stated it in the appropriate section, as you well know.
- The above is an explanation for my own actions and I think that the section you've added is a big improvement. :bloodofox: 01:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- if that is so, then why the hostility? The cold facts are that this is a journal of the ultra-right fringe of rather dubious notability. Why did you feel you had to rant against me and complain of my "nasty attitude and penchant for insults"? I have edited straightforwardly, presenting my rationale on talk as I should. I really don't see the problem, and I frankly resent that you should turn a content issue into a personal vendetta. Personally, I find the ideology reflected in this journal absolutely despicable, representing the absolute worst of neopaganism, and, as the Northvegr reviewer said, a stain on the 'faith'. In the article, I have no intention to use emotional terms like that. But I insist to point this thing out for what it is. Since you appear to take what you consider "insults" against the journals as insults against your person, I would like to ask you if you are in any way involved with this publication. dab (𒁳) 07:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- First of all, I am not involved with Tyr in any way shape or form. With this said, my personal opinion of the magazine is officially irrelevant and so is yours. We are only here to state referenced information about the magazine without interjecting our own personal opinions into the matter and that is all - it's policy. There's still a lot of unsourced claims here, including calling the entire magazine "New Right" without a reference to back it up.. And, of course, once we do have the reference we must state that the reference said it. None of this is anything personal, it's just policy and keeps things from being misrepresented or feeling the wrath of someone's personal crusade. I would expect anyone else to be just as iron clad about my own edits, as I am. -- :bloodofox: (talk) 17:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)