Talk:Searchlight (magazine)

message: is it any relation to the band x-ray specs?
...germ free teenagers?
are searchlight the people who burn people through the walls of their neighbours houses with xrays or micro-waves to "wind them up" and "bring out the racism to the surface"? Authouredbyanybody??? (talk) 13:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Turning the searchlight on the extremists". Per the article about the magazine's founder Maurice Ludmer Grubstreet (talk) 05:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where does the name come from? 

message: User:Andy wilson wrote:
:It encourages physical attacks on right-wing opponents.
What is the evidence for this assertion?
Art of War comments:
Searchlight has a habit of giving personal details including car numberplates, addresses, workplace details etc of members of groups like the BNP. These are often not necessary to the plotline so one does wonder why they are listed knowing that BNP members have been subjected to violent attack.
:Do you have any evidence of this? I see it all over fascist website, but have never actually seen in the magazine.193.195.75.20 (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no evidence of it because the magazine doesn't do it. This is an allegation constantly made by far-right groups and activists, but they never, ever provide any actual examples because they simply don't exist. It is a blatant lie used as a retrospective justification for terrorist websites like Redwatch which do print addresses, workplaces, home telephone numbers and photographs of political opponents, prominant members of ethnic minorities, trade unionists, journalists, mainstream politicans and peace protestors, accompanied with incitements to attack them. For examples of that, just take a quick look at their website.86.0.203.120 (talk) 13:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encouragement of Violent Attacks 

message: The revisions are getting repetitive.  I think the sources for the article need to be broadened. 
The anti-Searchlight website seems to be written by Alexander Baron.  Following the 'home' link reveals that much, so the author is not unknown.  Upon examination, its just unclear. 
Baron seems to claim authorship here: http://www.searchlightarchive.20m.com/s_a_homepage.html and characterizes himself as a "Holocaust revsionist" here: alexanderbaron.150m.com. 
I have no problem with adding links critical of Searchlight.  However, some of the links at the bottom of the page duplicate charges without adding much. A Google search turns up lots of these critiques.  The Alexander Baron pages alone air plenty of of anti-Searchlight articles, so maybe we can leave it at that. Adding the 'Green Anarchist' link does offer a different perspective.  
:: I was just leaving when I found that link, so didn't have time to examine it thoroughly. I wrote 'author unknown' because none of the articles I skimmed through were clearly attributed to any person or organisation. They did seem to contain a lot of detail and references, however, so the site appeared worth adding. Looking at the links page and seeing links to the Nation of Islam, &c., gave me the impression that it might be more balanced than some searchlight enemies' sites. I'll have a detailed look at it later and see if any verifiable information can be extracted and incorporated in the article.
:: Secondly, I'm sure Anti-fascist Action has something to say about searchlight online, too. Certainly its humourous critique of the British far right contains the following:
:::The WNP is an openly fascist party, based in Yorkshire. [...] Should the WNP carry out their threat to stand against Nick Griffin in the European elections, they could well prevent the BNP from gaining a MEP in the north west. It must be costing Searchlight a small fortune! 
:: 80.255 20:22, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding different kinds of links 

message: The official name of the publication is Searchlight Magazine, although people almost always refer to it as Searchlight.  Should the article be at Searchlight (magazine) or Searchlight Magazine?  Either way, the present title isn't correct. Warofdreams 16:55, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page name

message: If the user 81.132.57.155 could make a few external citations for the changes made on April 6, it would be appreciated.  I think they are valuable and other wise may be reverted.  In particular, the "solar left" reference is puzzling. DJ Silverfish02:48, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Solar left ref' is humours but hardly NPOV. I was about to revert but your right there is some info' in there which is usefull. needs NPOVing.--JK the unwise 09:12, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  April 6 additions 

message: The article is heavily bias towards the critisms of Searchlight. This needs to be balanced with a catalogue of positive activity to expose members of the far right. Links with the state/security services maybe a given, but that does not mean that Searchlight does not serve a role in keeping BNP et al. activities exposed and in open discussion. It seems strange that the 'Far Left' sources quotes are not analyses to the same degree and taken defacto as correct with no alteria motives or wrong doing. 
62.3.70.68 08:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Searchlight comes off as a remnant of the Marxist old left, feuding with the remnants of the fascist old right (plus some football hooligans) over at Combat 18/Redwatch. Are these outfits even big enough to be notable?  The article could use some membership statistics.   --John Nagle 02:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Searchlight is a magazine, not a membership organisation. Information and analysis from Searchlight is frequently the source of mainstream UK news stories on the far right, so it's notable on that score, if nothing else. --Aim Here 17:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Positive exposure of fascist activity 

message: Tried reading the article to find out what Searchlight was, but got more muck-flinging than useful information. Actually explaining its history and what these 'infamous' events were in a bit more detail might help complete outsiders like myself... 194.247.44.210 20:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV (again?) 

message: An editor removed this text, requesting clearer citation.
Searchlight has been criticized by far-left organizations as well as those on the far right. The defunct group Anti-Fascist Action refused to work with it due to its alleged links with the British security forces, (Fighting Talk 19) and British anarchist groups generally take the same view (Anarchy 36).
Probably the most consistent and in-depth Left critic of the Searchlight organisation is the veteran anti-fascist/editor of Notes From the Borderland Dr Larry O'Hara.  As well as his 1996 Searchlight for Beginners, he wrote two earlier pamphlets 'A Lie Too Far' & 'At War With the Truth' featuring in depth agent provocateur Tim Hepple (now Matthews) much of the evidence based on handwritten letters by Hepple.  Notes From the Borderland (as well as many other unrelated stories) provides a running commentary on ongoing Searchlight operations: NFB issue 2 (1998) featured their murky involvement in West Yorkshire (p.34-43) and the highly dubious antecedents of staff writer & ex NF thug Matthew Collins (p.32-33).  NFB issues 3 (2000) 5 (2003) and 6 (2004) indicted Searchlight for covering up (on behalf of MI5/Special Branch) the tracks left by 1999 Soho nail-bomb murderer David Copeland (p.14-38/p.16-19/p.43-47 respectively).  NFB issue 4 (2001)  outlined the role played by Searchlight in destabilising/smearing anti-EU groups (see especially p.11-13/18-19): NFB issue 5 (p.54-55) reproduced in full the relevant memo by Research Director Nick Lowles written to the European Movement.  Notes From the Borderland issue 6 (p.11-39) carried a detailed deconstruction/demolition of the BBC 'Secret Agent' documentary on the BNP, with heavy Searchlight input.
Left groups have also accused Searchlight of spreading disinformation about their activities. An infamous instance where lies were spread about Leftists was the 1985-6 circulation of smears about Class War (International Times May 1986).
Searchlight says that there is no evidence to suggest that it works with the security services. Critics, however argue that links with MI5 are hardly in doubt. Publisher Gerry Gables leaked 1977 LWT Memo stated that he had "given names I have acquired to be checked out by British/French security services". First published in the New Statesman on 15th February 1980 this was reproduced in Lobster issue 24 December 1992.  A 1987 profile referred to Gable's "wide range of contacts, including people in the secret services"  (Jewish Chronicle 23/10/87).In particular, some on the left accuse it of sharing information with the police and with MI5. Militant Leftists view with suspicion the fact that  Gerry Gable is vice chair of the Independent Advisory Group to the Diversity Directorate of the Metropolitan Police Service at Scotland Yard. Searchlight defence is that it has only cooperated with the state in a few cases, when laws were being broken (although specific examples have never been provided). 
The British National Party has claimed that Searchlight has been funded by the government. 
The magazine has also been criticized for relying on sources connected to the far right, such as former British Movement member Ray Hill, former Combat 18 leader Darren Wells, BNP organizer Andy Sykes, Tim Hepple, and Matthew Collins, who has been the subject of two BBC documentaries: "Life Etc" and "Dead Man Walking."
::This seems very well cited to me. What's wrong with it? It needs a bit of editing, but I think most of it should be in article. BobFromBrockley 10:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed text 

message: Instead of simply reverting, can people give reasons for and against the Searchlight Exposed link? I'm kind of agnostic. The website looks to me put up by fascists with (obviously) a strong axe to grind. Is that in itself a reason to delete the link? Any other reasons for and against? BobFromBrockley 18:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should really be looking for criticism which is either (a) impeccably sourced and can be used as a reference for the article, or (b) representative of a certain type.  In particular, there's no need to have long lists of critical articles and sites.  I've not checked the link, as I'm at work, but unless it does one of these things better than a link already in the article, I'd opt to leave it out. Warofdreams talk 19:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The link was removed, and has reappeared. Is there an editors' consensus on its status? BobFromBrockley 11:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Searchlight Exposed 

message: I've removed a link to this open letter, which I believe to be a hoax: http://www.labournet.de/krieg/nahost/oth/gable.html BobFromBrockley 11:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoax? 

message: :Image:Searchlightlogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 11:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Searchlightlogo.gif

message: I recall that MI5 fell out with Gerry Gable and leaked his home address to the BNP who published a photo of it. I shall look for a reference.--Streona (talk) 05:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: MI5 again

message: "... a lifelong Communist and longstanding anti-racist and anti-fascist."  Communist needs a small c.  Not changed as i dont see an edit option for this section. 77.102.240.29 (talk) 08:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede, spilling error 

message: This section is inaccurate from start to finish:
"The veracity of some of Searchlight’s claims has been called into question in court, occasionally resulting in legal damages, most notably in the cases involving libertarian writer Alexander Baron .Alexander Baron: Alexander Baron v. Gerry Gable and Others: Summary of One of the Libel Actions of the Decade (and Related Legal Actions) ITMA,  (1997) The Independent 22 June 1996"
In Baron's case, as the Independent citation makes clear, the settlements were out of court, i.e. never got to caught, as the victims of Baron's litigation were small independent bookshops that couldn't afford legal action. (Baron a libertarian? He is desribed in the cited article rather as "an assiduous publisher of right-wing literature", and is someone who uses the rather un-libertarian tool of court threats to suppress free speech!) If there is another case were Searchlight claims have been "called into question in court", please insert that, using more precise language. In the meantime, I'm deleting it.BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Veracity 

message: The report talks about new "tribes" as follows:
* 8% confident multi-culturalism
* 16% mainstream liberals
* 28% mostly ambilvilant
* 24% culturally integrationists
* 10% latent hostiles
* 13% Active enmity
Interestingly as you go down the list educational levels drop.  The report does a high level 25-50-25 split between liberal-mainstream-hostile.  The report has a lot of material on identity and multi-culturalism and reports on attitudes to violence etc.  It does not support the crude edit made by Ivor this morning hence my revert per WP:BRD --Snowded TALK  06:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's how The Guardian covered the report, highlighting the same areas I did:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/feb/27/support-poll-support-far-right Ivor Stoughton (talk) 06:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The New Statesman, same thing:
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/02/immigration-searchlight-class-race Ivor Stoughton (talk) 06:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Rod Liddle, the same:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/rodliddle/ Ivor Stoughton (talk) 06:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sky News, same:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Immigration-Searchlight-Populus-Poll-Finds-Support-For-Far-Right-Parties-If-They-Ditched-Violence/Article/201102415941796?lpos=Politics_First_Poilitics_Article_Teaser_Regi_0&lid=ARTICLE_15941796_Immigration%3A_Searchlight%2C_Populus_Poll_Finds_Support_For_Far-Right_Parties_If_They_Ditched_Violence  Ivor Stoughton (talk) 07:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  And The Daily Express:
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/231657/Half-of-Britons-could-vote-for-the-far-Right/  Ivor Stoughton (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 07:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The Mirror:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/02/27/shock-poll-shows-rising-tide-of-right-wing-nationalism-115875-22951794/ Ivor Stoughton (talk) 07:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

text: To continue quotations.  "70% of all respondents said they would support a group that wants to campaign against religious and racial extreamism and promote better relations between ethnic and religious groups in England".   The survey is also confined to England not Britain as a whole.   I could go on.  The point is that the report overall does not support the edit you made and I can't find the right wing party support point  If it is relevant to this article, then it needs to be more fully covered and linked to the use Seachlight intend to make of it.  Interestingly the same edition has a lot of new material on the funding and origins of the EDL which may be relevant to that article.   --Snowded TALK  07:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's pretty clear how the poll was reported, and it wasn't on the 70% who want to campaign against racial and religious extremism. Unfortunately, perhaps, but we musn't be Pollyannas here - or advocates for our personal preferences. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 07:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Ivor you can continue adding references my point is (i) is this relevant to the Searchight article and (ii) if it is then it needs to be balanced not sensationalized which require are more considered approach.  I've given you a direct quote above,  I can find the 60% one but not the right wing party support, the nearest is the the quote above.  There is also other material there.  So lets determine the relevance to this article first and then if it is relevant consider the wording.  I'll be back tonight and happy to look at it again then,  --Snowded TALK  07:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  (i) Searchlight commissioned the survey, in areas that are of central concern to it as a campaigning entity. (ii) Agree it should be balanced, but it should also reflect how the survey was widely reported. I'll wait until you're back before doing anything further. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 07:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we are too far apart.  I think it is relevant, but needs to give more detail on the survey referenced to Searchlight and also cover how it was reported.  Will attempt a draft this evening if that is OK?  Must dash for train now--Snowded TALK  07:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

text: I think the balance within the proposed addition is right. But maybe the addition as a whole is a bit long, and might tend to unbalance the section of the article? Ivor Stoughton (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, I wonder if its a new section or sub-section? --Snowded TALK  23:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say a new section. It's an important report, and merits it. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, very interesting material.  I can't do anything until tomorrow evening, if you want to have a go feel free!  --Snowded TALK  23:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless anyone objects I will put the above into the campaigns section as it relates to that and the section is tagged for expansion anyway --Snowded TALK  07:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent report 

message: I've once again removed the reference to Alan Harvey in the "Informants" section. Since he's a redlink, I fail to see what value there is in including him. Before anyone asks yes I know what redlinks are for, but that isn't my point. Unless there's actually an article on him, exactly what value is there in just including a random name? None that I can see, so there is zero loss of context by the removal of it. 2 lines of K303 12:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Alan Harvey

message: An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Searchlight (magazine). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/investigations/inquiryreports/search.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Searchlight (magazine). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081007194945/http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/hopenothate/2008/04/30/our-two-week-grand-tour-to-beat-racism-89520-20399443/ to http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/hopenothate/2008/04/30/our-two-week-grand-tour-to-beat-racism-89520-20399443/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The document cited in support of this sentence: 'The current Searchlight magazine was preceded by a newspaper of the same name, which was founded in 1964 by left-wing Labour Party Members of Parliament Reg Freeson and Joan Lestor with Gerry Gable as "research director"' does indeed state that the newspaper was founded by Reg Freeson, but does not mention Joan Lestor at all.
I think that some wires may have been crossed here. In the 'flannel panels' of the newspapers, Freeson is credited as editor. In issue 1 as 'Reg Freeson' and in issues 2, 3 and 4 as 'Reg Freeson MP'. In the fourth issue, Freeson announces his decision to stand down after being promoted to a ministerial role in the UK government, and says that Joan Lestor will be taking over as editor. In fact, no further issues were published.
Unless anyone has evidence that Lestor was indeed a founder of the newspaper, I propose to edit this section accordingly.Grubstreet (talk) 04:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Joan Lestor