Talk:Tyr (journal)

message: This looks like a simple vanity page. It's just an ad for the publication. Catherineyronwode 09:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: There was also a book published entitled Confessions of a Radical Traditionalist by John Michell in 2005, if that helps anything. It is associated with the magazine as far as I understand. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have come across this too, trying to verify the term. I understand that this is completely unrelated. Michell calls for a "return to Platonism". Nothing in Tyr seems to even remotely touch on that. dab (𒁳) 09:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Michell

message: As the AfD was closed as keep (per no consensus), that is not consensus to delete it via page-blanking and redirection.  I have no opinion on the politics of the contributors to this journal, but it is clear there was no consensus for Dab to do this. I am going to restore this to the state it was in at the closing of the AfD. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 07:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not going to re-do the AfD discussion here because you do not like the outcome here. In the absence of consensus, the decision defaulted to Keep, not merge and redirect. I'm not particularly attached to what happens to this article, myself, but I don't approve of the way you're handling this. You appear to me to have decided on an outcome, which you are willing to doggedly push to achieve by a variety of means, including ignoring consensus (or lack thereof). The article certainly has room for improvement. I suggest you either improve it or let it go. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: since when is merging decided on AfD? I am not asking you to "re-do the AfD discussion", I am asking you to state whether you claim this article meets WP:BK. You have done no such thing in the Afd discussion, so you cannot complain about being asked to do it now. Your "comment" in Afd accused me of WP:POINT. My nomination was no such thing, as you can see by the statement I made: The nomination was a bona fide attempt to resolve a deadlock. Unfortunately, it attracted only three votes, one for and two against, so that it didn't help any. "Keep" votes were based on lots of notable people involved . This seems to be a claim of point (5) above. WP:BK doesn't say "lots of notable people involved", it mentions "an author historically so significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable ... for example, a person whose life or works is a subject of common classroom study". This clearly isn't met here. My motivation here isn't some crusade against the Nouvelle Droite or neo-fascism: I am perfectly happy with WP covering all topics of neo-fascism with any notability whatsoever in full detail; it is the concern that this article is , abusing Wikipedia as  a free marketing tool. The problem is that boo disputes the obvious classification of this publication as part of neo-fascist literature, and it turns out that there aren't enough independent sources to establish even this triviality: I conclude that it isn't possible to write an independent article on this thing for simple lack of attention it has received. dab (𒁳) 11:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: As far as I can tell, Tyr does not meet the requirements for notability set out in WP:BK. However, that guide for notability only concerns books. From WP:BK: "...this guideline does not presently provide notability criteria (though it may be instructive by analogy) for the following types of publications: ...magazines..." As a (roughly) biannual journal, I am not sure that those notability requirements apply strictly to Tyr. More important is that Tyr is the most notable publication at the centre of the Radical Traditionalist movement. Now that the Wikipedia page on Radical Traditionalism has been deleted, I do not think the Tyr page should also be deleted. Radical Traditionalism as a movement does exist beyond the pages of Tyr, a survey of various blogs, newsletters etc. demonstrates that, so if Wikipedia is to be a comprehensive encyclopedia it should record that fact somewhere. Personally, I would have preferred to keep the Rad Trad article but perhaps to merge the Tyr article into it. That makes more logical sense to me. I don't mind the current system using the Traditionalism disambiguation page, but some page concerning Rad Trad ought to survive. Deleting every page smacks of censorship. Anomenat (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Blanking and Redirecting

message: ok, I found another source: 
* Andreas Diesel, Dieter Gerten, Looking for Europe: Neo-folk und Hintergründe (2007),  , pp. 353ff.
While this is another sympathetic source relying on interviews with MM, this is at least a largely independent ISBN'd publication discussing Tyr at some length. In the light of this, I think we can proceed with the article, especially since it seems likely that more sources will be forthcoming. This is new evidence: I continue to insist that your revert was not justifiable at the time you made it. Had you presented further information such as this, the case would have been entirely different. dab (𒁳) 12:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this source honestly sympathetic? I've heard some pretty bad things about this book. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, never mind, it seems I confused it for another book. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I would imagine that the journal is probably drawing most of its audience through the music that it is associated with, since it seems to be mostly a music magazine. Much of the music featured caters to specific post-industrial subcultures as well as cross bred with some folk sensibilities, which have a devoted following and, as traditional for genres associated with Industrial Music, at times has a sense of fascination with the "forbidden". If you check out the music, you will see it is very un-Nazi skinhead stuff. Notably, 16 Horsepower is there, which has a devoted following and is a sort of Christian alt-country. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: sure, as I said, I have no interest in somehow demonizing or smearing anyone or anything. But my position is that if a certain extremist ideology has somehow managed to embed itself inside a much larger movement, it is necessary to document and delineate the phenomenon precisely, rather than gloss over it because the discussion might "offend" the many participants in the movement that are unconnected with it. I am completely disinterested in alarmist hype. My aim is detached and meticulous documentation of the situation such as it is. dab (𒁳) 14:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Diesel and Gerten (2007)

message: Is a full table of contents really encyclopedic? Seems like excessive detail to me. Valtyr (talk) 16:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I would say it would be better to convert it to a list of essays and by whom. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of Contents 

message: For what it's worth, the journal and Moynihan are cited for reviewing Runes And Their Secrets: Studies In Runology here:  :bloodofox: (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Mention

message: Amazon sales rank for vol. 2 hovers around 130,000 now, and a web-wide google search gives around 1,200 hits (compared to rank 600,000 and 600 hits last November). This is still rather borderline in terms of WP:BK, but I am willing to withdraw the "notability" tag at this point. The journal's notability is, however, certainly not sufficient to spawn sub articles like "Radical Traditionalism (Tyr journal)" or similar. --dab (𒁳) 08:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: revisiting notability