Talk:Troy Southgate

message: I have removed the enormous and overbearing 'Far Right' banner on the article page. This is a POV categorisation because Southgate has stated here that the primary element in his syncretic ideology is the anarchism, not the racial separatism, and because he has repeatedly rejected attempts to box him into left/right labels. He is involved with something called New Right but we're talking about a movement which is intellectual and not political in character, which rejects conventional political categories as obsolete (see this review of its manifesto), and whose ideologues may claim as much entitlement to the name New Left. Given that Southgate has dissociated himself from almost everybody listed on the banner, this political pigeon-holing is not at all representative of the various projects Southgate is involved with now, especially (and heavily) music.
I have also removed the incorrect Third Position template. Southgate is no longer a Third Positionist and hasn't been for a good number of years (explicitly rejecting 3P here, for example). An appropriate and far more relevant replacement might be the National-Anarchist star and I will be looking into the possibility of uploading this. Gnostrat (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me?  Just to state the patently obvious, many far-rightists or fascists these days would not self-identify as such.  One example would be the EDL's islamophobic position disingenuously couched in the language of gay rights.  There's a scholarly article that discusses Southgate and the new right as fascism.  Whether or not one agrees with this, it should be totally clear that it's methodologically invalid to take a public figure's own description of their political identification as the primary source for classifying them politically.  The fact that the 'Far Right' banner is enormous and overbearing is similarly irrelevant to the point. Sindinero (talk) 23:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed misleading templates

message: This section desperately needs to removed - it solely consists of a quote from an article that could be mentioned in the politics section, if it really needs to be mentioned at all, and some ridiculous unsourced nonsense about rumours of homosexuality circulating on a mailing list. Belzub 12:41, 08 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I will just keep adding the Controversy section on this page.  Ask for protection if you like.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.67.42 (talk) 10:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

text: (I have moved the above post from my talk page, as I believe it is properly addressed to everybody who is concerned with editing this article in accordance with biographies of living persons policy.) Gnostrat (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been combing through the relevant policy pages and have put together a comprehensive case detailing the policy violations in this section (although my edit summaries make a sufficient enough case as things stand). I have also checked into deletion policy and evidently this material should be removed immediately pending discussion. I needn't go into these details now, as Belzub has just done the deletion job for me. Matters may be taken further if it is re-added. Please note the immediately relevant point of policy: "the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete disputed material. If the material is to be restored without significant change, then consensus must be obtained first...if the matter becomes disputed it should not be added back without discussion and consensus-seeking" (WP:BLP). So far, "Evola", you have continued to re-add controversial material whilst ignoring an invitation to explain and justify your edits. As long as this section violates policy, therefore, I (or any other editor) will be obliged to remove it as often as necessary. I would much prefer that you would take the opportunity to discuss it. Gnostrat (talk) 02:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I've restored the telegraph material - its not foggo its the telegraph which is the source. Paki.tv (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Telegraph article is already mentioned elsewhere in the article - the point of contention was not the source itself, it was the undue weight given to the source by arbitrarily mentioning it a second time, and including a lengthy clump of text for no good reason. The section was added in by a persistent vandal, so please do not re-add it. Belzub (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: "Members performed torchlight ceremonies and distributed small bags of earth."
Is this a joke? I don't get it.Matthau (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Eh?

message: Per Wikipedia BLP, contentious and unsourced statements about living persons can be removed immediately without discussion.  I have done so, including statements about criminal offences and prison sentences and statements relating to the subjects dealings with other (presumably) living persons.  Given the academic sources section, I have to assume that associating the subject which certain political causes is not contentious.
Most of the sources cited for the article are not even close to being Reliable Sources.  Any editor working on the article needs to be familiar with that policy.  In particular, a website evidently self-published by the subject of the article is not a reliable source, nor are websites of unknown provenance and unsubstantiated editorial standards.  I also removed a speculative section which appeared to be designed to promote books the subject of the article might write.KD Tries Again (talk) 06:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is basically just an advertisement for this guy. It needs to go. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Southgate and/or his associates have had a big hand in turning this article into an advert for his music and writings, neither of which are especially significant. However, his political involvements are more important and he has played a significant role in extreme right politics within the UK. (And that involvement was directly connected with his criminal record, which should be reinstated.) Deletion is not the right way forward, though removal of the (self-)promotion is not, in my view, contentious. Emeraude (talk) 11:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP Violations, Few Reliable Sources 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:N-A Flag.png Nominated for Deletion

message: The subject of this article does not appear to be of encyclopedic significance.  The article itself seems to be a 90% self-authored hagiography.  The citations don't meet any of the criteria for Wikipedia.  The gist of this article is:  "I'm important because I say I'm important, and to prove it here is what I have to say about myself."
The article should be entirely deleted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.51.185.32 (talk) 21:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary: Southgate is a significant figure within extreme right wing politics in the UK, having played a leading part in a number of extreme groups over the years as the article details. As such, the article is justified. On the other hand, despite what the article may claim, he is not widely known as an author, editor or musician, and most, if not all, of the material relating to his "cultural" activities could be deleted. Emeraude (talk) 09:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I very much agree with Emeraude that Southgate is a significant figure within the British extreme right. On the other hand, this article is sorely lacking in RS that would establish his notability. DarjeelingTea (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommend Deletion of this Article 

message: Pending changes reviewer here. I reverted the latest expansion of this article, on the grounds of "undue weight": it seems excessive to base over half the article on the one account, the Macklin paper in Patterns of Prejudice. That article does appear to be a valid source – editorial board, peer reviewed; at the same time as indicated in its title it's a journal with a mission, "exploring the historical roots and contemporary varieties of social exclusion and the demonization or stigmatisation of the Other." The tremendous list of influences on Southgate's thinking, in particular, has the air of speculation – how can we know except from the man himself? A greatly condensed version of this new material could be admissible I think: Noyster  (talk),  09:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous article makes him sound like a Catholic when he is not (or hasn't been for a long time). In myrecent edit, I removed the list of influences and considerably reduced the weight on the PoP article.Southfff (talk) 13:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graham D. Macklin paper 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Troy Southgate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160326032614/http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/archive/packaging-hate-%E2%80%93-the-new-right-publishing-networks to http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/archive/packaging-hate-%E2%80%93-the-new-right-publishing-networks
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A user keeps putting in that Black Front Press is a publisher of neo-Nazi works. It is not. No book they have published is remotely neo-Nazi as anyone can see for themselves. Besides, the citations for this are wrong also as neither of them state this either.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan Simon Thomas (talk • contribs) 02:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes they are. They might not call themselves neo-Nazi (they're not stupid) but "as anyone can see for themselves" that's exactly what they are. Emeraude (talk) 08:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The source cited to back up the claim that Black Front Press publishes "neo-Nazi texts" does not provide any evidence for it. User Emeraude has not backed up their response to this being pointed out by OP above with anything other than their opinion - i.e. an appeal to authority. What the Searchlight article actually states is the following: "The books range from several collections of Southgate’s ramblings to edited collections on a variety of political figures including Nietzsche, the Romanian fascist Corneliu Codreanu, the German “left-wing” Nazi Otto Strasser, the American poet and fascist sympathiser Ezra Pound and Evola. Its latest book is a reader on National Anarchism (see last month’s Searchlight) featuring the likes of Southgate, Keith Preston (from the Attack the System blog), Brett Stevens (from the Amerika blog), Wolf Herfurth (former Nazi now in Australia) and Flavio Gonçalves (from Portugal who runs Finis Mundi Press – see below)." How exactly does this claim stand? It is based solely on 'guilt by association'. Further, Searchlight has been criticised for its unreliability, including on its Wiki page. Integralanarch (talk) 09:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Black Front Press, "neo-Nazi works"