Talk:American Renaissance (magazine)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The ADL is hardly a non-biased NPOV source, I'm removing it. Volksgeist 14:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

External links do not need to be non-biased or NPOV, only our own writing. -Will Beback 02:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Would a bio about the AR be acceptable if it was hosted by StormFront.Org? I see the ADL as no better. Volksgeist 07:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Stormfront is a forum, so no, it would not be acceptable. See WP:RS. -Will Beback 09:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I have made some modifications to the article as it previously seemed to merely reiterate the POV of AR itself, without properly contextualizing it. --Betamod 03:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the "criticism" section and some of the links to hostile entities, since the article is under no obligation to give attention to the opposition. Irvine White Nationalist

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Please avoid editing articles to fit point of viewsYou very nice place 00:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

"Irvine White Nationalist" has removed links to source material that he alleges are hostile to AR, yet since they are now gone, we have only his word for it and can't decide for ourselves. Articles have no obligations but editors of articles do have obligations and one of them is to give space to contrary opinions. It is self evident that an article on just about any subject should include references to all significant controversy about the subject and clearly AR has garnered a fair amount of controversy so why can't its white nationalist supporters be honest about that? What are you afraid of "Irvine White Nationalist"?

There is a misleading statement in the first part of the article. It says that "neo-Nazis and KKKers" were kicked out for anti-semitism. While it is true that certian persons of this type were kicked out, the sentence as written implies - falsly - that neo-nazis and kkk members don't associate (or are no longer allowed to associate) with the magazine in general. I'm going to take that out, beginning with the last comma. The refence for the rest of the sentence will remain in place. Without this edit, the article is rightly NPOV. -adropofreason

This article is a parody of itself. A left-wing exudation based on newspaper's columns of a left-wing journalist. What about mentioning the "facts and statistics derived from sometimes reputable sources, but taken out of context"? I would be curious. Centrum99 12:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Racism

Why is this article filled with references to racism and white separatism, but the NCF's article has few to none? Tim Long 04:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Your question was one dependent clause too long. It should have simply read, "Why is this article filled with references to racism and white separatism?" It should instead be filled with references to black and Hispanic racism and separatism.
70.23.167.160 22:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proxy war

“19:50, 25 June 2007 Spylab (Talk | contribs) m (6,458 bytes) (deleted names that don't have their own Wikipedia articles)” http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Renaissance_%28magazine%29&action=history

Since you are constantly reverting edits, and rationalizing such conduct based on a non-existent rule which I have traced back to User:Will Beback, who invented it at 22:26 on 20 June, in order to violate WP:NPOV, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Comradesandalio#Notable_contributors ) you too are guilty of violating WP:NPOV, as well as WP:POINT, WP:HARASSMENT, and WP:CIVIL, and not only engaging in edit warring, but engaging in a proxy edit war on behalf of User:Will Beback. As other editors have told User:Will Beback, so I tell you: Don’t be a dick. 70.23.167.160 23:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Rather than reinserting red links it's better to sit down and write articles about these people, assuming that adequate sources are available and that they meet our standards for notability, WP:BIO. Removing red links is not harassment but comments like the above may be. Please be civil and comment on the edits rather than the editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Since you and your allies have for months been stalking me, deleting virtually every one of my edits, I would be an utter fool to waste my time writing articles for Antipedia.
Note too that your argument -- "If these people were notable then we'd have articles about them" -- is circular. According to that argument, no presently living figure who does not now have a WP entry is notable.
There is no rule that every name (or even every contributor) mentioned in a WP entry must in turn have its own WP entry. I am not going to oblige myself to follow a non-existent rule, and you have no right to invent and impose your own rules.
70.23.199.57 04:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The title of that list is "Notable contributors". If a person isn't notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, then they aren't notable enough to be on the list. Also, without references or their own Wikipedia articles, there is no way to verify that the people are actually contributors to the publication. Anyone could add a random name for whatever reason. Spylab 11:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

(Some of the following entry applies as well to User:Will Beback.)
1. You have still not responded to my criticisms that your argument assumes a non-existent rule, is circular, and would result in no living person who presently does not have a WP entry ever having one.
2. And if you truly meant what you said, you would be reverting thousands of articles that cite people who lack WP articles of their own, something you are not doing.
3. Anyone with any familiarity with this publication will immediately recognize the names as contributors. Conversely, a reasonable person with no familiarity with the publication will say to himself, “Oh, so these are some of the heavy hitters contributing to American Renaissance.” Someone who has no familiarity with the publication has no business editing an article on it.
4. You have a history of making mischief with articles on topics about which you know nothing ( e.g., Harry Gibson, Jared Taylor).
5.“Also, without references or their own Wikipedia articles, there is no way to verify that the people are actually contributors to the publication. Anyone could add a random name for whatever reason.”
The only reason for assuming that a name is “random” would be if one were both utterly ignorant about the publication (see #3 above) AND one assumed bad faith on the part of User:Comradesandalio, who originally entered that information, and myself. But utter ignorance and assuming bad faith are both no-nos in an editor. Do you intend to justify your assumption of bad faith on the part of User:Comradesandalio? (And yet, your ignorance of the subject matter and employment of a non-existent rule make this discussion moot.)
6. Actually, a radical new method has been invented, whereby one may determine whether those people are actually contributors to the publication: Go to American Renaissance’s Web site. A second, radical new method is to google under [author] and “American Renaissance.”
But again, since you know nothing about the subject, it is incumbent for you to study it, and leave the editing to those who already have.
Thus, there is absolutely no justification for your reverts, which continue to have the character of harassment, etc. that I ascribed to them on 23:04, 25 June 2007. And so I shall continue to revert them. Please cease violating WP:NPOV, WP:POINT, WP:HARASSMENT, and WP:CIVIL, engaging in edit warring, and engaging in a proxy edit war.
70.23.160.226 04:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paging George Orwell

  1. (cur) (last) 01:02, 28 June 2007 Jayjg (Talk | contribs) m (Protected American Renaissance (magazine): IP vandalism/edit warring [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])
  2. (cur) (last) 01:02, 28 June 2007 Jayjg (Talk | contribs) (6,473 bytes) (IP vandalism/edit warring)

That as a proxy in a stalking campaign you have the gall to vandalize this article, lock it down, and claim that I was vandalizing it, is nothing short of obscene. 70.23.164.215 05:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jayjg of the Ministry of Truth

(cur) (last) 15:38, 29 June 2007 Jayjg (Talk | contribs) m (74,249 bytes) (Reverted edits by 70.23.164.215 (talk) to last revision by Eleland) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jayjg&action=history

At 05:10, 29 June, in response to [User:Jayjg]]’s participation in a stalking campaign against me, in which capacity he vandalized the American Renaissance article, I posted “Paging George Orwell (American Renaissance)” on his talk page. Ten hours and 28 minutes later, User:Jayjg vandalized my observation, sending it down the memory hole. Something tells me that he does not take his irony supplements. 70.23.164.215 04:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems to me that since I last edited this article it has been systematically obscured by the removal of relevant information by people who seem to be supporters of the opinions promoted by AR. I can't say that I agree with AR's ideology but I did try to be POV neutral in my contributions. In contrast to my contributions, the more recent edits are transparently biased towards AR and anyone who reads it can tell that it's skewed. The vandals are not fooling anyone! However what I find perplexing is why they would seek to obscure AR's association with other racialist/racist/racial separatist organizations and persons unless they are ashamed of said associations. Yet if they are ashamed of beliefs they hold, then why do they hold them? That seems rather futile, as well as dishonest, cowardly and stupid. Why not have the guts to engage in an honest discourse about their beliefs, otherwise what hope do they have of convincing anyone else of their validity? --Betamod 01:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Change the title of the article

The title of this article should be "Criticism of American Renaissance" since all it does it list the criticisms of the magazine. Many Wikipedia topics have "Criticism" as a subtopic, but if you made one for this article, there wouldn't be anything left outside the subtopic. Tpellman 19:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

A long article should have a separate section for criticism, but this article is quite short. Currently, it describes the main theme of the magazine, which is a perfectly neutral thing to do. Given that most of the notableness of this topic comes from the controversy the magazine stirs up, I think it's fair to mention criticism prominently. Franzeska 15:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The article is much shorter than it used to be. There used to be a section describing the main themes put forward by AR which seemed very pro AR POV but I edited it to be more POV neutral and linked key words to other relevant Wikipedia articles. In the latest version this has been completely removed with a few parts appended to the main body of the article, I think, as a result of recent edit wars.
Personally, I would rather just never have to read about these hysterical racists. However, I came across this article by accident and felt I should contribute to it. I find AR and its agenda quite repulsive in addition to it being based n fallacious science, theology and any other intellectual discipline they can manage to pervert to their agenda but the best way to expose them is to give them all the rope they need to hang themselves. Wikipedia is the perfect place to give context to their fallacies and thereby expose them as such.
Of course it is also clear to me that racists and white supremacists use Wikipedia as a means to disseminate their ideas and I haver noticed that certain articles get sat on by folks with a definite POV, so we must all be vigilant but also conscientious in the means by which we combat these vandals. --Betamod 20:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
"Personally, I would rather just never have to read about these hysterical racists. However, I came across this article by accident and felt I should contribute to it. I find AR and its agenda quite repulsive in addition to it being based n fallacious science, theology and any other intellectual discipline they can manage to pervert to their agenda but the best way to expose them is to give them all the rope they need to hang themselves. Wikipedia is the perfect place to give context to their fallacies and thereby expose them as such.

--Betamod 20:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)"

Your criticism -- "being based n [sic] fallacious science, theology ...," is based solely on an unsupported line you took from an anonymous criticism cited in the article. Thus, your idea of scientific criticism is to engage in rumor-mongering. Had you studied the subject of this article, you would know that theology plays no role in American Renaissance. You would also know that it is the magazine's critics who are guilty of fallacious science.
Did you think that being utterly ignorant about a subject qualified one to edit an article on it?
71.249.107.254 05:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)