Revision as of 09:12, 6 April 2005 editJK the unwise (talk | contribs)3,629 edits →April 6 additions: Haha← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:41, 3 June 2005 edit undo62.255.32.14 (talk) latest changesNext edit → | ||
Line 79: | Line 79: | ||
If the user ] 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. ]02:48, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) | If the user ] 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. ]02:48, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) | ||
::''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.--] 09:12, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) | ::''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.--] 09:12, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) | ||
----- | |||
Edits by me: | |||
*searchlight has indeed been sued successfully many times. Someone has altered this fact to suggest that this isn't the case, while providing no proof. I'm changing it back. | |||
* ''As a magazine, it bases itself on the one of the prime journalistsic principles of not revealing its sources. Amongst those sources have been Ray Hill, Tim Hepple, Matthew Collins, Darren Wells and Andy Sykes. '' - isn't this rather contradictory!? Its sources obviously have been revealed, although I shall leave it in. "prime journalistsic principles", however, is rather too complimentary-sounding for a NPOV article. | |||
* ''Hepple has been discredited somewhat, but that is in no way a reflection on Searchlight's modus operandi.'' - no idea what's this is supposed to mean. It makes no sense without an explanation. I have therefore removed it - if whoever added want to reinsert and explain, fine. | |||
* few minor NPOV tweaks, along with a little reprasing for better flow, and grammatical corrections ("MP's", etc.). IT is still rather slangy in places, and this ought to be rewritten. | |||
] 22:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:41, 3 June 2005
User:Andy wilson wrote:
- It encourages physical attacks on right-wing opponents.
What is the evidence for this assertion?
Lets get this NPOV
Justification for my latest edit:
- Remove: 'what they percive to be' in sentence publishes material critical of what they percive to be far-right political parties
- Groups like the BNP etc are far right, compare them with mainstream righties like the tories. In the same way groups like the swp are far-left. The term merly discribes position in the political spectrum.
- There is a continuum. Searchlight has published material critical of UKIP, righ-wing toriy groups (the monday club, CDA, &c.), Right Now Magazine and so on. I don't think it's impartial to lump all these groups togather with the White Nationalist Party! Hence I shall replace this phrase. 80.255 11:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Remove: 'and is noted for its very left-wing stance on most issues'
- Noted by whome?
- The magazine can fairly be described as left wing. It's social policies, praise for immigration, and general philosophy reflect that of the left. Have you actually read Searchlight? You can't seriously be suggesting that it is a rightwing magazine?! I shan't reeplace this yet, but I think it's a fair comment. 80.255 11:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Argree oretation=left. (though libetrain righties might agree with some of it) but very left? + Ref's would be good.--JK the unwise 12:07, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Refs for what? I didn't think it was disputed that Searchlight is left wing!
- How about:
- "Searchlight magazine is a left wing monthly publication. Describing itself as an "international anti-Fascist magazine", it mainly publishes material critical of what it percives to be far-right political parties."
- 80.255 12:16, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Rv. Paragrapth on Left and right critism.
- Anti-Fascist Action is a far-left group. Who else claims that they have links with the British security forces?
- I believe Green Arachist also maintains this, as have a number of independent researchers.
- Green Anrachist --> Far left. Please ref the independent researchers. Also why would you see it as a critism that it had links with British security forces if you were pollitcaly mainstream?--JK the unwise 12:07, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I believe Green Arachist also maintains this, as have a number of independent researchers.
- Rv. Links
- First link is to the search light magazine. Its confusing to discribe it as pro searchlight as that implies that it is by a group other then searchlight. I think people can figger out that they are pro themselves! Also for some reason you took out the discription in this - Far right/facist critism of from "Final Conflict The Nationalist Fanzine", Why? That is were the material comes from.
- +
I haven't edited this out but could you give references for it has been sued by a plethora of organisations on many occasions, often successfully. --JK the unwise 11:09, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Have a skim through the "final conflict" article mentioned above. Much as it is obviously biased against searchlight, it does contain a good deal of verifiable information on some of the legal actions the organisation has suffered. There are also other cases it hasn't mentioned; I'll see if I can find some references. 80.255 11:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Gerry Gable inconsistancy
This article claims, The magazine is edited by Gerry Gable, a former member of the Communist Party of Great Britain and militant 62 Group. Where as the Gerry Gable article claims He was a supporter of the British militant anti-fascist 62 Group and, though never a member himself. They can't both be right.--JK the unwise 10:14, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I didn't add this. The notion that Gable wasn't a member of this group has only recently been added to the 62 Group article.
- The 'Final Conflict' article says that "Gable was involved with the criminal '62 Group' and the Limbo Club was managed by Harry Bidney." - it doesn't specifically say he was a member, although neither does it imply that he wasn't. Obviously it is trying to associate him with a violent group, so he may well not have been active in it, as such. He certainly did eulogise it it in articles, however, and wrote a very lauding obiturary of Bidney when he died.
- Perhaps something saying that Gable had connections with the 62 Group, but not saying that he was specifically a member, would be better until this can be confirmed or disproven. 80.255 11:01, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Adding different kinds of links
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: http://www.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:
- 80.255 20:22, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The key to getting this NPOV will be contextualizing all this info. Attacks and research from the right should be labled as such. If any news articles from mass market magazines can be found, then these should be added.
I'm adding three new kinds of links:
Further Reading - for reference books published by and about Searchlight with complete publication info, for context
Public Statements - for reference to public testimony by and about Searchlight, with full reference to speaker and affiliation
See Also - for reference to groups that do similar work, like the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center do in the US. I imagine there are similar discussions about these pages, so everybody should be happy about this link. DJ Silverfish 14:34, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The Southern Poverty Law Center and Anti-Defamation League pages do a much better job of explaining controversies in a NPOV way. This is in large part due to mass media references. A quick Google search does not turn up any such references references in the UK. Are there any? DJ Silverfish 17:12, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Page name
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)
April 6 additions
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)
- 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)
Edits by me:
- searchlight has indeed been sued successfully many times. Someone has altered this fact to suggest that this isn't the case, while providing no proof. I'm changing it back.
- As a magazine, it bases itself on the one of the prime journalistsic principles of not revealing its sources. Amongst those sources have been Ray Hill, Tim Hepple, Matthew Collins, Darren Wells and Andy Sykes. - isn't this rather contradictory!? Its sources obviously have been revealed, although I shall leave it in. "prime journalistsic principles", however, is rather too complimentary-sounding for a NPOV article.
- Hepple has been discredited somewhat, but that is in no way a reflection on Searchlight's modus operandi. - no idea what's this is supposed to mean. It makes no sense without an explanation. I have therefore removed it - if whoever added want to reinsert and explain, fine.
- few minor NPOV tweaks, along with a little reprasing for better flow, and grammatical corrections ("MP's", etc.). IT is still rather slangy in places, and this ought to be rewritten.
62.255.32.14 22:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)