Talk:Mark Collett/Archive 1

Video
Changed link to Google video of documentary (External link) to documentary website. Video has been removed.--Ketlan 06:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Why remove the actual video? there is another video linked ? I've seen several videos in other articles tooHyperfeedback 21:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't remove the video and I have no idea why it was removed. Maybe it was because it breached copyright.--Ketlan 17:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Film has been reposted to YouTube - link in references.--Ketlan (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD
On May 9, this article was nominated for deletion. The discussion can be found at Votes for deletion/Mark Collett. The result was keep. &mdash; Xezbeth 18:58, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

"Despite"?
"Despite the BNP taking a softer public stance on homosexuality, Collett made a number of comments about homosexuals in Russell Brand's 2001 TV show RE:Brand."

The show was broadcast more than five years ago. Did the BNP adopt a softer stance on homosexuality before or (as I suspect) after the programme was filmed? 217.155.20.163 23:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Alleged homosexuality
I would say a few things about this.

Collett's disgusting comments on homosexuals and gay rights should be documented, clearly.

However, the suggestion that Collett is gay is at worst original research, and at best it is taking a single line from a script to a TV show which was intended to be a humourous quip, not a detailed psychoanalysis of his sexual orientation.

Evolutionary psychology says that men show off to other men to establish a dominance hierarchy amongst society based on machismo. The dominant men then can have relationships (and children) with better and/or more women. Men show off to each other to get the girls, not so they can get in bed with each other.

The inclusion of the quote actually distracts from Collett's views on gays because it (a) makes little sense and (b) trivialiases the stance.

Any thoughts? Swithlander (talk) 23:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It makes perfect sense - many of the fiercest political homophobes are motivated by hatred of their own repressed homosexuality. There are hundreds of examples, a recent (2020) one being Hungarian Jozsef Szajer, architect of the Hungarian far right, who was caught at a gay orgy. There were several repressed homosexuals in the Nazi Reich too.2A00:23C6:7E05:6A00:340C:E28B:3DC1:E9C0 (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mark Collett. 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/20090107022944/http://www.identitymagazine.org.uk/editorial.html to http://www.identitymagazine.org.uk/editorial.html

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) 06:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

David Duke
I removed the passage concerning Collett's meeting with David Duke last year because there are no reliable, third-party sources discussing this connection. Unfortunately, this issue seems to have caused a minor edit war with the passage being cut and restored on a couple of occasions. In my view, it is "promotional" in nature making Collett seem more important than he is from his contact with a notorious figure from the United States. Early on in the article, we know the kind of person Collett is by his admiration for Adolf Hitler. Philip Cross (talk) 13:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mark Collett. 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/20111004124953/http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/news/article/1756/police-to-take-no-further-action-over-plot-to-kill-head-of-b to http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/news/article/1756/police-to-take-no-further-action-over-plot-to-kill-head-of-b

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) 03:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Mark Collett is a "Neo Nazi"?
The sources cited in the lede, which say that Mark Collett is a "neo-Nazi", and "far-right" are very weak. Neither source gives a thorough analysis of how or why Mark Collett is a "neo-nazi" or far-right. Only a single source actually calls him a neo-nazi, in reference to someone retweeting his tweet. Does this single factor, it's inclusion in the article based solely on a retweet, really conclude that Mark Collett is a neo-nazi? Nonetheless, neither of the articles have any merit for upholding the claim that he is a neo-nazi or far-right. The first article simply calls him "an admirer of Nazism". No explanation, no cited sources. That means that that is an opinion. This article is also several years old, and, even if it accurately portrayed the views of said person at the time, can't accurately predict what he might view now. The second article, which brands Mark Collett a "neo-nazi" does not explain why, or cite any sources. This means that it is an opinion as well. Furthermore, this article was written by an INTERN for ABC News, who has written how many articles? 8. 198.110.51.170 (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to add further, that this article needs improvements. The section "Political Beliefs" claim that he is a white supremacist, citing the ADL, an organization found to repeatedly lie and twist statistics, and is a blatantly partisan organization. The article also claims "Collett supports a ban on hardcore pornography. He supports legal but regulated prostitution.", but cite a YouTube video. This is clearly not a reliable source. 198.110.51.170 (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The articles used as sources are perfectly reliable. They do not have to say why he is a neo-Nazi, nor cite sources, and i they did I suspect you would question those sources, and their sources..... When reliable sources do not give their sources, it does not make them opinion. Your comments on the sources suggest that you yourself are not unbiased in this matter. Emeraude (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that he wasn't a neo-nazi, or alt-right. I'm simply stating that the sources used do not adequately support the claim that he is far-right or a neo-nazi. This idea that we must claim someone to be something simply because a single sentence in a single article that has nothing to do with that person says that he is that thing, is ridiculous. We can speculate whether or not their claim has any merit based on who they are, how they support that claim, and with other information. Neither article supports the claim that he is far-right explicitly in any sense, nor does the article that claims that he is a neo-nazi support that claim. That article was also written by an intern that has only written 8 articles. Please get better sources, instead of assuming I am trying to whitewash him. The two articles in question, however, are not adequate. One is outdated, and doesn't even support the claim, and the other is made by an intern who has made a whole of 8 articles, and neither article is about the person himself. Say as a hypothetical example, the Economist article written about Ben Shapiro, was still up, calling him "Alt right". Would that warrant Wikipedia to add that Ben Shapiro is alt right to the lede, with no other sources? Just a thought. 198.110.51.170 (talk) 11:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've removed it. It's a clear WP:BLP vio. Unless you have a citation where he self-identifies as a Neo Nazi, we can't call him one. Rhejhect (talk) 00:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * We go by reliable sources. If you know of a source where he says he isn't one, please present that. We could include that with attribution. Grayfell (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Reliable source is either himself or someone that analyses programmatic statements by him. "Neo-Nazi" isn't even a political science term, but a polemical one. So we would go by National Socialist and measure programmatic requirements to statements. To demand that unless there is a statement that says he isn't a "Neo-Nazi", the article will say he is one is preposterous on its face. Will you call Angela Merkel a Neo-Commy, unless she says she isn't?! 105.0.5.38 (talk) 02:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)