Talk:Sol Invictus (band)

deleted mention of Wakeford's NF membership
I've twice reverted the mention of Wakeford's former National Front membership by User: Caro7. I reckon it's a salient fact that does belong here and that readers may want to know. After all, if the fact he left Death in June is noteworthy enough to be in this article, surely the rather interesting reason why he had to leave and form his own band is noteworthy too. If you'd like to explain why this fact should be deleted, so we can avoid a revert war over what appears to me to be a vanity/POV edit (correct me if I'm wrong), then please do so here. --Aim Here 07:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it because there was no contextualising of the mention (namely, that Tony hasn't been involved in such things for 20+ years, which in this instance is important knowledge), and unfortunately it served to potentially inflame a particularly threatening and unpleasant section of the far-left who go around getting the band's gigs cancelled. I only deleted it twice - if the mention returned a third time, I was intending (not particularly being a fan of censorship) to add a line to the effect of what I've written here, and the reason I didn't do this initially was because I thought doing so would be over-emphasising the whole thing, given that it comes so soon in the entry. As it happens, I've been beaten to it. - caro7


 * Mentioning the fact he's no longer a member is fine. But, for future reference, whether or not the facts (whatever they are) make the antifascist movement (or anyone else) angry is not Wikipedia's problem. --Aim Here 04:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand that, hence the reason I didn't remove it from Tony's personal entry, where interested parties can discover it as they wish. As it stands, it's nothing to do with the band or the music; and given the brevity of the entry it's not really got much of a place within it. This is where sensationalism can get the better of fact - the argument that people will find it interesting is the same one the tabloids use, after all. On this basis, there are many things that could be inserted about either Tony or the current band line-up - for example, that it includes his Jewish wife and two lesbians - but I'm sure the (self-appointed?) Wiki police wouldn't be so concerned if those facts were inserted and subsequently deleted? I'm new here, so by all means correct me if I'm wrong. - caro7

deleted mention of Cold Spring Records and Andrew King partnership ending
I'm adding the following information here which was removed from the main article:

In June 2011 Sol Invictus announced the end of their partnership both with Cold Spring Records and musician Andrew King, whose controversial remarks in an interview the band felt "uncomfortable" with.

Both informations are FACT (for example, look at the Cold Spring website, Sol Invictus' releases have been pulled from the catalogue and shop except for one compilation which CS had released as a label), devoid of tendencies of any direction and the sources cite the persons involved in their own words.

Toilard and Bloodofox both deleted this passage, the latter stating "A personal blog is indeed a "dubious" source (it's a blog) and, similarly, Facebook posts are not welcome on Wikipedia either."

(Bloodofox is wrong here - the mentioned Facebook source is not a single "post", it is run by the mentioned artist himself. And the aforementioned "personal blog" is run by a collective.)

In this case, almost the complete controversy passage could be deleted as well as it cites heavily a) from a personal Website and b) from Facebook either. But this hasn't been done by Toilard and Bloodofox. Why? Also, long passages do not cite any sources at all. Again, this has not been questioned by both people. Why?

My impression is the mentioned deletion by Toilard and Bloodofox has an underlying tendency. Of course they're both invited to prove me wrong.--Robert Kerber (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm going to ignore your dubious insinuations here ("underlying tendency") in favor of blandly pointing you to Wikipedia's referencing polices on self-published sources: SPS. Yes, it does give every appearance of an anonymous, personal blog, just as any other, whether typed by the hands of one or many. The Facebook post may be usable, since it's about the band itself and just reporting what the band said, but if it's only notable enough to be mentioned in a Facebook, yes, post by the band, then notability appears to be nil. For what it's worth, the article does need a total rewrite. bloodofox: (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I regard Wikipedia an information source and not a lonely hearts club for exchanging sympathies or antipathies - this is just to say that I'm not interested in getting personal. I simply try to keep certain entries up to date. (Can't do this for all entries so I concentrate on the ones which interest me.) And I find it odd that similar pieces of information are accepted here and rejected there. My point: Is it possible to find a consensus concerning the information on parting ways of the band with Cold Spring Records and former band member Andrew King? The beginning of the Cold Spring co-operation is mentioned in the article, why shouldn't the parting be? And again, the joining of a band member is worth a note, why isn't the departure? The reference sources are there, the facts are evident (Sol deleted from CS shop as mentioned, King absent from present line-up), and you probably won't find any information closer to the subject than infos given by the artist himself. Also, it is still in accordance with WP:ABOUTSELF--Robert Kerber (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Death of the West
Interesting that it refers to that song as being from the album of the same name; of course, that's actually a re-recording of a Death In June song from when Wakeford was involved, from the album Burial. Someone should rewrite/rephrase this. 71.23.141.223 (talk) 12:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Reliability of www.whomakesthenazis.com
The blog http://www.whomakesthenazis.com appears not to be a reliable source per Wikipedia policy. From WP:SPS:


 * Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.

Especially given the WP:BLP aspects, if alternative sources cannot be found for the material sourced from it, it should be deleted. &mdash;Ashley Y 23:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)