Talk:Western Goals Institute/Archive 1

Top
It is disappointing, to say the very least, that this page too has been attacked by CJCurrie et al in his demonisation campaign. It is NVOP to attribute desigantions such as "far-right" and to cite newspaper journalists as bastions of irrefutable neutral truth. The Western Goals Institute saw itself as an ultra-conservative anti-communist pressure group and this is therefore the description it should have. Not the description of a Marxist journalist writing for a newspaper that only the broad left read.Robert I 18:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The WGI is hardly an unbiased source on matters relating the WGI's ideological bent. I'd much rather trust published reports in the Guardian and Independent.

Readers should note that I am not engaged in a "demonisation campaign", and are referred to Talk:Gregory Lauder-Frost for context. CJCurrie 18:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC).


 * Rubbish. Of course you are. We're not all stupid. Your absolute reliance on left-wing rags such as the Guardian and Independent speaks volumes.213.122.84.212 15:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The WGI made formal complaints to the Press Complaints Commission. 213.122.84.212 15:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

And what was the outcome of those formal complaints? Were they upheld or dismissed?Homey 15:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know because I was only made aware that the complaints had been made. Very few complaints to the PCC get through. This is because the principle assessors are newspaper editors. If they were to throw out all the articles their own employees felt was 'fair comment' (in their opinion) they might find the going tough. Thats why the PCC is treated with contempt by just about everyone from whatever political spectrum. 213.122.84.212 15:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Anyone can make a complaint - the fact that one was made is of no consequence to this article. If it were successful or unsuccessful it would be of note. To simply say "formal complaints have been made" is misleading and an attempt to blow smoke (or worse, smear) by suggesting significance where there is none. It's a bit like saying "complaints have been made with the police about the activities of the WGI" when nothing occured as a result of those complaints. Please don't play that game again if you want anyone to take you seriously. Homey 15:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

If you don't know the outcome of the complaint it's completely irresponsible for you to say "complaints have been made". Homey 16:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC).

Not at all. The newspapers you cite were fairy tales. Complaints were made. Thats very simple. I cannot see what the problem is here. 213.122.84.212 16:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

And, presumably, the complaints were dismissed as being without merit. Homey 16:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC).


 * I'm not presuming anything. I don't know. Why do you presume that? 213.122.84.212 16:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Because if the complaint had been upheld you would undoubtedly have been told that. Homey 16:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

If it was acceptable to write this article from the WGI's POV then it would be enough to say "complaints were made" however, the article is not written from their perspective but from a neutral perspective - the fact that the WPI didn't like an article is therefore of little consequence if they were unable to disprove the article before a court or tribunal or to the newspaper itself and obtain a correction or retraction, or win a ruling in their favour either in a British libel court (and British libel courts are notoriously sympathetic to complainants) or at the Press Council. Homey 16:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC).


 * Thats just not true as I've said elsewhere. You cannot just pop into a libel court unless you have access to vast sums of capital. I know of at least two complainants who lost their cases and as a result were bankrupted. They lost their homes, everything. We all thought they'd win hands down. So I don't thinkl you comment about sympathetic courts would go down well with them. Its not a court, as such, anyway. Its a single judge. Its a lottery. 213.122.84.212 16:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The fact remains that Britain's libel courts are notoriously sympathetic to plaintiffs, the burden of proof is actually on the defendant to prove that he or she *didn't* libel the plaintiff. If one loses a libel case it is probably because you had no case to begin with - see David Irving. Suing someone for libel in Britian and *losing* is an accomplishment (again, see David Irving).Homey 16:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

"You cannot just pop into a libel court unless you have access to vast sums of capital"

So you're saying capitalism is a bad thing? Would you prefer socialism? Surely, if the WGI had a case then the market would have provided the necessary funds. That they didn't is simply a reflection of market economics and if the market didn't support them well, it must mean they were in the wrong.Homey 16:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC).


 * Look, I actually live in London. You just don't know what you're talking about here. You live thousands of miles away. Do you think you can just acquire in-depth knowledge over the internet? The fact is that libel here has always been a dodgy business. Nikolai Tolstoy's case proved that. I don't think David Irving's case is citeable in this context. 213.122.84.212 16:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Well then you and your friends shouldn't be complaining that calling the Monday Club "hard left" is libellous. Don't cry libel and make noises about court if you don't mean it and know you can't find a lawyer who thinks such a charge can be proven in court. Homey 16:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC).


 * You are the one who spoke of going round in circles. It is not a question of finding a good lawyer, its a wuestion of funds. The discussion on all these pages rested with Wikipedia neutrality. What you are effectively saying above is that you can smear and libel anyone on Wikipedia because you know they will not be able to raise the funds to go into court. Well apart from being cynicism at its very worst, and apart from being an abuse of Wikipedia, it also is a lottery. Gamblers sometimes lose. 213.122.84.212 16:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

No, what I'm saying is that if something has been reported in a mainstream newspaper then it can be cited in a wikipedia article unless, of course, it has been proven libellous or has been withdrawn by the media outlet. You are saying we can only cite media outlets that are conservative (the Times, the Telegraph, the Sun(!) ) and should not cite media outlets that you don't like, unless, of course, they say something you approve of. The fact is the BBC, the Telegraph, the Times, the Guardian, the Independent all have lawyers who are experts in libel law and who "libel-proof" content. Given that descriptions such as "hard right" for the Monday Club have passed muster with the BBC's lawyers there is no reason for us not to use it. That you don't like the BBC and think they're all a bunch of Bolsheviks is your opinion, but it's a) immaterial and b) a fringe opinion. Homey 17:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC).


 * How dare you comment so arrogantly on intricate matters this side of the Atlantic. What a cheek. The Guardian's circulation is only 460,000. Meaningless. Left-wing smears in newspapers of the Guardian group should be recognised by anyone remotely objective. I have covered the libel situation on Britain. I'm not going over old ground. Its like talking to a brick wall. 213.122.127.25 19:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The Guardian is a well-respected newspaper. The South African counterpart, M&G, Owner (Zimbabwean, Trevor Ncube) has just had his passport taken away by the government of Robert Mugabe, in the first application of restrictive press freedom laws. Wizzy&hellip; &#9742;   14:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC).


 * Surely most western journalists have been treated in this way recently, even the BBC. I don't know anyone who respects the Guardian. Maybe we move in different circles. 213.122.151.228 16:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

It's hard to believe that you're judging a newspaper's credibility by its circulation. The Financial Times has a circulation of 430,000 (less than the Guardian) whilst The Sun has a ciruclation of 4 million. Which paper do you think is more credible? Besides, The Guardian was credible enough to bring down Monday Club habituee Neil Hamilton in the Cash-for-questions affair so you are clearly wrong when you claim the paper is "meaningless" and is not recognized as credible. Homey 14:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Your arguents are confused and twisted. It is a well-known fact that the Guardian stable of newspapers are the standard organs of the Left. The overwhelming bulk of readers are on the Left. How can you compare it with the Financial Times? This is a newspaper which is largely single issue, although it does cover some news. That is why its circulation is low. The Guardian purports to be a 'national' newspaper yet its circulation is derisory and its reads all on the left, just like its journalists. They see fascists around every corner, just like McCarthy saw Reds under every bed. The Hamilton libel case was a very complicated affair. I don't think he'd agree with your opinion here. 213.122.151.228 16:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

It would help if before you do a blanket reversal of other people's contributions, that you at least examined them carefully for relevance and balance, and to see if the additions are putting things into a proper perspective. Robert I 10:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

It would help if you would make all your edits in one go at a time rather than in six little steps. Homey 13:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Stanley Baldwin, three times Prime Minister of Great Britain, on the Press (from On England): "Direct falsehood, misrepresentation, half-truths, the alteration of the speakers' meaning by publishing things out of context, suppression, - what the proprietors of these papers are aiming at is power, but power without responsibility - the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages." Robert I 13:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The philosopher Professor Roger Scruton (The Meaning of Conservatism) said "While it is a long-standing principle of British law that the formentation of hatred is a serious criminal offence, it is not clear that illiberal sentiments have to be forms of hatred, nor that they should be treated in the high-handed way that is calculated to make them become so. On the contrary, they are sentiments which seem to arise inevitably from social consciousness: they involve natural prejudice and a desire for the company of one's own kind. That is hardly sufficient grounds to condemn them as 'racist', or to invoke against them those frivilous fulminations which have been aptly described as 'death camp chic'."

Hoefully these quotes might enlighten matters somewhat. Robert I 14:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * How can quoting from a newspaper be NPOV? That demolishes all your previous arguments! Moreover, it shows the various directions from which demonisation comes from. A group of us will do a trawl soon. Doubtless you won't like what WE find. Robert I 08:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule warning
Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t • @ 20:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I would also remind you of this from WP:NPOV:&asymp; jossi &asymp; t • @ 20:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * In response to the above, I find it incredible that you have attacked me over reverting and said absolutely nothing about the deliberate reverst to demonisation by homey. Is this deliberate bias or what? Robert I 12:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Fairness and sympathetic tone
 * If we're going to characterize disputes fairly, we should present competing views with a consistently positive, sympathetic tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section.


 * We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. Let's present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such a detail.

I felt that I had reconstructed the WGI article in a fairly neutral and encyclopaedic manner. At the end of the day balance is essential and what the organisation states is vital to any understanding of it. Its activities also demonstrate to the reader what the group was about. Journalist's jaundiced opinions should be inserted in the appropriate place, and in chronological order. The reader should make the decisions, and not be prompted or led by the construction of the article. Robert I 12:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Those principles are not borne out by your edits in which you talk of a "communist-dominated ANC" "terrorists" in Central America etc. Homey 13:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Structure
I came to this page this afternoon when it had no structure, and spent quite a long time researching and rewriting it. Unfortunately this coincided with Robert l doing the same (his version). I think my structure is a better basis for the future, though it still needs work. Rd232 talk 20:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Robert l referred to a 1989 letter by Marc Gordon; I can't find this in LexisNexis. In any case it's not clear what the point of the paragraph was. Rd232 talk 20:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, here is the current sum of my substantial changes, based on HOTR's version, and including some recent changes by Robert I that I thought were worth keeping. Let's please now work from my version and make further changes to that as necessary. Rd232 talk 23:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Those changes might include scaling down the "Other activities" section, which mostly isn't terribly interesting or notable stuff (letter writing and what-have you). Rd232 talk 23:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Letter-writing, is a standard activity for pressure-groups. It gains publicity for the group by spelling out their policies in public organs. Members of any group expect action from the executive. To wipe these activities leaves a gap.
 * I wasn't suggesting "wiping", I said "scaling down". Alternatively, the letters could be used in relation to the views or influence of the Institute, and not merely reported as if they were important in themselves, which they aren't very much. Rd232 talk 13:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I would argue that you have destroyed my restructuring of this page and instead demonised the WGI with hostile journalist's reports. I challenge anyone to show me a letter where the WGI supported "holocaust deniers". That is a gross lie. The article is now entirely ons-sided. If this is the future for Wikipedia it is a future for disinformation. Robert I 12:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I haven't destroyed anything, not least since I was working from a version which had no structure. The "demonisation" of which you speak appears to relate primarily to a couple of specific remarks by newspapers, such as the Observer talking about a "take over" and the Guardian talking about "infiltrate fascists". Since the statements are clearly attributed this is hardly demonisation; the Wikipedia article isn't agreeing with those statements. I think the statements are relevant and notable, but if it's these that are the issue then let's discuss/adapt those parts specifically, and not make sweeping statements like "entirely one-sided". Rd232 talk 13:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I removed the sentence about the holocaust denial "right to be heard" letter (allegedly Evening Standard, 10 Sep 1996) as (a) it doesn't really mean anything - anyone who believes in free speech must agree; (b) I can't find the letter in Lexis to see whether the letter said anything that would go beyond that and therefore be of some significance. Rd232 talk 13:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

" I challenge anyone to show me a letter where the WGI supported "holocaust deniers". That is a gross lie."

You had previously said that that letter defends the right of "historical revisionists" to be heard. The term "historical revisionism" is a euphemism for holocaust denial.Homey 13:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC).

All history is constantly revised as more and more documentation becomes available. HOTR reveals a serious degree of political bias here.

As to the page itself, there is mass supposition here, and a great deal of opinion, rather than fact. I see the Guardian newspaper is the principle quote. not very reliable on political issues, to say the least!

Andrew Smith was having a bad day/month/year when he told the paper WGI was "closing down". He just wanted to get rid of them. As for this bonkers assertion:

Like the World Anti-Communist League, which became a leading arms supplier, Western Goals may have supported the anti-communist cause with more than rhetoric. UNHCR (2 July 1993) lists Western Goals Institute as an "impediment" to the elimination of racial discrimination in South Africa, saying of the Institute that it "claims to be devoted to protecting the Western way of life by offering self-defence training to white South Africans".,

never have any of us read such crap. Firstly, if you want to make a statement about the WACL then you should make it on their page. Secondly the WGI was always broke, hence the reason for their newspaper not lasting longer than a year. To suggest that an organisation based in London with under 1000 members had all this influence or was involved in "defence training" is sheer fantasy, nothing more. UNHCR has been mis-informed. 86.129.73.230 21:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you have evidence to back up any of your assertions? CJCurrie 21:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

As a former director until 1991 and amember until it folded I know it and so much else that has been plastered here is rot. Some sort of political agenda here. 86.129.73.230 21:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

If you have any evidence that the cited information on the page is accuracy, please share. We're not simply going to take your word for it. CJCurrie 22:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I am appalled at the incredible manner in which this article has been twisted to such a degree that it is a travesty of the truth. I don't quite know where to start in picking it to pieces. I am contacting former collegues and will see where the records are now. All the people in this group were conservatives, not loony far-right lunatics. 86.129.73.230 22:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It would appear that not everyone agrees with this assessment. You're free to argue that Western Goals members rejected how they were depicted the mainstream press, but not to remove these depictions entirely.

In the mean time, you may wish to give a specific passage that you consider NPOV. CJCurrie 22:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC).

(1) "It was best known for its opposition to non-white immigration into Britain" Untrue. That was not its main interest at all. It was fighting communism. (2) "in 1992 the World League declined to be further associated with the Institute". Untrue. On what grounds? It is interesting how contributers (a few) have rubbished the WACL, made them out to be major arms traders etc., and uey not they are trying to distance themselves from the WGI! (3) "forging links with hard right parties around the world". Pure rot. Nothing less.

How is it that journalist is not required to produce evidence to Wikipedia but people like me are? 86.129.79.244 06:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Gregory, it's because of our No original research policy. Homey 13:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This anon may not be the same as the other. I have a sneaking suspicion that Mr. 86.129 is a longtime associate of GLF, and has a disputed article of his own.  CJCurrie 00:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Articles published in newspaper, magazines and journals are presumed to meet a higher standard than the say-so of anonymous internet users. Respectable publications have fact-checkers to verify important things in articles that are published. Journalists expose themselves and their publications to libel suits and/or public and professional ridicule for publishing things that are not true. Anonymous internet writers have no fact-checkers, and run no risk of legal action. Ground Zero | t 13:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC).


 * Glad you said "presumed" here.

Can it be that this little trio are seriously trying to state that the article on Western Goals does no contain painfully obvious bias in its overall construction? If so, then that simply deomnstrates their own bias. As for libel actions, most people and certainly virtually all pressure groups (at least in Great Britain) cannot afford the fees to even get a libel case ont he road, let alone keep it rolling. Virtually no solicitors or barristers will consider the recently introduced no win-no fee. So I myself can see right through you theoretical statement on libel suits and ridicule. Newspapers regularly publish things that are untrue. Didn't your parents tell you that? Robert I 18:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC).

WGI's Best Known Operations

 * Regardless of CJCurry's personal opinions, the WGI was established to fight communism and The Left generally (I think these fundamentals have long been removed from the article), and was broadly an old style Tory nationalist grouping (nationalism having once been a fundamental plank of Toryism). There is nothing in any of its published literature which states that one of its major goals was anti-immigration, notwithstanding that Kenneth Griffith spoke on that subject at one of their dinners, or that they felt large-scale immigration would affect our national character. Its newspaper, European Dawn had not one article on immigration, and not one policy paper was ever produced on the subject. All of its (mainstream) patrons and officers were obsessed with communism and fighting it (as were, it is often thought, most of the Western World). Doubtless that because of the connexions with Le Pen and co the left-wing media decided for themselves that the WGI had anti-immigration as a main plank, but that was not the case. But it was something they could bash them with. This is just one tiny example, of a great many, where those across the Atlantic, who have no input or proper knowledge of our political scene here, except from biased crap in the media, seek to impose their opinions upon things they really know nothing about. Robert I 11:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The WGI may have seen themselves as "anti-communist" first and foremost, but they were best known for their views against immigration. Whether or not the media reports were "biased crap", as you say, they remain the only window most people have/had into the group.  CJCurrie 21:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Robert, you must stop dismissing everything that anyone who is not British says. I have already called you out on this [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gregory_Lauder-Frost#What_is_a_European.3F here] where you wrote:
 * ''Its very easy to see that you do not live here and that your knowledge of our media is very limited and dated, especially when you refer to the Daily Telegraph as "right-wing".

I then provided several sources - primarily British sources - that supported my characterisation of the Dreadnought as "right wing". Your claim to know better than the rest of us what is going on the UK is not credible. You are using that claim to dismiss anything that you simply don't like. Wikipedia is not a platform for you to promote your views to the exclusion of others. Ground Zero | t 21:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC).

Dreadnought? I have never commented on that have I? Sorry, but I do believe that we here in Britain have a much better idea about things here than you. How dare you, after all the left-wing crap you have flagged up all over the place in attempts to politically demonise everybody, then accuse others of using Wikipedia to promote their views! The one word you need to examine in your dictionary is neutrality. Another is fact rather than opinion. You're way overboard on your insulting comments and attitudes. Robert I 13:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The Dreadnought is what Private Eye has called the Daily Telegraph. "Sorry, but I do believe that we here in Britain have a much better idea about things here than you." That is why I specificly cited British sources that contend the the Telegraph is right-wing. Please review my comemnts above, and at the previous discussion cited. So far, you have provided no sources to support your claim that it is not right wing, you have only presented your view as fact, and dismissed me on the basis that I am not British and, by your bewildering definition, left wing.

"after all the left-wing crap you have flagged up all over the place in attempts to politically demonise everybody," and "You're way overboard on your insulting comments and attitudes." Do you not see the irony is the close juxtaposition of those two comments? Ground Zero | t

Commenting on the Canadian General Election, recently-resigned (British) Conservative Party leader Michael Howard was asked if he felt that the gains made by the Conservative Party in Canada encouraged him. He replied "well, there are huge differences between Canada and the UK. All politics are essentially local". (BBC Radio 4, Today programme, 7.55 a.m.) I would say that Mr.Howard is confirming my assertion. Robert I 13:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Your assertion is quite different. I agree that there are huge differences between Canada and the UK. I do not agree that this means that someone from Canada cannot know anything about UK politics. Mr. Howard's comments cannot be extrapolated reasonably to reach that conclusion. Your continued attempts to dismiss other editors on the basis that they are foreign are not acceptable. I have shown above that my comment about the Daily Telegraph is not proof, as you contend, that I don't know anything about the UK. Rather, your implication that I would know that it is not right wing if I lived in the UK is not supported by the evidence. The British sources that I cited support the depcition of the Telegraph as right wing. Ground Zero | t 18:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC).

We'll just have to agree to disagree, I'm afraid. You throw all my comments into a big pot and stir it, which is standard journalistic treatment. I never said that foreigners cannot comment on different country's politics. What I said was that unless youa re in that country you cannot comprehend all that is going on and the way people think or view matters. Your opinions are entirely based upon the media. Most people from all political persuasions here would say that the media must be treated with caution. Robert I 09:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is that what you represent to be the views of "Most people from all political persuasions here" is not reliable. I do not know whether you mistakenly assume that your own views are widely held in the UK,


 * how on earth would you know what the widespread views in Britain are?? What an incredible comment by someone who does not even live here! Robert I 15:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

or if you are deliberately misrepresenting what the widely-held views are in order to promote your own agenda. I have provided a clear example of how you are unreliable. Others have provided more examples. Either way, you are not a reliable source.


 * The examples you quote are NOT agreed by anyone other than you and you two confederates. Are you the judge and jury in all matters?Robert I 15:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

And, by Wikipedia policy (WP:NOR), the avowed word of one editor is not sufficient evidence for anything. So I will continue to resist your attempts to impose your views,


 * Unlike you, I have never attempted to impose my "views". Robert I 15:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

and to dismiss other editors out of hand on the basis that they are foreign,


 * I have already commented on that. Below, and elsewhere. Robert I 15:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

or fall within your almost all-emcompassing definition of "left-wing". Your approach to editing articles and dealing with other editors is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies. Ground Zero | t 11:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC).


 * I disagree. Maybe The Guardian is right when it praises Wikipedia. That tells us all something does it not. Robert I 15:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Michael Howard was arguing that Canada and the UK have different political cultures. He wasn't arguing that these cultures exist in a state of mutual incomprehension. (You might be interested to learn that William Hague's "Common Sense Revolution" was borrowed from Canada.)

On another matter: notwithstanding our differences on most other matters, I suspect that "Robert I" and I share similar views about the International Freedom Foundation. Should I assume that the IFF/WGI split in the early 1990s was the result of conflicting alliances vis-a-vis South Africa? CJCurrie 00:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I view groups like the IFF with a degree of disgust. Whatever may be said about the Monday Club and Western Goals, they had firm traditionalist and political beliefs, rooted in the nation's history, and worked towards that end. They never wavered and they never accepted money from anyone who might compromise their positions. The Monday Club was frequently, throughout its existance, threatened by very public resignations of this or that MP unless it changed course on a particular issue. (It is fascinating to read all these files). Their answer was always 'resign if you must'. The IFF was a servant of a foreign government which started from a particular position and gradually moved the full political circle. Marc Gordon, IFF's London Director, reading through his rather shabby political history, was simply a hypocrite, carrying out political work for money without a shred of principle. Robert I 09:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I view groups like the IFF with a degree of disgust. For once we are in agreement.


 * I assume that the foreign government is South Africa, and that the IFF was aligned with the old National Party of SA. Hence my question: was the IFF/WGI animosity in any respect predicated on the National/Conservative split in South Africa?  CJCurrie 23:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Robert I, I have provided several British sources that refute your claim that the Telegraph is not right-wing. I did not create those sources, so I am not playing judge and jury. I am providing evidence for all to consider. You have not provided a single source to support your contention. . Ground Zero | t 02:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

New Statesman
Here's the full context:

New Statesman, 14 June 1991, p. 5 ("Notebook"):

"Man's best friend let the Monday Club down this week when a three-line whip on dangerous dogs legislation prevented Norman Tebbit from addressing its dinner. It was a good excuse, anyway.  After speculation last weekend that the Chingford Strangler was going to sort out Tory Central Office, Tebbit's chosen subject, the future of Conservatism, addressed to a far-right audience, could only cause trouble.  The Monday Clubbers instead had to make do with a speech by their president, Lord Sudeley, the very model of an unmodern-minded aristocrat, who spoke about saving the House of Lords, defending the Prayer Book and damning Archbishop Carey to all eternity. The diners, including Sun columnist Garry Bushell, were finally aroused by a stirring speech on British "strength" and "identity" by the prospective Tory candidate for Oxford East, Mark Meyell.  There was much banging on tables as he poured scorn on multiculturalism, and asked, "Why should we be second-class citizens in our own country?" At the end of the dinner club secretary Gregory Lauder-Frost shook his head sadly and said: "You see? We're not skinheads. I don't know why they call us fascists."

New Statesman, 28 June 1991, p. 25 (LTE):

[Note: I didn't bother writing out the entire column. GLF accused the NS of "editing my comments out of all proportion", and is quoted as having written the following:]

"The inference implied in your column that the 60 very respectable conservatives [that's Lauder-Frost's small c] who attend our summer dinner on 10 June were fascists because they had Patriotic feelings [his capital p] about Britain and were opposed to multiculturalism show just how out of touch you are with the great majority of British people. Are you suggesting that all indigenous citizens of his country who do not agree with multiculturalism, European federalism, etc., the subversion of our great institutions such as the established Churches and the destruction of the House of Lords are fascists? You should make yourself perfectly clear."

The editor responds:

"I will. To use Mr. L-F's phraseology, no such inference was implied.  Why, we've even printed a long letter from one his fellow Monday Club members on these very pages.  I can sense the letters of protest heading in this direction already."

[A two-column letter follows from Stuart Millson, attacking multiculturalism] CJCurrie 00:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC).


 * I am not sure why you found it necessary to put all this on the Western Goals Talk Page as it relates to the Monday Club. Possibly I put it in the wrong article. If so, I apologise. But I don't see any relevance or, as you put it "context", in flagging up the entire correspondence as I cited all that was really relevant, which was the fundamental point Lauder-Frost was making to the magazine and attempting to get a response from them. Regardless of the New Statesman's comment, it is sheer fantasy on their part to imagine that Central Office would have told them, a known left-wing journal, that they had told Tebbit (a senior party member) to withdraw. After all, the Monday Club was then a thirty year old established group of Tories, with many MP members (Tebbit being a member for over a decade). Tebbit sent a message to the hotel, just one hour prior to the dinner, which he had formally agreed to speak at, saying that the Government Whips were demanding he (and all other Conservative MPs in the House) stay and vote in the Dog Bill. It was the only occasion in the Club's history where someone had failed to honour their engagement. Robert I 10:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

''I am not sure why you found it necessary to put all this on the Western Goals Talk Page as it relates to the Monday Club. Possibly I put it in the wrong article.'' That thought had crossed my mind.

But I don't see any relevance or, as you put it "context", in flagging up the entire correspondence as I cited all that was really relevant, which was the fundamental point Lauder-Frost was making to the magazine and attempting to get a response from them. Not quite. Lauder-Frost was responding to an accusation that the paper never actually made. His words aren't particularly useful unless the reader knows how, and under what circumstances, they were conveyed. In any event, "The New Statesman denied that the Monday Club was fascist" is not a sufficient refutation of right-wing extremism, which I trust was your point.

Regardless of the New Statesman's comment, it is sheer fantasy on their part to imagine that Central Office would have told them, a known left-wing journal, that they had told Tebbit (a senior party member) to withdraw. You're probably right, but that's not what the article says. CJCurrie 23:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

There is an awful lot of personal opinion on the part of people who very clearly have no idea of what they are talking about (WGI et al) and whose reliance on the left-wing media is frightening. Is that the road we are now going down? The Soviet road of "official" history, of "accepted" opinion, and the dictats of those who cannot be questioned/corrected and who twist everything beyond factual recogniton? 86.141.174.116 17:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you propose as an alternative to published media reports? That Wikipedia take the word of anybody who has a computer and claims to know the "real story"? Ground Zero | t 17:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I see elsewhere that you have been described as very rude. You seem unable or refuse to understand what is being said here. You carefully avoid the manner in which things are twisted and presented. Sometimes the ommission of one word can entirely change the meaning of a sentence. What I, and obviously others, are saying is that absolute total reliance on the media is, in fact, unreliable. You also appear to regard anyone outside the media as fundamentally dishonest and their word untrustworthy. I am pleased that I am back to work tomorrow. You can get on with it. 86.141.174.116 17:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I have been described as rude by User:Robert I. This user has called the work of other editors "crap", dismisses comments made by editors with whom he disagrees as the biased work of left-wingers, asserts that non-British editors know nothing about Britain, and accuses other editors of being "demonisers". And he calls me "rude". Robert I shows no regard for Wikipedia policies on personal attacks and original research. So I don't take his insults seriously.
 * He is actually a good example of why Wikipedia has a policy against original research. He has, for example, cited a comment I made about the Daily Telegraph being a right-wing newspaper as evidence that, as a foreigner, I don't understand the British political situation. I provided British sources supporting the comment, and he has provided nothing but his own assertion that it is not right-wing. He continues to dismiss me as (a) being an uninformed foreigner, and (b) trying to impose my point of view.
 * I have suggested to him that if he does not wish to be constrained by Wikipedia's policy on original research, he would be better off posting his views on his own website, rather than here. I think that that was when he first called me "rude".
 * I do not view everyone outside the media as being dishonest and untrustworthy. I respect the policies on which Wikipedia is based, and ask that other editors do the same. This really isn't about me no matter how much you and Robert I try to make to so. It is about whether original research should be a part of Wikipedia or not. I did not make that policy, but I support it and abide by it. If you disagree with it, you should go to the Wikipedia talk:No original research page and try to get it changed, rather than fighting the policy on article talk pages, since the policy won't be changed here. Ground Zero | t 19:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Having just spent half an hour looking through some of the discourse on several pages between you and Robert I would say that your comment above is a gross generalisation and that you are possibly both as rude as each other. Certainly you're even! Sussexman 18:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Western Goals was known first and foremost for its anti-communism and its opposition to the broad left. Why is someone changing the description at the top of the article to say that they were best known for the opposition to immigration. That is just not true at all. Sussexman 19:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Bias
I see no reason to remove the current notice disputing the neutrality of this heavily-worked article. Readers of the article should be able to reach their own conclusions about the political activities and leanings of any organisation without it being described in the opening sentences as "hard right" by someone who obviously wants it to be seen in that light. Also, the comment above about what it was best known for is entirely accurate - anti-communism and anti-marxist activities. Immigration for the WGI was a side issue. 86.140.102.10 10:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Immigration may not have been their perceived "main issue", but it's what they were best known for. CJCurrie 22:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I see no evidence of that at all. Left-wing journalists here and there may have grasped that as a contentious issue but that was not what they were best known for. People would not have joined them on that basis. They would have almost certainly gone elsewhere, say, the Monday Club. Their principal activities, even those mentioned in most newspapers, relate to the anti-communist and illiberal stance. Not sure where your getting this idea from. 86.143.82.10 06:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Please show me an instance of any mainstream journalist (right, left or centre) describing the WGI as being most notable for their anti-communism, rather than for their views on immigration. CJCurrie 06:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Your'e the one making the claims. The activities and literature of the WGI speak for themselves. You are suggesting that an organisation which we belonged to was something it was not. Sussexman 12:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying it was best known for something other than its stated priority (not an entirely unusual phemonenon). Would you suggest that we describe the Militant Tendency in Labour as nothing more than a newspaper? CJCurrie 23:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC).

Not really, because Militant was a group to which people belonged. Like the Monday Club they had their own newspaper. But WGI's activities were centred around anti-communism and associated activities. As their title states they were dedicated to "Western Goals", an indication that they were opposed to the Eastern Bloc communism. They were also active on the home front against home-grown Marxism. All those they associated with, either here or abroad, claimed the same goals. As for immigration, the principle reason they added that to their wagon was because three quarters of all immigrants vote for the Labour Party. This is not the same reason for opposing it as the Monday Club, who had a wider remit on the subject. Sussexman 09:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the first post under ==Bias== I didn't happen on Western Goals by typing in "Hard right" in Wiki's searchbox. I came to the conclusion that it was some sort of BNP for the Gentry in around 3.6 seconds. Thanks to the information superhighway we can now all research and learn about ThinkTanks that enjoyed relative obscurity in the 80's & 90's.

Dean, Mar13,2006


 * "Hard-right" is a deliberate and very left-wing slur commonly used by journalists. There is nothing academic about it and it is extremely POV. Insisting upon such a jaundiced description demonstrates a non-neutral stance. This is a good reason for not removing the POV from this page. 86.129.67.207 21:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

"Hard-right" is actually a compromise, and is being used in place of "extreme right-wing". Can you think of a better phrase to describe "more right-wing than the mainstream right", which is what the WGI clearly were? [unsigned, see below]

I agree with the anon poster immediately above. "Right-wing" is not sufficient. The Conservative Party is right-wing. The WGI does not hold mainstream right wing views. It is to the right of right wing. It is both misleading and POV to present the WGI as being merely "right wing". Ground Zero | t 22:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Anon ... ? I must have forgotten to sign off. CJCurrie 23:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Can't agree, though. As for the delusion that the British Conservative Party is somehow "right-wing" I can only think your grasp of politics is limited. Right-wing and left-wing have their origins in the old French parliament, it being semi-circular. You were either right, centre, or left. I suppose you could say "very" along the line, but prefixes such as "extreme", and "hard" are meaningless. Surely people reading these articles form their own opinions without you forming them for the reader. 86.141.58.94 13:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I think most would agree that the terms "right" and "left" have evolved from the days of the French Revolution. In any case:

The term "right-wing" has different connotations in different settings. Some regard it as a term of abuse; others are more likely to accept or embrace it. There was recently a discussion on the Talk:Conservative Party of Canada page as to whether "right-wing", "right-of-centre" or "centre-right" was the most accurate description for the party. "Right-of-centre" was the eventual compromise choice, as it encompassed both other terms without definitively favouring either.

The Conservative Party (UK) is comparable with the Conservative Party of Canada on this front. The party's current leadership is clearly pulling it in a "centre-right" direction, but there are more ideological forces in the party which would favour a "right-wing" definition. Neither term fully encompasses the party's ideology, but what is beyond dispute is that the party represents the "mainstream right" tendency in Britain and will likely do so for the foreseeable future.

WGI was not part of the mainstream right: it articulated views that most right-wingers in the Conservative Party would have declined to endorse. To pretend that the organization was "right-wing" in the conventional sense creates an inaccurate impression of the group, and is inappropriate for this forum. CJCurrie 21:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Elastic usage of terminology
This simple answer to that is you are wrong. The UK Conservative Party ceased to be "right-wing" in the conventional sense of the word decades ago, possibly since the war. There is no evidence in 2006 of any traditional right-wing stance in the party and there is an absolute dearth of MPs who might be remotely considered as traditional Tories. The left-wing media called Margaret Thatcher "right-wing" (indeed, some called her a fascist) but she was just a classic Manchester liberal free-trader. In the real sense, identifying right and left policies, she failed to carry out any policies in the UK remotely right-wing. Crushing the unions is just part of the free-market thing.

So it is entirely inaccurate to call the present Conservative Party "right-wing" or even centre-right. They have been "centre" for some considerable time.

"Mainstream" is a word without a great deal of meaning. Those who observe that the Conservative Party has only had about 34% of the vote for the past 15 years might argue they were out of it.

As for Western Goals, again you are wrong. Most older conservatives would have endorsed their aims, aims which, for the most part, the Conservative Party themselves once held. (Was not the entire western world fiercly anti-communist?) WGI was s recognised part of the Right in Britain, but because the Right, in real terms, has no adequate representation it is difficult to assess what is "mainstream", a rather stupid word if ever there was one.

You have deleted my quote from City Limits. I placed it because I felt that here was a political writer/commentator making a statement about the WGI which I thought was pertinent. In fact it demonstrated, if nothing else, that if not in what you wish to call the "mainstream", it was a 'sit-up'and-take-note group which was widely acknowledged. 86.141.58.94 23:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Reading this, I'm reminded of Major Douglas's comment that he would have been a Tory if there were any real Tories left in Britain. He said this in the 1930s, if memory serves. Perhaps earlier.

I actually agree with one of your comments: Thatcher was primarily a neo-liberal free-marketer, not a conservative in the 19th-century sense of the word. She would have been a Whig or a Liberal at certain earlier points in British history. Of course, she also made allowances to the "traditional" right on social issues and foreign policy (unless I'm to believe that the Monday Club was hesitant about the Falklands adventure, which seems improbable), but I acknowledge this wasn't her primary focus.

As to the rest, however ...

A while ago, you remarked that the former Liberals who joined the Conservative Party in mid-century were not "conservatives" in the proper sense of the word. I'm sure many Conservatives would have agreed at the time; I'm less certain that any beyond a small, ideological minority would have held the same views during the 1980s. By that time, the "liberal" and "conservative" trends in the Conservative Party had been united into a new synthesis, which by any fair standard was "right-wing" in the discourse of the age.

There was a similar transformation in North America. Canada's conservative parties of the 1980s held very different policy views from the 1930s Conservative Party, but only the most rigid ideological purist would have declined to describe them as "right-of-centre".

The meaning of "right-wing" changed over the course of the century. A few diehards from the previous age refused to accept this, just as Major Douglas refused to accept the changing definition of conservatism in his age (and so forth through history; you could take this analogy back to the Non-Jurors if you really wanted to press the point). These diehards do not, however, hold a monopoly on terminology.

I'd also question whether "traditional conservatism" was ever as monolithic as you seem to be suggesting, but that's a matter for another time.

"Mainstream": this is, by its very nature, an elastic term, but I think most would agree that all three major political parties (and the SNP, and Plaid Cymru) are safely within its confines. The WGI were not, and I defy you to find any source in the respectable media which suggests otherwise.

City Limits: is an ambiguous reference (likely backhanded) from a defunct tabloid really worthy of a first-paragraph reference? I say no. CJCurrie 00:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

So basically you are saying that traditional, true Tories, are "die-hards". That in itself sounds very liberal-left to me. Many of us under 50 still believe in traditional Toryism and naturally we condemn those in the Conservative Party today who continue to use that title rather than change their name to, say, Social Democrats. Probably the majority of those who still vote Conservative are people who believed in the old Conservatism, just as the majority of those who vote Labour still believe in in the old socialism. It tells you something about the mentality of an electorate that they cannot either recognise, or break free, from their "die-hard" voting habits, which they will probably take to the grave, regardless of how much their parties actually digress from the true philosophies.

The SNP and the pathetic Welsh nationalists are anything but mainstream in British politics. They are fringe parties. I stand by my remark that the WGI's basic anti-communism and anti-marxism were mainstream aims, (all those involved in the hierarchy were mainstream Tories), even if the small organisation was also on the fringe. More people believed in WGI's aims and objectives than believed in the SNPs or the Welsh.

Many newspapers and quality magazines have folded over the past twenty years. We should not be discounting their articles because the accountants got their sums wrong. 86.141.58.94 06:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Responses:

(i) The stated aims of the WGI may have been "mainstream", but the means they advocated were not. Many politicians in the 1980s promoted anti-communism without forging ties to the Front National or calling for restrictions on non-"European" immigration. Simply claiming an anti-communist pedigree isn't sufficient for mainstream status.

(ii) I said that some "die-hards" exist who cling to an outmoded definition of "right-wing", and that such "die-hards" have probably existed through all the shifting permutations of Toryism and conservatism in British history. I made no comment about "traditional Toryism" as such, one way or the other (though your choice of wording makes me wonder if you're now in the UKIP camp; anyway ...).

(iii) Given that the SNP have more seats than the Conservatives in Scotland (locally and at Westminster), I'm at a loss at to see how they could be called "fringe". Your comments seem to be petty sniping.

(iv) I'm not convinced that the paper in question is "quality". CJCurrie 06:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Perceptions
Please may I comment.


 * The aims of WGI were mainstream goals inasmuch as their principle aim above all other things was to oppose communism/Marxism etc. As for restrictions on immigration, the Conservative Party at least claimed to be committed to this concept right into the 1990s. What unorthodox means did WGI apply to their aims? Liasing and making contact with other organisations with the same goals? How could that be deemed to be odd? Le Pen, for instance, came second in the French Presidential Elections. Would you not regard the Front National as mainstream? If not, what are they?


 * Toryism does not "shift". It is a basic political theory with a fundamental set of concepts. It is the Conservative Party which has shifted away from them. Your left-wing term "die-hard" is objectionable. Are you referring to those who refuse to abandon their principles?


 * UK-wide, the SNP are seen as a little tribal-based wacky party. In Scotland 95% of those who vote for them are morons and the uneducated. In addition, seats can be deceptive. For instance the Conservative Party gained more votes in Scotland than the LibDems at the last General Election, yet they only got 2 seats whereas they LibDems got 11. Some democracy, eh?


 * Elsewhere I see you have complained about lack of sources. Yet when a source is now provided you suggest it is not a "quality" source! Some of us would argue that Marxist rags such as The Guardian are anything but quality, but its cited all over the place on the Wikipedia as 'authorative'. I know people who would weep at such a statement.

It would appear that the most important thing to you is your opinion. Lightoftheworld 09:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Alessandra Mussolini and neo-fascism
I do not agree that she would dispute this label. See Alessandra Mussolini, which say:
 * "Alessandra Mussolini (born December 30, 1962) is an Italian fascist politician and Member of the European Parliament."

Her party in 1992 when she was invited by WGI was the Italian Social Movement. It is descibed in its article as:
 * "The Italian Social Movement (Movimento sociale italiano ) (MSI) was a neo-Fascist party formed 1946 in the post-World War II period by supporters of the executed dictator Benito Mussolini under the lead of Giorgio Almirante."

She opposed its merger into the more moderate Alleanza Nazionale, and in 2003, formed Azione Sociale:
 * "Azione Sociale ("Social Action"), previously known as Libertà di Azione ("Freedom of Action"), is an Italian extremely-conservative and neo-fascist political party, led by Alessandra Mussolini, and a splinter group from Alleanza Nazionale. Mussolini had resigned from AN on 28 November 2003, following the visit of party leader and deputy prime minister Gianfranco Fini to Israel, where he described fascism as "an absolute evil" during an apology for Italy's role in the Axis Powers during the Second World War. Following her resignation, Mussolini formed this party to offer an uncompromising form of Neo-fascism and to serve as an opposition group to the Fini's modernisation."

Azione Sociale is now a part of Alternativa Sociale:
 * "Alternativa Sociale is an Italian political coalition of neo-fascist parties."

I did not write any of these articles. Ground Zero | t 16:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be so much evidence that A. Mussolini and these parties are believed to be neo-fascist. Could you provide some evidence that she and her parties have ever renounced fascism? Ground Zero | t 21:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I know she has spoken openly in support of her grandfather. Did the MSI have the same policies in 1992 as they had in 1946? Do they have the '46 policies today? I cannot say whether or not "so much evidence" exists that these parties have a neo-fascist agenda, as to the best of my knowledge their manifestos do not show it. I suspect that such "evidence" is merely media opinion, repeated and repeated. Obviously with a surname like Mussolini truckloads of filth wil be heaped upon her by the combined Left in any event. Sussexman 16:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought I'd give you a laugh this morning. I came across a report in the Daily Telegraph (15 December 1996) which had large headlines "Mussolini defects to the Left". Sussexman 09:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

... which likely just means that she broke away from Berlusconi's coalition. The Lega Nord "defected to the left" around the same period; I suspect that both changes had far to do with the unstable nature of Italian politics than with ideology. CJCurrie 21:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Political figures and groups
My observations are that the person above is now citing Wikipedia as the authoritive source and that, in turn, Wikipedia, on virtually all political issues, appears to cite, overwhelmingly, newspaper reports. Most journalists, whichever paper they write for, are today fairly left-wing, and see "neo-fascists", "racists" etc., under every bed much as McCarthy saw Reds under all his beds. Are any of the parties referred to here described in their manifestos as "neo-fascist"? Indeed, how closely do those manifestos resemble Il Duce's stated aims and pledges? Which brings me to another point: CJCurrie has changed "right-wing" to "hard-right" when referring to France's Front National. This party has Jews, even blacks, in it. Its deputy leader is married to a Japanese lady. Its programme is very long and detailed and covers every aspect of domestic policy. How does it differ fundamentally, as a party, from, say, Gaullists (with the exception, of course, that the latter were pro-EU). Really, what I am asking here is just who awards these catagories? Is this newspaper "language" all over again? Sussexman 08:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

If you don't trust my definition of the FN, why not ask the mainstream French right for clarification? CJCurrie 02:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

You have amply demonstrated on umpteen occasions your left-wing bias, so don't try and be clever - just answer the question.81.131.68.210 14:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Passing over the last remark, my response would be to say, firstly, that with a quarter of the French vote I would call the FN 'mainstream' (a very flexible definition anyways, depending on who's using it and for what purpose), particularly so as its leader came a very good second int he French Presidential Elections. Secondly, I think it rather fatuous to ask any party opposed to you what their opinion is. Margaret Thatcher was frequently referred to, by many Labour MPs, and others in the party, as a 'fascist'. Sussexman 08:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It might be worth noting that the mainstream left and right parties united behind Chirac in the last French Presidential run-off, under the rationale that a Le Pen victory (or even a strong showing) would be unthinkable for the country. CJCurrie 18:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Obviously the other parties would be opposed to the FN, although I think your comment "unthinkable for the country" is somewhat partisan, to say the least. When there are two main presidential candidates, in any country, there will inevitably be groupings behind one or the other. I feel I have made some good simple points on this page. Sussexman 16:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

(i) It was the POV of most of the French nation, (ii) who else was in Le Pen's grouping, exactly? CJCurrie 22:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but you've lost me there. This discussion has gone on far longer than I had expected. I am not that interested in the FN but I think to regard them as not 'mainstream' is a bit silly. After all, the Communist Party in France has long been regarded as 'mainstream'! Sussexman 10:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Whereas the FN isn't. I'm tempted to ask "what does that say about the FN?", but I think I'll just drop the matter -- this isn't vital to the article and we're obviously not getting anywhere.

(Btw, if you wanted to describe Lutte Ouvriere as "hard-left" and "non-mainstream", I wouldn't entirely disagree.) CJCurrie 19:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that describing the French Communist Party and Lutte Ouvriere as "far left" or "hard left" is a useful description of them, in the same way that describing the FN as "far right" or "hard right" is useful. This helps distinguish these groups from moderate parties on the left (French Socialist Party) and the right (Union for a Popular Movement), Surely we can all agree that the FN is further to the right than the UMP and the PCF is further to the left than the Socialist Party? Ground Zero | t 20:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It would be easier if someone could actually state which manifesto or programme policies of the FN makes them otherwise than ordinarily right-wing, and why. 86.129.69.37 17:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Front National and CPSA
I have put in a description for the FN that represents both the FN's self-description, and that of pretty well everyone else. I can see no reason to object to this. I have also put in a description of the CPSA that is, I believe, accurate and NPOV. Ground Zero | t 16:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The FN is a major political party in France. It controls many towns and Departments and its leader came second in the 2002 Presidential elections. That is mainstream by any unbiased individual's yardstick. Your addition was entirely POV as well you must know, as you have described a quarter of France's electorate as racists and fascists and xenophobic, which is a disgrace. Are you suggesting it is somehow against the law not to like foreigners? Maybe there should be a law forcing people to like foreigners, eh?! "Every other observer" is also unacceptable. Opinion of the FN has been virtually entirely media driven and the media is overwhelmingly Left - especially in France. 81.131.0.63 13:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the reference of FN as as being considered by 'most observers as "far right, xenophobic and racist"'. Even if an anonymous editor thinks that most observers are wrong, it is still true tthat most observers think this. The second change that I have reverted is the change in the description of the CPSA from being opposed to "democratic majority-rule" to "black majority rule". Free elections are now held in SA with universal adult suffrage without regard to race. That is democratic. The old system, which limited the vote to Whites, with token votes for Coloureds and Indians, and disenfranchisement of South African Blacks, was not democratic by any common definition of democracy. Ground Zero | t 13:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Here are a few references:
 * The Telegraph:
 * "The far-right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen claims that the riots sweeping France have led to thousands of new recruits to his Front National Party."
 * The Telegraph -- hardly a bastion of left-wing press....


 * French Wikipedia:
 * "Le Front national, ou FN, est un parti politique français situé à l'extrême droite de l'échiquier politique...."
 * Translation: The Front national, or FN, is a French politicla party situated on the extreme right of the political scale....


 * OneWorld.net
 * "Aside from the FN and BNP, there are now prominent extreme Right and anti-immigrant parties across Europe today...."


 * Canadian Branch of the Canada-France Inter-parliamentary Association
 * "....Jean‑Marie Le Pen (16.86 percent of the vote), President of the Front national, an extreme right wing party, whose success had not been anticipated."


 * [ http://www.amren.com /mtnews/archives/2005/11/walkers_world_is_le_pen_ruling.php UPI article reprinted on American Renaissance] -- American Renaissance described itself as being "called “a literate, undeceived journal of race, immigration and the decline of civility.” We consider it America’s premiere publication of racial-realist thought...."
 * "...the right-wing extremist leader of the Front National, Jean-Marie Le Pen...."

Ground Zero | t 13:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I am amazed at this illogical discussion. I feel sure that I could find another dozen references which would say the same thing, but does that prove anything other than they all parrot a line manufactured by the liberal-left media (yes, alas, that includes The Daily Telegraph which, like the Conservative Party (UK) has long ceased to be recognisably conservative - unless, that is, one is comparing it with The Guardian)? I don't think any of us would regard anything said by American Renaissance as worth quoting.

A request was made above for someone to show exactly what in the FN's manifesto could be used to describe it as hard right, or whatever. That has never been answered. Other comments have been volunteered about the several jews and others in the FN, not to mention that the Deputy Leader has a Japanese wife.

But most importantly, surely if anyone has anything to say about the FN it should be on their page, not here. That is, unless this is a clear attempt to denigrate the WGI? The entire idea of the excellent Wikipedia links is that one can follow things through all the various articles.

My last comment relates to South Africa. Obviously there is a very large divide on this subject. But you are entirely wrong to suggest that the black majority were somehow disenfranchised. That is incorrect. They never had the franchise in the first place, or, indeed, in their entire history. You would be correct in saying they did not have the vote. Many informed and responsible people in Britain looked with horror at the rest of Africa and what had happened in the wake of decolonization and "democracy". The ANC were a revolutionary group with a hierarchy top heavy (circa 80%) with card-carrying members of the Communist Party of South Africa. The comprehensive reports today on the SA economy and crime etc., are not encouraging.

Is it realistic or proper to very obviously denigrate on Wikipedia those groups in the West who saw themselves as standing up for Western civilization and who thought that the blacks in South Africa would be worse off under the ANC and the rest of the world also? Again, should these remarks not be on the appropriate pages, and linked? Sussexman 20:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

If the only parties that get significant voter support are "left wing" in your opinion, and if the only newpapers that sell large numbers of copies are "left-wing" in your opinion, then right-wing must, by definition, be extremist. Of course, I think that most right-wingers such as those in the Conservative Party and the Telegraph readership would not agree that racist or anti-immigrant or pro-white rule parties are part of the mainstream right-wing.

A few token Jews (the word is capitalized, like "Chrisitans" and "Muslims") and a Japanese woman do not make the FN non-racist. The fact that the board spectrum of French politics -- from conservative and liberal and Gaullist to socialist and communist -- rallied behind a single candidate to oppose Le Pen indicate that he is not of the mainstream. The FN's anti-immigrant policies make clearly "far right" when everybody else - including the moderate right -- opposes them.


 * "The ANC were a revolutionary group with a hierarchy top heavy (circa 80%) with card-carrying members of the Communist Party of South Africa. "

I am amazed that some people still trot out that canard after all of the years when the ANC has had large majorities in the SA Parliament, but has failed to implement a communist program. Instead, the government seeks foreign investment, not nationalisation. Hmm. And the fact that there are free elections, where even pro-apartheid groups like the Freedom Front + can run candidates, and there is free press, unlike in Apartheid-era SA, means that SA is a democracy, not a "democracy", as you call it. There is no need for scare quotes here. Using this kind of language tends to reveal your agenda here.

Finally, it is appropriate to assist the reader by providing a brief description of an organisation or person identified in an article if it is reasonable to assume that the average reader may not be familiar with it/him/her: "Former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher", the Trotskyist organisation "Militant Tendancy", children's author JK Rowling, etc. Ground Zero | t 21:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You must be some sort of student with purely theoretical knowledge, or otherwise working for some bastion of The Left.

Your arguments are purile.

Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia and encyclopaedias do not generally lead people with the opinions of the writers. They simply state the facts. Your knowledge of French politics is nonsence and to suggest that the FN are not mainstream is just infantile. I suggest you get a copy of Professor Alec G Hargreaves Immigration in Post-War France - a Documentary Anthology (Methuen, London,1987) and check out the REAL situation in France at the time, especially all the deals which were done between all parties, other than the Communists, and the FN.

In South Africa the economic situation is tumbling downhill with a very advanced programme of Mugabe-style land siezures being pushed through. All the Western intelligence agencies produced excellent dossiers on the ANC which, according to you, must be garbage. You are one of these people - I admit there are armies of them - who, despite all the very substantive evidence of Africa over a 50 year period of a variety of self-government by the natives, still cannot accept that they are not up to it. I'm glad we're not having people like you as judges in our courts! Its easy to be 'humanitarian' academically, isn't it? As long as the results don't affect you.

You may not like the WGI and what they did/stood for, but so what? Does that give you the right to attack the article with your screaming left-wing views in order to twist it so that readers might adopt your viewpoint? Don't worry, others are picking up on all this. Lightoftheworld 14:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Please review the Wikipedia Policy on personal attacks at WP:NPA, withdraw the personal attacks that you have made against me above, and apologise. If you cannot agree to abide by this and other WIkipedia policies, then you should reconsider your participation in this project. Ground Zero | t 15:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Light of the World has obviously permitted himself to be provoked by you. You have deliberately done this before. He has not made any personal "attacks" as none of us know who the others actually are, Kevin. He has made political observations and comment on your comment. He is looking at an article about an organization which once had a high profile but is now defunct. He clearly thinks, as do I, that such an article should be a statement of facts, not opinions, about that group. You think your very clearly jaundiced political statements about the organization, an entirely different thing, should be included in ther article in an obvious attempt to smear it and all those perfectly decent people, professionals, MPs, etc., who were involved, merely because you disapprove of it. Personally I think it is people like you who should consider your participation in Wikipedia. 86.143.82.60 13:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Light of the world is responsible for his own actions, not me. If he/she chooses to violate Wikipedia policies, only he/she is responsible. I did not hold a gun to LOTW's head and force him/her to make personal attacks. He/she can now choose to respect Wikipedia policy by withdrawing the personal attacks and apologise for them, or continue to ignore the policies.

They were indeed personal attacks. Instead of addressing my arguments, he called them "purile" (I assume he meant "puerile") and "infantile" and referred to "your screaming Left-wing views". These are personal attacks. Please review No personal attacks to get a better understanding of what the policy is about.

The questions at hand are:
 * Is it correct to describe the FN as follows:
 * the Front National of France, which calls itself "mainstream right-wing", but is described by most observers as "far right, xenophobic and racist",
 * This description is not my own but comes from the Wikipedia article on the FN, which I did not write. It is a reasonable and balanced because it describes both how the FN views itself and how it is viewed by others. This is not my "very clearly jaundiced political statements".


 * Is it correct to describe the CPSA as follows:
 * the Conservative Party of South Africa, which opposed the end of Apartheid and the introduction of democratic majority-rule in South Africa.
 * Are either of these statements incorrect? I don't think so.


 * Is it appropriate to include these descriptions in the WGI article?
 * I have explained my view on this above, but repeat it here for your convenience: "it is appropriate to assist the reader by providing a brief description of an organisation or person identified in an article if it is reasonable to assume that the average reader may not be familiar with it/him/her: "Former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher", the Trotskyist organisation "Militant Tendancy", children's author JK Rowling, etc."

Ground Zero | t 18:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It appears that your views are paramount and beyond question while others are meaningless. I think that is what you're trying to say to us all. Really. Small wonder people are being wound up 86.129.75.128 19:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I am trying to discuss the text of the article. Others seem to prefer to thrown invective around. Not much I can do about that. Ground Zero | t 19:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The descriptions of the Conservative Party of South Africa and the French FN are, as you say, the views of people. Possibly the wrong people? Who is to decide this? Therein lies the dilemma of flagging up opinions of opponents and citing them as absolute fact: and this applies to any article. It would be far better if you made any comment you wished to about these non-WGI organizations on their appropriate pages. Readers of the WGI page could then, if they so wished, click on them and be carried to those pages accordingly. Sussexman 14:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone believe that the CPSA did not oppose the end of Apartheid and the introduction of majority rule? If so, they are very clearly wrong, are they not? Can you provide evidence that the CPSA supported the end of Apartheid? For the FN, a balanced description is provided. It is common practice in Wikipedia, other encyclopaedias, and generally in factual materials, as I've explained above, to provide context for the benefit of readers. There is no harm in doing so here. If the WGI is going to associate itself with a pro-Apartheid South African political party, why would we want to hide that fact? Ditto for associating itself with a French party that most observers call far right but that calls itself mainstream. Why hide this information from readers? Ground Zero | t 23:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

There are a number of points where your argument is flawed, not least that you simply ignore the very considerable comment of others and simply bang on in an identical manner.

No-one has ever disputed the aims of the Conservative Party of South Africa. These are discussed above and the reasons given for their opposition to giving the vote to people who had never in their 50,000 year history had the vote nor any semblance of 'democracy'. Naturally there will be those in South Africa who are fearful of such a move, especially when the largest party representing them was Marxist. But, as I have already said, the WGI page is not the place for that discussion, nor is it the place for your very evidently biased qualifying sentence. It equates to calling someone a criminal without any explanation of their crime.

Your term "most observers" has also already been commented upon. Again, the WGI page is not the place for such an obvious smear and deliberately leading the reader to a foregone conclusion. The FN has its own page.

I contest your assertion that respectable encyclopaedias would contain such clear bias and leading sentences of description of any organisation without fuller detail. There is context and there is context.

The Wikipedia is not "associating itself" with the WGI by carrying an article about its history any more than it is associating itself with Trotsky by carrying an article about him. No attempt whatsoever has been made to hide any information about those organisations the WGI had links with or their reasons for doing so. The contention here is with your very deliberate leading qualifications and obvious bias in a blatant attempt to cast the WGI in a bad light. Please give the average reader sufficient intelligence to decide for himself without your and "most observers" personal views. Sussexman 08:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

If it is worth commenting on that the WGI "forged links with" the CPSA and FN, it is worth mentioning what the main goals of those organisations are. After all, why do organisation forge links with each other if no to purue common goals? Can we agree that the main goal of the CPSA was the continuation of Apartheid? Can we agree that the main goal of the FN is to oppose immigration? Would you agree to descriptions of those organisations as "pro-Apartheid" and "anti-immigration" respectively? Ground Zero | t 12:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Source please
"The WGI supported the continuation of European-dominated government in South Africa" has been changed to "WGI supported the continuance of apartheid policies in South Africa". Can we have a very clear source for this change please. I appreciate that supporting the Conservative Party of SA might have been seen as supporting a continuance of Separate Development, but that is not the same thing as saying that the WGI had a policy dedicated to Separate Development. Their clear policy was the continuance of a pro-western and European government. So over to you. 86.129.65.37 09:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ummm... given its support for the CPSA, whose main purpose was the continuation of Apartheid, why is it not reasonable to say that the WGI supported Apartheid? Would anyone ever say, "Oh, I support the African National Congress, except for the part about blacks running things. I don't agree with that." Of course not. Ground Zero | t 12:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The CPSA's Manifesto was clear that its fundamental priority was the maintenance of a European dominated South Africa. Your argument re the ANC doesn't stand up because its principle aim was not so much the ending of apartheid as much as majority rule (i.e: rule by them). I'm in agreement with user 86:129 because the changed edit is not supported by a source, only an opinion. Sussexman 13:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Dispute
Is there still a dispute about article content here? Sussexman 13:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The article is still demonised. Many loony quotes (as fact!) come from one single article. No guesses where it was printed: The Guardian (24 April 1993), Guns, Goons and Western Goals, David Pallister, David Beresford and Angela Johnson report on the international connections of Clive Derby-Lewis, arrested by Chris Hani murder investigators. The title speaks volumes. This was a classic left-wing demonising article of Searchlight quality. Speculation and buckets full of crap. Worth pointing out that none of these Red reporters contacted Western Goals at all for their enquiries. Standard Guardian filth. 86.129.79.148 19:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that it is disappointing to look back through the edits and observe the very major efforts which have been made to portray this group, which had some very eminent members, in the worst possible light. Quotations from The Guardian, "a communist newspaper" (Lord Beaverbrook), which employed journalists like Francis Wheen and David Rose, both committed Marxists, should be treated with great caution on subjects such as this. Chelsea Tory 08:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Chelsea Tory but I'm still researching sources before any revisions from my end can take place. 86.129.82.48 14:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC).

An excellent & highly scholarly book on terrorism and The Left is No End to War by Walter Laqueur (NY 2003), the author of a score of books, a university professor &c. He comments on the way The Left dress everything up and demonize articles, books, the media, etc. (In particular see his notes on pages 262-3, where he comments on their use of inverted commas). His first chapter on terrorism and terrorists is an essential read. Once you've read a few books like this and you come to articles like the WGI story you can see what The Left are attempting to do here. 86.129.73.61 09:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Demonising? "loony quotes"", "sepculation and buckets full of crap", "Red reporters" "Standard Guardian filth", "a communist newspaper".... Who's demonising whom? Sounds like the pot calling the kettle a cooking vessel of colour to me. Ground Zero | t 11:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC).


 * Sounds pretty accurate to me. 213.122.22.27 11:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Western Goals (UK)
What has happened to the Institute's forerunner's article? Chelsea Tory 11:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Needs major work
This article is calling out to be trimmed down and reformatted. It also needs proper referencing (i.e. use of footnotes). --SandyDancer 02:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Have had a stab. Article is now shorter with a proper referencing system. Not so much "cruft" now. --SandyDancer 03:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic vandalism

Your deliberate decimation of this article was uncalled for and unwarranted vandalism. The people you claim were with the uS Foundation may or may not have been but they were with the Institute in the UK as stated. Youhave no right to delet things you have no proper knowledge of. As regards the Institute's printed works, all are available at the British Library. Gregory Lauder-Frost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.201.65.50 (talk • contribs)


 * You want to stuff the article with self-aggrandizing, irrelevant facts. I don't think you should be allowed to. I have not "sanitised" anything. I have done things such as:
 * restructure the article - previously it was simply a jumble of facts and lists of names.
 * copy edit , previously entire sections began with "it" and generally the article was poorly written in a rambling and archiac prose style. What was thre clearly reflected your (Gregory Lauder-Frost's) personal writing style, but not that of a Wikipedia article which is meant to be a collaborative effort.
 * removed references to individual press releases, names of individual members etc. which have been made from time to time, and aren't relevant or important per see. Look at articles on comparable groups - they don't have this kind of laborious detail. It just confuses the article, making it less informative and more like a personal scrap book for you.
 * clear up confusion by setting out which organisation is being referred to - the WGI OR its UK predecessor OR its American parent (which has its own page)...
 * set up a proper reference system - clearly lacking previously.
 * Sorry, but for someone who made such a hoo-ha and went around making legal threats when neutral and relevant fact about your past life was quoted on a page about yourself (a page you created out of vanity), it is somewhat rich that you accuse me of "sanitising" articles. You down own this page Gregory, and you shouldn't try and stop others working on it. What I did was clearly not vandalism. If there are particular things you don't like about the new version, just go ahead and edit. Don't blanket revert because you can't be bothered to discuss in a civilised manner. --SandyDancer 12:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sandy, your edits are just fine. Drop me a note on my Talk if the extremists try to WP:OWN the article as they have in the past. Guy (Help!) 19:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

If the person who loathed this article so much that he (unsuccessfully) tried to get it deleted is now approving of his friend's edits wholesale, and at the same time refers to others who disapprove as "extremists" in a thinly-veiled threatening manner, then I would say that simply verifies everything I have said about the few people demonising these articles as working to a clear agenda. Chelsea Tory 10:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You really are a stuck record aren't you? Can you please explain what you don't like about the edits that have been made - I genuinely want to know what the issue is so we have article everyone is happy with. You are always going on about "agendas" and "demonisation" (much as User:Robert I did - see here and here for Robert I, and this page and here for Chelsea Tory).
 * Why not attempt to be constructive for once and actually tell me what it is about my changes (which can be seen here) you don't approve of, and in particular what part of them could possibly be construed as "demonisation" of the subject? If you don't do so, I ask you to stop asserting I have done something I have not - immediately. Otherwise, by pursuing what amounts to an unfair personal campaign of harassment against me, you are breaching Wikipedia guidelines left right and centre. --SandyDancer 13:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

From scouting about it seems this Sandy Dancer fellow is in fact Ed Chilvers. Demonisation takes many forms, and is not a word which is only used by those mentioned above. My view is this article has been attacked by someone without any knowledge of the organisation and has presented it in a manner which suited him. 86.136.191.212 13:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not EdChilvers, I didn't demonise anyone or anything. Please edit the article if you don't agree with any content - I will not interfere at all. If you do not want to edit, withdraw your comments. Your assertions are a breach of Wikipedia's guidelines on personal attacks and assumption of good faith, which I would urge you to read. --SandyDancer 18:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)