Talk:Western Goals Institute

/Archive 1

Please discuss!

Can the editor who has recently made several wholesale reverts please explain here which particular points he objects to? I made a series of incremental changes, each with an informative edit summary. I shall list them here so as to save him any trouble. Relata refero (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• this diff avoids obfuscation about the support for the pre-1991 dispensation in South Africa.

No. You have changed that to an overtly political statement. The WGI supported European government, not only there but in other parts of Africa also. Apartheid was a government policy, not a government. Chelsea Tory (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Really? provide a diff. Because it appears they supported the Conservative Party and not the National Party, both of whom were for European government, but only one of which was sufficiently hardline on apartheid. Relata refero (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• this edit rewords a sentence for clarity and explains the background of the SA Conservative Party.

No. You are trying to make a point here. If people want to know about the Conservative Party of South Africa they can look at its Wiki page. Chelsea Tory (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

As I say above, that is precisely relevant to who and what they supported. There was considerable mainstream support in the Tories for the National Party at the time. What was special about the WGI? This explains. Relata refero (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• this diff reduces a lengthy clause, focuses on an individual's primary role (and the reason for his death, which is relevant in this context) and provides some extremely neutral information about another individual's affiliation.

(1) You offer no accessible source for sixty members of the State President's Council.

(2) You may not think it important to clearly state that this fellow was a terrorist leader whose gangs were busy murdering inocent people but it is relevent to the WGI and this article. It is all in context. You are attempting to partly sanitise him. Chelsea Tory (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's a paper outlining the reforms of 1980, including the replacement of the Senate by the sixty-member, multiracial, nominated council.

About the relative importance of Hani being a Communist as opposed to a militant (though he had ceased violence at the time), I am merely going by what Mr. Derby-Lewis and the Pole themselves said. His status as a communist was important, not his militancy. Relata refero (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• this diff removes a particularly irrelevant and unexplained part of an image caption.

There is a limit to how much one can say in a caption, I suppose. But it is surely clear that in the photo these boats are all carrying flags and that is the explanation. Otherwise why the flotilla? It has to have some meaning. The flags represent provinces, cities and towns etc., which were given to the communists. Chelsea Tory (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Very well. Perhaps we can make it clearer. Relata refero (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• this edit asks for a source for a summary of a speech.

The Western Goals Institute Newsletter, Spring 1990 edition. Also a mention in a couple of newspapers but I can't find them now. Griffith was a complex character.Chelsea Tory (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed he was, and a fascinating one. However, I would like to, as far as possible, have a close summary of that speech, just to be certain we are paraphrasing it correctly. Relata refero (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What here requires vaguely insulting edit comments and a series of wholesale reverts? Please, let's be civilised about this, and lets have a bit of an organised discussion, shall we?

Relata refero (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I will hold off restoring my changes in case anyone wishes to take up the baton from the now-blocked User:Chelsea Tory. Relata refero (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Since nobody's turned up, I'm restoring my changes. Relata refero (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

These points are still in need of explanation before banned User:Chelsea Tory's version is reinstated. --Relata refero (disp.) 16:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I added a sentence explaining what the Charities Commission complaint was about (it was about the three charites supporting campaigns against apartheid South Africa) User:Fatal!ty reverted it. Care to explain why? It's at least as relevant as the fact that George Galloway was heading War on Want. I've reverted it back.Steve3742 (talk) 12:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Hi all -

I came across this and I'm not comfortable with the balance of the article - it reads very uncritically of the Institute and seems to be making a case for its mission and goals rather than being descriptive or factual. I'm referring to biased phrasing, like "The institute was reaching out to a variety of robustly conservative associations which were also opposed to communism." Also the use of unsourced, specific details, like the names of obscure committee members are included which is a bit of a red flag and implied it could have been written by someone belonging to or close to the organisation.

Could we look at more balanced language and if possible trimming the content to remove some of the superlatives that are contributing to the one-sidedness? I'm happy to help Leela0808 (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• The only NPOV thing here is your tag and your dislike of what is a clearly both a descriptive and factual article. An article in an encyclopaedia is not supposed to be "critical" in the subject content. It was in the old Soviet Union but hopefully we have passed that? Or have we? Naturally the Institute's mission and goals have to be spelt out. Why is the comment you have in inverted commas above "biased"? It is a statement of fact. As for committee members, surely any reader wants to know who was running this outfit? There is ample source material for this article. Your NPOV statement is the most bizarre I have read on Wikipedia.81.154.122.152 (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

How bizarre...I was about to suggest that the article was far too critical of The WGI. It's not the place of any encyclopedia entry to be "critical" as it is (it should be "neutral" in tone), but there seems to be a certain amount of emotive language in this article.

For example, I think it's questionable whether the term "Far Right" can be applied. From what I've read, it seems that The WGI's objectives were pretty well in tune with what is today fairly mainstream opinion.

I'll admit that I am very perturbed every time I see the term "Far Right", though. It has been so ludicrously overused and misapplied by Left-Wing "activists" in recent years (essentially as a "club" to "bash" anyone they don't like) that the term has lost all credible meaning.

I suggest that the use of the term "Far Right" in this case is - at best - "subjective" or - at worst - "malicious". 86.14.40.196 (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

More detail required in citation

One citation simply says "Irish Press, 3 July 1990". Looking at WP:CITEHOW, newspaper articles typically include authors' byline (if any) and title of the article within quotation marks. Does anybody know the article name and byline (if latter is available)? Autarch (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)