Talk:SchNEWS

I've reverted the criticism. Please do not remove without discussion. 195.92.40.49 09:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Personally I'm absolutely in favour of keeping articles in Wikipedia neutral, and whilst laying down lists of pros and cons isn't a very sophisticated way to do that, I do broadly support the criticisms section.

However, the sentence in question does definitely need cleaning up; first of all, the external links should be references (I'll clean that up shortly). Secondly, what on earth is an anarchist milieu? Please remember we're writing an encyclopædia for potentially totally ignorant readers, and using pretentiously arcane words which people won't understand doesn't help any argument one bit. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 11:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

And by way of a post-script, my dictionary lists the word, "milieu" as "The social setting of a mental patient." ! – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 11:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for annoying people by removing it. It looked suspicious (being so heavily external links) and I thought it was something partisan. Looks like I wasn't wrong. Still don't think it adds anything to the article. But don't worry, I won't remove it again :) Daview 18:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

There's more of it now. If you follow the reference to the "Stewart Home Society" it looks like a bit of a personal rant website with some histrionics at play. I'm extremely tempted to remove the whole thing. The only reason I've not done is that I'm following the Wikipedia guideline of "assuming good faith" and presuming that there's just something I don't understand within the referenced document. But it looks like typical inter-pressure-group paranoia/jealousy/bickering/nit-picking to be honest, and I can't say it seems encyclopædic. However, perhaps I just sound ignorant. It'd be great if "Harrypotter" or the user at 195.92.40.49 could explain a bit about it here on the talk page... please? – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have added in the other plug for the National anarchists and removed "allegedly", otherwise we would have to put allegedly all through the article. I don't think anyone actually contests that they did run the advertisement, and while the first occasion may have been a mistake, clearly the second was not. And if someone wants to put allegedly in front of national anarchism, well, it will be quite clear where they are coming from. Whilst some people might think it does not add much to the aricle, I am sure there are plenty of people who would like to get a clearer understanding what sort of thinking lies behind this publication. (see also Resist 14 for the Anarchist Federation's take on the Anarchist Heretics, CONVERGENCE AND TERRY LIDDLE for Green Anarchist's view, No case to answer for CPGB's defense of Terry Liddle. For a more recent comment see ‘Co-opting the Counter Culture: Troy Southgate and the National Revolutionary Faction’ by Graham D. Macklin which however fails to take into account

a) Southgate's organisation of a meeting between Alexander Dugin, the BNP and the British Orthodox Church

b) the succesful infiltration by Leonid Savin of Peoples Global Action and the BUNDjugend

Unfortunately there are too many anarchists who not only wish to turn a blind eye to such fascist collaboration, but also want to hoodwink potentially totally ignorant readers as well.

Actually, we just had an editing conflict. I'm sorry if you if you find flirting with fascism rather fun, or paranoid, or bickering, or nitpicking. Whilst Mr Southgate might seem to be a minor figure in the UK the recent anti G8 demonstration in St Petersburg has shown the ability of the National Bolsheviks to mount a significant demonstration.Harrypotter 21:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Harrypotter. I'm afraid you've just rather proved my point: in that I don't follow your argument at all, and I don't think most readers will. I'm not being awkward, I'd genuinely like to understand your point. Clearly, you think that SchNEWS is promoting something dangerous. I don't say that it's not – although I suspect they don't intend to be. I just ask, totally in good faith, that you put your point across in plain language without citing all sorts of obscure groups and texts. Are you suggesting SchNEWS are deliberate fascists, or are you saying they're stupid? Or what? Personally, considering that the reference to this event was on both ocassions only a sort of "listings" mention in the "any other news" section, I suspect that they may not have even known what it was. Sloppy and trusting, nothing worse.

Finally, on a slightly different tack, I think it's important to understand that SchNEWS doesn't have an editor nor a formal editorial policy, and that what one person writes about in it may be completely over the heads, or under the radar, of other writers. I know that because I used to be one of them, a long time ago, and have extremely different viewpoints on some topics to some of the other writers – which is entirely healthy I think. (Incidentally, I've long had my previous involvement in the paper clearly mentioned in my user page, so I feel comfortable being involved in the article, which I'm trying to be neutral about.) – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

The problem is that SchNEWS deliberately promoted the fascist Anarchist Heretics Fair. This does not make them fascist adn I don't understand why you should suggest that it does. Perhaps some of the people involved are stupid - or they would have put a stop to it, or subsequently said they had made a mistake. But then again there may be someone in this milieu who is deliberately introducing this sort of bullshit. Whilst you may feel that entertaining extremely different points of view is healthy, then why do you want to delete an item which merely chronicles how the breadth of the group even includes advertising fascist events? I must admit that having experienced first hand fascist violence, I cannot feel so blasé about things, and perhaps you might argue, tghis shoudl disqualify me from involving myself on this issue. However, as the issue isn't one of condemning fascism, but merely recording how SchNEWS have been criticised for promoting it, something which I think has been clearly demonstrated. And as regards quoting obscure groups, for ninety-nine per cent of the population, SchNEWS is an obscure group. Also check Russian civil society: the G8 and after for another view on the significance of the Nat Bols, or a bit in teh Washington Post: Putin Critics Convene as G-8 Nears. Now, of course, you may find all this obscure, because, quite frankly it doesn't interest you, and indeed i have obnly sampled a tiny fraction of all the wikipedia pages, because the vast majority are of no interest to me. However, there are people who are very interested in the spread of fascist ideology for whom SchNEWS' stance is very interesting, and this is what should be respected?Harrypotter 21:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

The statements made in the criticism section and allegations made here are not supported by the evidence. The page linked is not dated, however the email refered to clearly refers to the second SchNEWS listing, not the first, so the allegation that they deliberately and repeatedly promoted a fascist event after being criticised can not stand. Note the reference to the time and venue below, this only occurs in the second listing which dates criticism to after the second listing.

here is a copy of an email that was sent by a comrade to the Mayday2000 list in response to some one posting Schnews to that list.

Subject: Fuck off Schnews

Please do not send any money to Schnews, they run adds for nazis:

• Discover the unknown side of Anarchy! The Anarchist Heretics Fair takes place at the Hanover Community Centre, Southover Road, Brighton on May 6 between 10am-5pm. It's a fair for the 'outsiders and rejects from the mainstream anarchist movement.' (mainstream anarchy?) More details 0181 459 5520

I am therefore editing the crticism section to reflect this. I'm not sure this amounts to an example of sunstantive critisicsm in any case, but I will leave this section in place.--Tallus 19:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Criticism that seems so inconsistent with Schnews' reporting of anti-Nazi matters needs a strong reference. The first reference is unsatisfactory because it is a self-published source and the other two references, without interpretation (original research), are not criticism. I propose removing it. Grim²³★ 15:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Statements like "It is written in a witty, easy to understand language" are not NPOV by a longway! Wikipedia is not an advertising bord, I have edited it again to remove promotional like sentences and introduce a more encycopedic style.--JK the unwise 08:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Added the Simon Jones Memorial Campaign to emphasise that the writers are also activists. - aach

Nice one. And in the case of the Schnews crew very true. NickW 22:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Useful cross-referencing. I've reworded it slightly because saying "they" after a paragraph of using "it" made it sound like the claim was that the original SchNEWS team were involved in Simon's campaign, and in fact at least half them were off doing other things in other towns by the time Simon died. Kierant 03:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Didn't see anything in article about that, would like to find out and add to article. Greg Dahlen (talk) 10:18, 30 October 2021 (UTC)Reply