Talk:Edward Goldsmith

General Comments

I removed the link to the Nouvelle Droite. Edward Goldsmith is not affiliated with the Nouvelle Droite. If I am not mistaken, he appeared once or twice at a Nouvelle Droite function with Alain de Benoist, but he has also appeared at many other kinds of functions, and therefore this does not indicate he belongs to the Nouvelle Droite.

This is, by the way, not meant as an attack on the Nouvelle Droite. 128.164.61.53 (talk) 15:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is a comprehensive account of Goldsmith's connection to the Nouvelle Droite.

http://www.communalism.org/Archive/03/dspe.html

--Eric144 (talk) 10:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

This is an inflammatory and subjective way of characterising the New Right: "the intellectual elite of the neo-Nazi movement"

I propose that it be removed. I also propose that, if Goldsmith's association with the New Right be publicised here, an effort be undertaken to document all his associations, including with Trotskyists. Someone appears to be trying to paint Goldsmith as a crypto-fascist, which is not what wikipedia is for. 128.164.61.48 (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

My interest is not in left/right issues per se but in the close relationship between deep green, anti technology ideology espoused by Goldsmith and Nazism. Crypto Nazi rather than crypto fascist.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sealed/gw/greennazis.htm

--Eric144 (talk) 10:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting site, Eric. However, the positions that 1) the New Right is essentially Nazi, and that 2) Deep Ecologists in general, and Edward Goldsmith in particular, is a crypto-Nazi, are positions that have to be argued for, rather than presented as objectively correct in encyclopedic format. It is arguable, but by no means incontestable, that Goldsmith is a crypto-Nazi. For example, his rebuttal:

http://www.edwardgoldsmith.org/page3.html

Therefore I suggest you remove the subjective language (if indeed it was you who inserted it), and channel your efforts towards demonstrating Goldsmith's Nazistic positions into something more clearly authored by you and meant to indicate your viewpoint. I sincerely wish you the best.

128.164.61.142 (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your mature contribution.

I changed 'neo nazi' to 'extreme right' although .....

I don't think i's exaggerating to describe the Nouvelle Droite as being neo nazi considering its affiliations and powerful influence on openly neo nazi groups across Europe. The esoteric neo paganism is pure nazism. One has to understand that nazis have had a 'reasonably' bad press for 70 years so that word tends to be avoided.

Goldsmith's denial is unconvincing but basically irrelevant as the essence of his deep green ideology is is very similar to Nazi environmental philosophy.

I am interested in him at the moment because his nephew is a prominent UK semi aristocratic environmentalist, one of a number given a platform in the Guardian newspaper. They seem to have a natural affinity to nature/breeding/ eugenics and many supported Germany before and even during WWII.

--Eric144 (talk) 19:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Where's his far-right connections? I came to look on this page because they mentioned he died on Radio 4, they also mentioned his link to far-right organisations. But there is little on the page to mention it. I suspect it has been edited to play down this. I have absolutely no doubt that if it's mentioned on Radio 4 news, it is more than worthy to be mentioned on this page. It is not untypical of rich public-school taught kids to flirt with the far-Right, the irony being that Goldsmith's a Jew, so it is all more the despicable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.21.75 (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I put the far right information back where it belongs in the middle of what looks like a hagiography to me. Any attempt to remove it will see its immediate return.

--Eric144 (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The exact quote from the BBC Radio 4 programme is "Later in his career Goldsmith alienated many on the left of the movement with his willingness to address 'far-right' groups and his views on population control." presented by John Andrew on the Six O'clock news, 26th August 2009 23:38 mins. It is interesting that the mainstream British media make far more of an issue of this supposed 'far-right' connection than do the foreign press. --User1756 (talk) 17:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

"Extreme" opinions Eric144 clearly harbours some strong opinions, which Eric144 is of course entitled to. However, Wikipedia entries must maintain neutrality at all times. As a result, some of the points Eric144 has included in the article require appropriate qualification to maintain some semblance of neutrality and factual accuracy. Hence why Eric144's points have been properly qualified, and will continue to be where necessary to maintain neutrality.

=User1756 (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any opinions, I have cited sources. your contributions are frankly simple minded sycophantic irrelevancies and not a balance to anything. I am referring to e.g. 'to counter his critics with his powerful reply' as an outrageous example of an opinion, not a fact. You seem to have removed reference which you have 'citation needed'. lease put them back.

I have no connection to any political party, the Goldsmith family or the ecology magazine. Please declare your relationship with the subject.

--Eric144 (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Erik144, thank you for your contributions. However, before you make any further contributions to this talk page (or any other pages for that matter) please make sure you have carefully read the Wikipedia Talk guidelines page, in particular with regard to this section of the Talk guidelines. If you feel that someone has removed a citation you can always put it back, but please make sure you have checked to see who has removed it last before pointing the finger.

The "countering his critics" is a factual statement, and the "powerful reply" is a paraphrase of the original text cited: the original words of which being "In this article of January 2003, he robustly defends himself against his various detractors." The "powerful" part could very easily be replaced with "robustly defends himself" in quotes if you prefer? or perhaps "what has been referred to as a robust defence"? The main point is to maintain both sides of the argument, and to provide enough background information, so that people can make up their own minds. There are PoVs from both sides. There is certainly no consensus for the views expressed here http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sealed/gw/greennazis.htm for example, which if it were put on Wikipedia would not last long without extensive editing and balancing of opinions/interpretations. Hoping this clarifies things further --User1756 (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Help with tone and style of article

The references have now been converted into the normal style (with repeated citations conflated into single references). --User1756 (talk) 12:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Help with content

Does anyone have a suitable portrait photograph for the top of this article? --User1756 (talk) 22:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)