Talk:Edward Goldsmith

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Help with content[edit]

Controversies Tidy Up: Removed repetitions and redundant statements; rearranged parts to improve flow; removed “politically motivated” from the phrase in the fourth paragraph (mentioned in discussion below); noted instead the controversial nature of Monbiot’s article. Hopefully, this section now reads better (less clumsy), while maintaining all the pertinent controversies. --User1756 (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Controversies[edit]

Nouvelle Droite[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Balance & PoV[edit]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The tone of this article is nothing more than a hagiography for someone that many people including George Monbiot and myself believe was a de facto neo nazi. There hould be no positive descriptive language like 'robustly defended', A talented after-dinner speaker and raconteur, Goldsmith was an articulate spokesman etc. There should be no points of view, opinions/interpretationsat all in a Wikipedia article. It reads like a nazi hagiography. I didn't put the tone warning up, someone else did. What I would also like to know is, who is User1756 ? It wouldn't happen to be a certain Mr Kingsnoth would it ?
--Eric144 (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "inappropriate tone" flag was taken off after a reassessment by the Biography Portal who promoted the article rating from C to B after improvements were made.
The article doesn’t appear to be a neo-nazi hagiography. The descriptive elements that Erik144 is referring to as PoV are drawn from referenced material (see article).
Again, please make sure you have carefully read the Wikipedia Talk guidelines page, in particular with regard to this section of the Talk guidelines regarding acceptable behaviour. It does not matter who Erik144 is or is not in real life or any other contributor to Wikipedia. What matters is that all contributors follow the Wikipedia guidelines, which include some basic civilities. --User1756 (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Politically motivated attacks[edit]

Monbiot’s article is a political analysis arguing from a partisan political point of view. Monbiot is entitled to a political position--there’s nothing wrong with that. Goldsmith’s rebuttal was in response to these political attacks on himself and his work, as can be clearly determined by reference to his rebuttal. The point is that the bulk of the Controversies cited in this article revolve around political differences, rather than say theoretical differences, or aesthetical differences, or cultural differences, or points of fact for example. This ought to be obvious--the contents and references in the Controversies section are clearly cited and seem rather unambiguous on this point. [This comment is in reference to the removal and subsequent reinstatement of a phrase in the Controversies section] --User1756 (talk) 23:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Politically motivated suggests the motivation was bias. That is the meaning of the phrase and it is only your opinion. Monbiot is an environmentalist like Goldsmith. The article was a review of the extreme right in green politics, like the BNP and Goldsmith. It wasn't politically motivated in a simple labour vs conservative way. Monbiot has said he isn't a socialist. You are implying he is. Find a better phrase.
--Eric144 (talk) 23:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Politically motivated" means what it says, and is explained above. "Far right" is obviously a political term, which Erik144 accepts as the basis of Monbiot's article; yet then seems to claim that the article is not really political. Erik144 then goes on to suggest that Monbiot is actually being accused specifically of being a "Socialist". Erik144 seems to be arguing a non sequitur here.
Goldsmith's rebuttal clearly states that it is in response to political attacks, and elsewhere specifically cites the article by Monbiot in this respect. As the original article clearly shows, Monbiot himself is not ashamed of making clear the political nature of his analysis. There doesn't appear to be a better phrase that fairly and accurately describes the nature of these Controversies. Any suggestions? --User1756 (talk) 10:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a problem with your general awareness of the English language and what is acceptable in a Wikipedia article. Most educated people will understand that you are using language to portray a partisan view of the subject. It would help if you were to reveal your identity and say what your relationship with Mr Goldsmith and/or his magazine was. I would suggest leaving the phrase "Politically motivated" out. It was clearly an attack. I am eric144 by the way.
--Eric144 (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Besides being attacks, they are also clearly political in nature. Perhaps then we can agree to a satisfactory rewording of the disputed phrase, from “politically motivated attacks” to just “political attacks”? This should reduce the issue down to its barest essentials, while remaining non-partisan and pertinent to the subject matter at hand. [Apologies for referring to Eric144 as Erik144] --User1756 (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laundry lists[edit]

There's no reason to have long lists of influences and associates present in the article. Important ones should be (and indeed already are) part of the prose of the article. There is also no reason to sport multiple links to his essays, when the site on which they are hosted is already listed as an external link. Shimeru (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lists are not ideal, but, in lieu of a better presentation, they remain an important source of information for readers of the encyclopedia. In this particular case they include many important associations and cross-references not yet rendered into the main prose. This is reason enough to leave them in. There is certainly no reason to remove them altogether, which diminishes the value of the whole article for readers seeking useful leads.
If, however, someone wishes to improve the lists, then by all means contribute constructively by turning them into some kind of prose if preferred (although it should be noted that lists are not in themselves a negative part of a total article—as is implied by the derogatory term “laundry list”—they form the basis of Bibliographies, "See also"s, References, and so forth).
The removal of the list of key articles in the bibliography section, however, is wholly unjustifiable. First and foremost, a short list of key articles by an author is not only acceptable, it is a necessary part of a useful bibliography. The issue that has been raised here seems to be with regards to the hyperlinks to the author's website (so called "link farming"—again, a derogatory term). This, however, is simply an issue of copyright. The articles appear nowhere else.
To remove the hyperlinks is to defeat the whole purpose of the web; and Wikipedia is a web-based encyclopedia. By removing them, readers are deprived of the sole avenue of accessing those articles. This serves no useful purpose, and is in fact counterproductive to a web-based article (the web arose after all, due to its fundamental advantage of employing hyperlinks).
In any case, the wholesale removal of the list of articles itself is unacceptable—removing links is one thing, removing the actual article references is quite another. User1756 (talk) 10:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I have a very serious problem once again with the biased editing of unregistered user User1756. The change from liberal to socialist and the removal of eventually are simply additions to the already present hagiograhy. Change them back or I will remove the whole edit again. Especially in the context of an extreme right wing charactar like Goldsmith. --Eric144 (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The change from 'liberal' to 'socialist' was by another editor. Please don't remove the lists again. As explained above, they are useful leads for other readers who wish to investigate things further for themselves. By all means, improve the lists by writing them into some prose. User1756 (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Edward Goldsmith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Edward Goldsmith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Edward Goldsmith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:10, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Far too many references to his CV or his website. Please see WP:RS. DuncanHill (talk) 06:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edward_Goldsmith&oldid=1196469868"