Jump to content

Talk:Kerry Bolton

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:The Nexus (journal))

Origin and Youth

[edit]

I write as a query here as to whether Kerry Bolton had grown up in Australia (specifically in western suburban Sydney) before he attended Lower Hutt College. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.30.198 (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Books

[edit]

The list of books was deleted without explanation. If there's no reason for the deletion I'll restore it. Also, an assertion was tagged as "dubious", again without explanation.   Will Beback  talk  05:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing the "dubious" annotation is because the source, Lucifer Rising (book) is not considered to be a very reliable source and we need to be careful when saying things about living people. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the list of publications since they were not notable. Some of his writings are already in the article. As for the {{dubious}} tag, I used it in place of the text "[Disputed]". I am not familiar enough with the topic to make a judgement on whether the tag is appropriate - I am assuming good faith on the part of the editor who had added the comment. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On further research, the "[disputed]" notes were added by user:K R Bolton, presumably the subject.[1]
The subject is a prolific writer and publisher. While no one of his works is notable, I think he is largely notable for his corpus. If there's no specific objection I'll restore the list. I think it does a good job of conveying biographical information in a neutral way.   Will Beback  talk  07:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another useful source maybe http://www.scribd.com/Dr%20K%20R%20Bolton Stuartyeates (talk) 07:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think that it would give the article undue balance? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How so? The subject is known for being:
  • ...a far-right, conservative and social credit writer in New Zealand[1] who has been active in several organisations.
Or something like that. It list no remunerative occupation besides writer and publisher. I agree the list is rather long, but I don't know of a neutral way of selecting a shorter subset. Any ideas?   Will Beback  talk  08:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It can always be balanced with some of the things from http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=au%3ABolton%2C+K.+R. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are dozens of entries (including some duplicates) in WorldCat. Are you suggesting linking to it instead of listing them here?   Will Beback  talk  08:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, that would be a bad idea. I'm thinking of using WorldCat as a second reference for the ones we do list. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative?

[edit]

Isn't being far right inconsistent with being conservative? Just as Nazis were radical and national 'socialist', and right wing, and not in any sense conservative.119.224.91.84 (talk) 07:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kerry Bolton. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 19:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doctorate

[edit]

Several facts cast doubt on the assertion that Kerry Bolton has a doctorate from a recognised (or accredited) university.

These assertions should be sourced in line with wikipedia's BLP guidelines.

First: If the doctorate was conferred in 2006, as claimed here, then the dissertation should be registered on publicly accessible thesis databases. I have been unable to locate his dissertation in any such database.

This could be resolved by naming the university at which the doctorate was conferred, and/or naming the subject's doctoral supervisor, as is standard for academic biographies. A link to a university library catalogue which holds the dissertation would verify this.

(Note: I am not disputing that the book mentioned is in fact published. It has been, by Renaissance Press; only the assertion that this book was accepted as a doctoral thesis by a recognised university cannot be verified.)

Second: Even the subject's own website, kerrybolton.com, is slippery about his exact qualifications, saying only: "Kerry Bolton (b. 1956) has certifications and doctorates in theology, social work studies, psychology, and Ph.D. honoris causa."

Anyone who has in fact earned a doctorate is unlikely to mention it in one breath with minor certifications like this.

Again, there is no mention here of the institution which conferred either doctorate — honorary or otherwise. This is highly irregular for an academic biography. In fact, usual practice is to name the awarding institution immediately after the qualification.

Third: There is no mention (in this article) of any undergraduate study that would qualify the subject to undertake doctoral research. As far as I am aware, Hutt Valley Technical College is a high school.

Fourth: Elsewhere, regarding his academic qualifications, Kerry Bolton asserts in an interview ( http://wermodandwermod.com/newsitems/news090120120102.html ) that he holds a doctorate in religious studies and an honorary doctorate "from an eminent Asian institution." This sounds suspicious; anyone with any sort of doctorate, especially an honorary one, names the institution where it was conferred.

The exact nature of the subject's academic qualifications must be clarified. If related claims cannot be verified, or if the granting institution is an unaccredited institute of higher education, any reference to a "doctoral dissertation" should be removed, as it may suggest greater academic credibility than is warranted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josip888 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Josip888: I've checked the reference and it appears that whole sentence is dubious. It turns out the thesis info was added by Bolton, who is not a reliable source for anything - not even himself. -- haminoon (talk) 08:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

POV

[edit]

This article has been turned into a nice little hagiography. Perhaps some more eyes might want to consider this. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 21:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The edits and contributions I have made have at least been supported by cited facts. The previous entry on Bolton was not only highly biased, but libellous. User "Jpgordon" refers to whitewashing this "Nazi" - a label that the NZ Press Council and the NZ Broadcasting Standards Authority (see citations) found to be wrong. In one of my edits I have changed the Category the Kerry Bolton page was listed under. Bolton's writings may be described as "Nationalist" or even "National Bolshevist", but they can not fairly be described as "Nazi" - a term that implies a belief in racial superiority, or the belief that miscegenation leads to cultural or racial decline. I have therefore undone user "Jpgordon" erasure of my edits, and sent him an email inviting further discussion. --Karlwinn (talk) 01:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree previous edits were potentially libelous. I don't agree with Karlwinn's definition of Nazi, and I also don't believe that Kerry Bolton qualifies as a Nazi. Calling Bolton a Nazi is akin to calling a modern day Trotskyist a Stalinist, or vice versa. There are clear ideological delineations.

Objectively Bolton is obviously a fascist of some sort, but his fascism has a clear, modernist, and Anglo tint to it, inconsistent with several core Nazi values. For instance Bolton has expressed an appreciation of the value of the truth, no matter what the consequences, a characteristic Anglo-Saxon value, and objectively a rejection of the idea of the Nazi "Big Lie". Issue313 (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of my edits by admin "Jpgordon"

[edit]

Over the past few days I have contributed new material to this page, and in some cases corrected biased and factually incorrect and misleading statements about Kerry Bolton. The material I have contributed, has today been removed by admin "Jpgordon". I have received no explanation for the removal of the content I have contributed, or any clarification as to why none of my edits have been acceptable to this Wikipedia admin. Admittedly, I am new to Wikipedia, but if this is an example of the way Wikipedia ensures "neutrality" (let alone encouraging user participation) I can only assume that it does not extend to those branded "Nazis" by Wikipedia Admins !!

Karlwinn (talk) 05:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your assumption is correct, inasmuch as Nazis are given short shrift around here, and there's no way to be neutral about Nazis. My action was not, however, administrative; any Wikipedia editor could do exactly the same thing. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 06:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Josh, your seem to display a remarkable level of bias, even for a Wikipedia admin. Apparently others have noticed it https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2009/06/04/wikipedia-ziopedia-or-judeopedia/ However, undeterred can you explain to me why NONE of my edits have been allowed. You cite my edits as "personal opinion" yet you are happy to libel Kerry Bolton by referring to him as a "Nazi" - a term that you seem to apply to everybody who does not share a pro-Israel stance, or one who is critical (as Bolton is) of "International Finance". In fact you seem to make the error of branding anybody who has something positive to say about Hitler or National Socialism, as a "Nazi" !! This may be a simple but effective tactic, but you overlook the fact that Winston Churchill, David Lloyd George, and even John F Kennedy (to name just a few) ALL made positive remarks about Hitler - does that also make them ALL "Nazis" ? If you are unable / unwilling to assist me to get my edits reinstated - perhaps you can assist me on how to take this matter further. It seems a bit rash suggesting to Bolton's publisher that they take legal action without giving you, and Wikipedia full opportunity to resolve this issue amicably.

Karlwinn (talk) 07:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karlwinn, please let me seek some clarification from you with regards to Wikipedia:No legal threats, one of Wikipedia's policies. Are you saying that if your edits are not reinstated, you will encourage this person's publisher to take legal action? Schwede66 17:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Schwede66, for clarification I am not at this stage suggesting his publisher takes legal action, this will be their decision not mine. But I am saying that this Bolton page (as of 17th Oct, 2017) is not only biased, factually incorrect, but probably libellous. To refer to Bolton as a "Nazi" is a claim that has already been found to be false by two legal inquiries in New Zealand (Broadcasting Standards Authority and the Press Council, 2009) Yet despite these finding, and subsequent complaints, Wikipedia admins still permit not only this biased entry to remain online, but place his entry under a "Neo-Nazi" category. The offence is further compounded by a Wikipedia Admin (Jpgordon) in response to a valid complaint (See this page), justifying the libel (and his bias) on the basis that "Your assumption is correct, inasmuch as Nazis are given short shrift around here, and there's no way to be neutral about Nazis." Had any of the cited contributors / admins of the existing Kerry Bolton page made the slightest effort to establish what Bolton's political views are by actually reading his numerous books, essays, etc it would be abundantly clear that Bolton's views are not only far more in accord with National Bolshevism, but that he has consistently rejected Nazi theories about racial "superiority" or miscegenation. However, in view of the fact that this existing Wikipedia page on Kerry Bolton, has a long and sordid history of contribution and edits that in the majority of cases are lies, distortions and outright falsehoods, I very much doubt if anything is going to change. It appears that there exists a consensus within Wikipedia admins to maintain a page about Kerry Bolton that is based on lies and fabrications, and suppressing all other opinions that are not in accord with this agenda. Karlwinn (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karlwinn there is a 'View History' tab on the main page where you can view the rationale for every edit. I believe that the rationale you're looking for is 'rm entirely POV edits, essentially whitewashing this Nazi.' with an addition of 'I agree' . The article's use of the word NAZI is sourced to a reliable independent third party source, it is not libel because we have a source for it. I encourage you to learn how libel works. If you want to change the article substantially then it's likely that you're going to need independent coverage of the subject to base those changes on, I suggest looking in press archives and similar. Non-English sources are welcome. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stuart, I am not a lawyer, and not that familiar with US libel laws, but to my knowledge a defence for libel does not simply rest on the fact that Wikipedia page is simply quoting third parties - it is also the overall impression a reasonable person would form from the article as a whole. In addition it is the categorising of Bolton under "Neo-Nazis" and the public reference to him as a "Nazi" (see this page) made by a Wikipedia admin, that I also believe to be libellous, but all of this is for others to decide.

If you actually look at all of the edits I have made I have supplied sources, and I do question why NONE of my edits have been accepted by admin Jpgordon, who removed all of them, including a list of all of Bolton's books, and not least a far more balanced account of Bolton's political life and views.

All of the edits I have made are in accord with edits made on other Wikipedia pages when discussing the work of authors. My edits and citations have ALL been rejected including :- • An up to date list of Bolton's published books - all cited with ISBN numbers. • A list of articles published by academic and political journals - all cited with url links. • An explanation of why the Radio New Zealand appeal was allowed - cited from online pdf document. • Providing the name of the author of the controversial Waikato Thesis - cited from existing page link. • Change of Category from "Neo-Nazism" to "Nationalism". I also suggest in the edit note that "National Bolshevism" would probably be more accurate. and even an edit where I highlight the fact that Bolton was a co-founder of the Kapiti Dog Owner's Group !! - cited with url link. In light of the above, perhaps you can clarify why ALL of my edits have been removed. Is it an error on the part of admin Jpgordon, or is this simply an extension of the ongoing campaign by Wikipedia / Admins to provide a biased and distorted view of Kerry Bolton? Karlwinn (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, there are two parts here, the first are the edits to existing content to reflect more of the subjects' point of view than that of the secondary sources, the second coverage of his recent activity. I think you're likely to be struggling to get editors on this page to agree with the first. You're welcome to post a note to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard to get some fresh eyes on the topic, but I'm not convinced it'll help to be honest. The second I am more open to. Less so the books (which https://www.novelrank.com/ suggests are selling in the single digits, if at all) but the dog incident looks worth including. Maybe:

In 2009 Bolton co-founded and was a primary spokesman for the Kapiti Dog Owners' Group (KDOG), which successfully lobbied council to regain, extend and improve off-leash dog exercise  areas.[citation needed] In 2014 he was involved in a campaign that sought unsuccessfully to save a young dog from euthanasia for allegedly nipping another dog on the hind leg in the course of play.[1][2] The dog was euthanised two days early after threats on facebook of violence against council staff members.[3]

Clearly, this is using your earlier text. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stuart, you appear to be saying that despite Wikipedia's claim of having articles of "neutrality", that Bolton doesn't merit this approach because his views aren't in accord with your own or other admin's political opinions. You are happy to base the whole article on the statements from his political opponents - statements which have been PROVED to have been false - yet, will not permit statements about his political views that can be clearly established from his political writings. As for the number of books Bolton sells each month, I have no idea, but as that factor has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Bolton wrote the books and they are ALL available for purchase on Amazon (I just checked) why not treat Bolton in the same way that you would treat other New Zealand authors, and allow all of his books to be listed. I doubt if anybody who had read his books would deny that Bolton was "neo-Fascist", "Pro-European / Russian", "Pro-Arab", or even "Anti-Israel" and these would be fair terms that many would apply - but only a complete bigot with no interest in the truth would describe Bolton as a "Nazi" - the term Nazi implies a belief in German / Aryan superiority, and when applied to Bolton it is not only misleading it is libellous. However, all this has proved one thing - as a new editor on Wikipedia - I can find far better and more rewarding ways to devote some of my spare time. If I have this degree of opposition editing a Bolton article - what opposition would I have from your colleagues when I edited the existing pages about Israel, Hezbollah, Zionism, the Stern Gang, or Palestine, or the hundreds of other Wikipedia pages that show an unbelievable degree of political bias !!! But thank you Stuart for taking the time to reply to me. Karlwinn (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stuart/ Joss, on reflection I have decided to abandon your opposition to the removing term "Nazi". My objection to the term was based on it's association with Aryan superiority, which is not an opinion that Bolton has ever to my knowledge endorsed. However, I shall revise my edits and ENDORSE the "Nazi" label by citing the statements that he has made not only in accord with many "far-right" opinions, but opinions in common with National Socialism. If Wikipedia Admins will only accept statements that endorse the "Nazi" label - fine, I shall provide them. Lets see if our colleague "Jpgordon" will think I'm going too far, and come to Bolton's defence. In the interim can somebody please advise me how to remove this "Talk Page" dialogue (if that is possible) as I no longer object to the deletion of my earlier edits. Thank you. Karlwinn (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear on whether you're supporting or opposing the text I propose, which is unrelated to "neo-Fascist" or "Nazi" labels. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://issuu.com/the.star/docs/214183kn/8
  2. ^ https://issuu.com/the.star/docs/214337kn/2
  3. ^ Haxton, David (February 4, 2015). "'Why Beau was put down before last visit,'". Kapiti News. Retrieved October 6, 2017. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)

Revised Bolton text.

[edit]

Rather than post this to the page, can the admins of this page please approve / comment on this suggested change:-

"Kerry Bolton is a New Zealand political activist, and author noted for his far-right, pro-Fascist, neo-Nazi ideology. His ideology and writings have been influenced by Oswald Spengler, Nietzsche, Walter Schubert, and the Eurasianism of Alexander Dugin. Interview with Kerry Bolton - Part 1. His writings and views have been called "pro-Nazi", "anti-Jewish" and "nationalist" in a thesis written by Roel van Leeuwen. Though Bolton has objected to the label "anti-Jewish" and states that he is actually "anti-Zionist".Interview with Kerry Bolton - Part 2

I can provide citations for the above, and more content for other sections, but see little point if the above isn't even acceptable to this pages esteemed Administrators. Karlwinn (talk) 23:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a complete replacement for the lede? I'd need to see the sources added first. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citations added - Interview with Kerry Bolton (part 1&2) Karlwinn (talk) 03:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One area of concern for me is that the existing Wikipedia entry on Bolton seems to rely on the truthfulness of two documents (the van Leeuwen thesis, and a book by Goodrick-Clarke - "Black Sun") both of which Bolton not only disputes (see the above cited interviews with Bolton), but has been found by two legal enquiries to be unsubstantiated. I have no contact with Bolton or his publisher, but it seems to me that if both sources are in fact "a pack of lies", how does this maintain Wikipedia's desire to be "neutral" not least in regards to living persons? the problem here is compounded by the fact that certain Wikipedia admins seem hell-bent on portraying Bolton in an unfavourable light based purely on two disputed sources. Surely rather than maintain this biased approach (admins insistence that I refer to Bolton as a "Nazi") it should be possible to be fairer to this man. This does all rather reflect badly not only on Wikipedia but the admins who control this page.

Karlwinn (talk) 04:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sources provided are unsuitable, since they are primary sources. As an encyclopedia, wikipedia is a tertiary sources based on secondary sources. This is not to say that the text can't fly, but it can't fly with those refs. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stuart, so to clarify - you can not accept a 6 year old published interview with Bolton as evidence of his political views, but you'll accept evidence from two sources that make claims that have been found, by two separate enquiries, to be false.? If you bother to read that interview you'll have a grasp of how questionable this existing page on Bolton actually is. If you still aren't willing to allow me to post a fairer entry for Bolton - Can you tell me how we can resolve this at a higher level? Is it admin / Wikipedia policy to leave it to the victim to obtain fairness via legal action against admins or Wikipedia ? How do other editors resolve the issue of admin bias ? Perhaps you can clarify this for me ? Karlwinn (talk) 09:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC) BTW - That interview with Bolton was written by Alex Kurtagic - which does make it a secondary source. Karlwinn (talk) 09:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User has been indefinitely blocked, see User_talk:Karlwinn. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Without overly commenting on the crap above, is there a particular reason that this person is branded as a 'neo-nazi' and of a 'pro-nazi' organization, yet in Alexander Rud Mills he is not, "In 1980 Kerry Raymond Bolton from Christchurch, New Zealand, along with David Crawford, co-founded a New Zealand group called the Church of Odin. They both had a background in far-right political activities. Paul Spoonley quotes Crawford as saying that the Church of Odin was exclusively for whites, and specifically whites "of non-Jewish descent" and that "the main Odinic law requires loyalty to race". By 1983 Bolton had left the Church." - it seems that mentions of this person in other articles are not reflecting the sources.

Its pretty clear in all the sources that he is a neo-nazi, but that seems to have restricted to this article only. Additionally it is unproven that he is 'far-right', facism and Odinist neo-nazi cultism are not synonymous with the less extreme far-right political viewpoint, call it what it is. The comments about various court actions do not seem to have translated to anything expect part of one source being discredited. trying to add sources from WP:FRINGE viewpoints is not acceptable.

This page is incredibly negative, describing every bad thing there is with no redeeming features, however careful examination of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons will show clearly that this article meets all the guidelines and is not an attack page.

Careful examination of notability could suggest that this person would probably meet WP:NPOL.

And finally for the record, a neo-nazi is anyone who adheres to odinist, facist and anti-semintic views, yes many people were perfectly happy with Hilter before the holocaust, but we can safely say that after said event, only extreme fringe groups adhere to these beliefs. While these groups are tolerated, they are legitimately referred to as neo-nazi. 'neo-nazi' is not the same as 'nazi' In this case the sources backup said usage of the wording. Dysklyver 13:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Death

[edit]

[2] & [3] show a man of the same age and name has died. Dysklyver 14:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We can't go by name and age from primary sources. We need secondary sources to report it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that these are pretty common names in this part of the world,and those are in a different country. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kerry Bolton. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 04:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ordo Sinistra Vivendi translation

[edit]

Needless to say (one would have thought) Ordo Sinistra Vivendi does not translate into English as "Order of the Left Way". The word "way" in Latin is via; vivendi means something like "of what must be lived". In point of fact, sinistra is not even a Latin word; it's actually Italian, and even so cannot stand on its own as an adjective. This is just Dog Latin, about as close to Latin itself as pro bono public-house-o. To what were we reduced before Google Translate?

Nuttyskin (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on white-supremacy and doctorates verifiability.

[edit]

Discussion moved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nauseous_Man#Re_Kerry_Bolton_edit copy and pasted below, with minor edit for readability:

  • <start copy and paste>

Re Kerry Bolton edit

[edit]

Hi NM, Re Kerry Bolton I have not reverted your edit (yet) and would like you to justify your changes, I detail the change points here and my response.

  • 1. Re: White supremacy, he personally has disputed this and in some ways I agree with him - he seems to hate all lefties and moderates and even right wing leaning people that disagree with him, as well as white Jews and others of a white nature, so almost categorically he does not think all whites are superior to any and all other races. nb it is now scientific consensus that race is a construct, (which he also references, whilst throwing shade on all of the other races anyway).
  • 2. Re: Doctorate(s) I cannot Prove a negative, from reputable sources pov, it is the least of the issues with this muppet, so I cannot find an article that addresses this issue, I did do some research, including the published texts, theses, alumni etc on Akl, Otago, Waikato and Canterbury Uni's websites and found no evidence at all, however, I note on one of the book sellers sites, it states one of the doctorates is form a non-reputable Greek uni, which I give little credence.
  • All in all, I think my edit is truthful and backed-up with as good a source(s) as we are going to get.
  • Finally, I think we may need to copy and paste this to the articles talk page and seek further input from other editors.

I look forward to your comments. The Original Filfi (talk) 01:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:The Original Filfi. Thanks for reaching out. Do you mind if we move this over to the Talk page, so that we can get wider community input?

Re: point 1, his work and views unambiguously fall into the white supremacy camp, even if he disputes that, it's what they're labelled. Perhaps a section could be expanded on his competing views about racial purity. Being a white supremacist doesn't negate the other views. Re: point 2, I ultimately agree with you. My concern is that could potentially violate [WP:NOR] is all.

I reckon we move the chat to the talk page and see what others think!

Nauseous Man (talk) 02:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • <end of copy and paste>

All other editors, please add thoughts and comments on any of the above? all very welcome, I take both of points above in Nauseous Man reply and agree to a degree however I would like to combat KRB's probably/potentiality false claims on qualification specifically as this seems to be enabling him to be veiwed with 99% more respect that I feel he has warranted in any other way. The Original Filfi (talk) 05:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't expect a white supremacist to like all white people, especially those who disagree with them. That is not a good argument for him not being a white supremacist. I don't see any claim he holds multiple doctorates in the page given as ref, apart from his title at the top of the page. If this is the evidence, the statement should be "He uses the title "Dr", but...".-gadfium 06:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Protocols of Zion by Kerry Bolton

[edit]

See WorldCat: Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion in Context by Kerry Bolton, Sergei Nilus

A two booklet set by Kerry Bolton examining The Protocols in modern and historical context.

Paperback, 95 pages Published July 1st 2005 by Steven Books Original Title The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion in Context ISBN 1904911366 (ISBN13: 9781904911364) Edition Language English Characters Elders of Zion Other Editions None found All Editions | Add a New Edition | Combine

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.126.25 (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That cite was from goodread. Now here is WorldCat on one of the 2 pamphlet set: https://www.worldcat.org/title/protocols-of-zion-in-context-the-doctrine-of-the-protocols-of-the-learned-elders-of-zion-in-the-context-of-religion-history-politics/oclc/179083392&referer=brief_results

Now here is WorldCat on the other one of the two (2) pamphlets: https://www.worldcat.org/title/protocols-of-zion-in-context-part-i/oclc/810951403&referer=brief_results

Renaissance Press is a self-publishing operation. We only list books that are independently published in a writer's bibliography. Skyerise (talk) 11:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published books

[edit]

Typically, the 'bright line' we don't cross in listing a controversial author's works is listing self-published works. Both Spectrum and Renaissance Press are self-publishing operations. I've read somewhere that the subject is the owner of both as well, but I'm not sure how reliable that info is. In any case, I've removed the self-published works. The other publishers, if not mainstream, do appear to be independent, so I see no reason to remove them. Skyerise (talk) 11:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Odinist?

[edit]

@Skyerise: is there anything to support that Bolton is an Odinist? The closest thing I see in the article is that he was involved in the Church of Odin, but it doesn't say this was an Odinist or neopagan group, just a racial-political group. That it has Odin in its name doesn't mean it has to be Odinist; see for example Soldiers of Odin, which was not religious. And after that, the article goes on about Bolton's involvement in the Temple of Set and Thelema, not Odinism. Ffranc (talk) 12:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both Thelema and Temple of Set are also pagan. They both worship Egyptian gods. Skyerise (talk) 12:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They're not conventionally covered as pagan, partially because they rely heavily on revelation. Same with Freemasonry, which similarly uses Egyptian iconography, but is not conventionally regarded as part of modern paganism. If you don't have anything else to support that Bolton is an Odinist or any other kind of pagan, I'll remove the category again. Ffranc (talk) 12:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Revelation is part of the pagan tradition. However, Bolton is well-known to be a pagan, with dozens of book sources easily findable on Google Books. Here's one:
  • Rudgley, R. (2018). The Return of Odin: The Modern Renaissance of Pagan Imagination. United States: Inner Traditions/Bear.
You don't seem to be very versed in the matter, for example, you don't seem to know that Heathenry is a form of paganism, or that Julius Evola's UR Group was a neopagan group that believed that Christianity had weakened the European people and promoted a return to the worhip of pagan gods. Skyerise (talk) 14:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Revelation, and the linear conception of history that comes with it, is conventionally contrasted with paganism. Richard Rudgley is not a WP:RS, but regardless of that, he says that Bolton has "developed a strange amalgam of pagan and satanic rites around the dark beings of the Norse pantheon". That sounds similar to Freemasonry or Theosophy, which invoke motifs from pagan mythologies, but combine them with something else when it comes to views and practices. At most, they're syncretic religions where paganism is one of several influences. Ffranc (talk) 10:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out the Church of Odin referred to is actually the Australian neopagan organization First Anglecyn Church of Odin, which is indeed a heathen Odinist organization, of which Bolton co-founded the New Zealand branch of in 1980. I hope we can agree that someone who founds a national branch of a pre-established neopagan organization is a neopagan. Alexander Rud Mills's Odinism was modeled after Guido von List's Wotanism. They are both credited with founding modern pagan movements, which Bolton continued. Skyerise (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, good find. Massimo Introvigne is seen as suspicious on Wikipedia for reasons I don't agree with (not being harsh enough against Scientologists during a push against them on the Internet), but has some actually sketchy stuff to him as well. I'm fine with the source but it's possible someone else will complain about it as some point. Ffranc (talk) 08:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kerry_Bolton&oldid=1238709681"