Talk:Michael Moynihan (journalist)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Oregon Portal
This page is part of WikiProject Oregon, a WikiProject dedicated to articles related to the U.S. state of Oregon.
To participate: join (or just read up) at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
PSU stuff & Applegate Trail are the current Collaborations of the week.
Start This page is rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article is rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Michael Moynihan, Swedish journalist

i suggest to update the info on Moynihan's current work as journalist ; he's been writing articles on the swedish opinion webzine The Stockholm Spectator (http://www.spectator.se/) in 2004 and 2005. see all his articles there: http://www.spectator.se/stambord/?author=1

-herm.

I don't believe this is the same person. :bloodofox: 03:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

ok you're right here it is http://www.spectator.se/stambord/?p=734

"This may seem like a silly question and perhaps one that is asked here often so I apologize..Is the Michael Moynihan who writes for the stockholm spectator the same Micahael M. who is the coauthor of “Lords of Chaos”, editor of the journal TYR, and lead singer of the band BLOOD AXIS."

answer: "No, no and no… "


-herm

[edit] goals of radical traditionalists

I think there ought to be some discussion of the goals of TYR as a journal, or of the general themes of Moynihan's writing. The article radical traditionalism doesn't exist at this point, and I suppose there could be cause to create it, but either Moynihan's own page or the TYR article could serve just as well for a short discussion. Would any of these be more or less suited to such a summary? More than a summary? --Cantara 22:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] help with this?

I found a review of Lords of Chaos that includes lots of other interesting biographical information. It was originally published in a print journal or magazine, so I think it's fair game as far as new content goes. However, there's a lot of it. Who wants to help work it in? Cantara 21:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Aha, I have now noticed that it's already linked on the page. Ah well. I still think that more of the material therein should be included, especially the information about other people he's worked with over the years. Some of it could also be worked into the Blood Axis article. Cantara 21:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abraxas Foundation

Can someone verify that the Abraxas Foundation is anything other than Boyd Rice and his Satanic colleagues expressing the wish for mass murder on a global scale? If this article is to be believed, the only indication that this 'think tank' had ever existed was its mention on the Bob Larson show. Is that it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.206.118.202 (talk) 08:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It was probably just a group related to the Church of Satan centered largely around Rice, from what I understand. Regarding the "mass murder," I think that's a bit of a knee jerk reaction. :bloodofox: 09:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] unsourced biography

Most of the details in the biographical sections are completely unsourced.

Kennedy[1] (2002) has:

Born in Massachusetts in 1969 Moynihan has had a varied career within the extremist right wing. Moynihan began his political activities as a Nazi skinhead in Boston's Kenmore Square and Cambridge's Harvard Square where he sought fascist recruits from members of the local punk rock scene. Soon he moved to the West Coast where Moynihan became a High Priest in Anton LaVey's Church of Satan. During this period he joined Boyd Rice's musical group called NON. After working for several years as a NON member, Moynihan had a falling out with the multi-talented Rice and the two men bitterly parted ways. Part of this break came with Rice's ultimate rejection of Fascism and Paganism - two systems dear to Moynihan's heart. Rice continues with his pioneering musical arrangements and has adopted Christian Gnostic beliefs. Moynihan went on to form Blood Axis - which is a merely cheap version of NON - and began promoting Evola's neo-Fascism in the 1990's.

the German article likewise mentions Moynihan's skinhead past, membership in CoS and neo-fascist ideology, citing an interview („Heretic“ Nr. 10, October 1994) where Moynihan self-identifies as a fascist). He however rejects the "Nazi" label. The article further cites a 1994 interview with „No Longer a Fanzine“ where Moynihan expresses doubt in the historicity of the Holocaust, but says he would be pleased if it was in fact historical. So, while it may be controversial to categorize Moynihan as a neo-Nazi, it is certainly adequate to categorize him as a neo-fascist. dab (𒁳) 09:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe quite a lot of this is derived from this source published by Willamette Week that goes into depth regarding a lot of claims regarding Moynihan: [2] :bloodofox: (talk) 09:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
the picture is becoming clear. Moynihan is being identified as a fascist and neo-Nazi by any reviewer that cared to comment. He counters by various half-hearted disclaimers in interviews. The article as it stands completely ignores this. I am not saying we should describe Moynihan in Wikipedia's voice along the lines of his critics. But the facts need to be presented such as they are, and the readers can make up their own minds. Do not sanitize the external links section by simply removing the ones that run counter to your own opinion. The fact that the 2002 Kennedy article is hosted on geocities is irrelevant, since its author and date is clearly identified. William H. Kennedy appears to be a reasonably notable author, and while the article doesn't qualify as an "academic source", it is clearly appropriate for the EL section. Moynihan's ideology is not of academic interest, and consequently appropriate sources will not be of an academic nature, but necessarily from the realm of publicistics. dab (𒁳) 10:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that there should be a section regarding controversy surrounding Moynihan but it seems to me he has flat out denied most of these charges and they seem to be related to basically a single quote in his teenage years and various themes common to Industrial music, which he has been involved with since his early teens. Having a lot of familiarity with the post-industrial circles Moynihan has been involved in, I can easily the fact that the guy isn't falling over himself attempting to quell anyone that accuses him of anything is the order of the day regarding figures surrounding this sort of music (SPK (band), Throbbing Gristle, Test Dept and Boyd Rice as examples) and, basically, anyone in music circles who does anything remotely controversial. I don't think that, in itself, says anything at all. The fact really breaks down to that he's involved in and producing work about subjects some find questionable. The article definitely needs full sourcing. I still think this link is inappropriate and misinformative - and I could go through it and break it down - but the name alone really summarizes it; it's sensationalism and hyperbole throughout. However, I will not edit war with you about it. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
so, our approach will be to remove everything in this article that isn't directly referenced to a reliable source. MM in 1994 wasn't in his teens, he was 25. His 1997 reply to Schobert was written at age 28. Schobert's article is a publication of the Duisburger Institut für Sprach- und Sozialforschung [3] (de-wiki), a perfectly academic institution and rather more of a "reliable source" than "Willamette Week". I agree that the Kennedy article in terms of WP:RS is about level with "WW". de:heise online [4] while not academic is a perfectly respectable source in publicistics. All these reviewers are unambiguously classifying MM as a member of the fascist-satanist / neo-Nazi scene. I admit that it appears that German language reviews are much more outspoken about this than English language sources -- either because German publicists are more sensitive about the topic, or because MM has made a stronger impact in German language publicistics than he did in the Anglosphere. Nb, this isn't about MM as a musician. It is about MM the publicist / publisher / editor. Just being part of "industrial music" doesn't make you a neo-Nazi. But as soon as you begin publishing ideological pamphlets embracing fascist ideals, you'll just have to live with being labelled a fascist. dab (𒁳) 11:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I must immediately direct you to: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Sources. Step back and be careful Dab. You have your personal crusade but this is a living person. This guy has a wife and kids. He does not say he is a fascist in the source that you state as far as I can tell. He has not said it any of the things we've been discussed here, he even makes various statements saying he opposes far right politics. The quoted section seems to read that in 1994 he made some vague comments stating that he didn't necessarily have a problem with fascism. I challenge you to bring for the direct quote where he says he's a fascist, then we can proceed. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Not only this but your "source" for claims regarding Moynihan as having been a "Nazi" skinhead are dubious. If we are going to add this, it needs to be solid. The geocities page is not a reliable resource under WP:RS. Why? Simple, it doesn't meet the basic qualifications:

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made.

This source does not have a reputation for fact checking and it is almost completely speculation with little regards for facts and is largely directly refuted by the Willamette Weekly source I give before, which is a the strongest source on this entire article. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
The "source" that you are attributing much of this article at the moment seems to claim that Moynihan was a Nazi Skinhead because of this quote:

"The concert itself was extremely noisy and fascistic. Quite a few suspicious types showed up, because the propaganda for the show looked incredibly fascist. We were both skinheads at the time.”

This does not mean that Moynihan or Thomas Thorn were fascists. This simply shows a fascination with fascist imagery. Note that he even uses the term questionable types here rather than shouting "RAHOWA BROTHERS!" This is very common regarding music somehow related to Industrial music, even as distantly as Marilyn Manson. A high profile pop icon, Marilyn Manson employed such imagery and subject matter on their Antichrist Superstar album and heavily on the tour. Not only that, but similar to Moynihan's use imagery, Manson regularly used a version of the totenkopf as well as all sorts of Nazi-derived imagery during his Golden Age of Grotesque period. Does that make Manson a Nazi? And how much of this is being pulled together by your own judgment here? Please keep a firm grip on WP:NPOV.
What this is breaking down is that you are inserting as fact what he is being accused of which is not how Wikipedia works. We must place who has said what and where and when. At no point that I have seen has Moynihan referred to himself as a "Neo-Fascist."
Some of this stuff can also be checked in with interviews with Boyd Rice, which I will do later. Here's his interview archive: [5] :bloodofox: (talk)

[edit] Coogan (1999)

From Kevin Coogan (1999),

Nor does Moynihan himself fit easily into the more conventional definitions of fascism. ... In 1989 the youthful Bostonian joined forces with the San Francisco-based Abraxas Foundation, which he described as an "occultist-fascist think tank" linked to the Church of Satan. Moynihan dubbed his own wing of the Abraxas Foundation "Axis Sanguinaries" [Blood Axis) because: Blood can be seen as LIFE, and at the same time it can be equated to DEATH. It is essential to violence in almost all instances. It has powerful sexual connotations. It is the key fluid of history... [Axis]. highlights the genetic aspect of blood, bound together in the will of a people or race. It describes allies of mind and blood, mobilized for total warfare. It also reiterates the pivotal nature of blood in human existence, both personal and world-historic. According to some reports, Moynihan's blood fetish included drinking (non AIDS-infected) blood. He was also suspected of setting fire to a manger scene on the Cambridge Commons, just across from Harvard University, in 1987. A note left by the firebug at the smoky scene the day after Christmas asked: "How many more fires before you realize your gods are dead? DEAD!" As for the Abraxas Foundation, it was founded by another blood fetishist named Boyd Rice in 1984. The name came from Abraxas, a Gnostic deity that combined within itself the forces of light and dark-ness, good and evil. Rice hoped that his foundation would help create "a new demographic of people who are into the occult, Fascism, and Social Darwinism. It's out there as an alternative for kids who are growing up and need that information." ... The chain of events that led Moynihan and Rice to an eccentric and avant-garde form of cultural fascism that would have made Hitler himself apoplectic began in the "industrial culture" movement of the late 1970s, and particularly with the seminal British industrial band Throbbing Gristle ... Such ideas were later to be reprised by the countercultural fascist milieu within which Michael Moynihan operated. ... Michael Moynihan was Boyd Rice's Denver roommate in 1991. That summer their apartment was visited by men who first said they wanted to talk to Moynihan because, as he later recalled, "they believed 1 had witnessed the murder 'of a black man.'" The visitors, who turned out to be Secret Service agents, next accused the stunned Moynihan of plotting with some Manson followers to assassinate then-President George Bush during a visit to Denver! One year later, Moynihan was more preoccupied by literary than legal matters. His Denver-based Storm Press published Siege, a 400-page anthology of the writings of James Mason, the Nazi fan of Charles Manson. ... Vikernes' home town, Bergen, is also home to Jan Bruun’s Hypertonia World Enterprises. Bruun is a major distributor of Charles Manson memorabilia like "Watching Satan -the Legacy of Charles Manson-" He knows Moynihan and interviewed him for an Italian journal aptly named Healter Skelter. Moynihan also thanks Bruun, an avowed social Darwinist and Malthusian, in the acknowledgements to LOC. ... Despite his use of Kadmon's theories, Moynihan claims in LOC that "there is absolutely no specific connection" between practitioners of Nordic religion and the black metal scene. "In fact," he writes, "public assumptions that such a link would exist have been a severe liability to these groups." Moynihan, however, neglects to mention that he himself is a leading member of a U.S.-based racialist "Old Norse and Germanic religion" movement called the Asatru Alliance of Independent Kindreds (AA), which is headquartered in Arizona. ... Moynihan now lives in Portland, where he moved in order to work for Feral House. He also left Colorado after a falling out with Boyd Rice. In an interview in Momentum, Moynihan announced that Blood Axis "will not ever work with Boyd Rice again, due to personal differences. ... Unlike Moynihan, Rice is usually quite careful to call himself a fascist only in aesthetics and not in politics. He did, however, tell Seconds: "I think basically I am a Fascist, because I do think there is a hierarchy, and there are people that are stupid, and there are people that are clever" ... Moynihan clearly seems fed up with Rice's bob and weave. In the Momentum interview, he groaned: I'm sick of people saying they're "not political," as I think this is a cup-out...If you're going to espouse "fascist" ideas, then I believe you have to accept some of the responsibility for their application in the real world; otherwise what is the point of espousing them in the first place?... Terms which are bandied about like "occult fascism" don't have any tangible meaning as far as I can tell, though they sound impressive. Moynihan apparently feels that "occult fascists" like Rice "cop out" when they refuse to carry their "aesthetic" agenda to its real world conclusions. For the same reason Moynihan hates black metal bands that don't use violence because they fear it might prevent them from becoming rock stars. True to his principles, Moynihan is quite active in the propaganda support network for Vikernes. He is, for example, a leading contributor to a rightist journal called Filosofem, which is published by a group also called Blood Axis. Filosofem is l ocated at 5 Rue Gabriel Price in Metz, France. This same address is the source of a series of pro-Vikernes leaflets which carry the name Cymophane on them. Filosofem also takes its name from a Burzum CD that Vikernes recorded in 1993 while out on bail. That CD is currently being jointly distributed by Misanthropy Records, Cymophane Productions, and Feral House Audio. ... Given his own background and publicly proclaimed political’ views, it seems fairly obvious that Moynihan would not be terribly distraught if a new wave of "berserker youth" chose to follow in Vikernes' path – regardless of whether or not he holds the Count's most extreme political statements in high regard. Although Vikemes was later ostracized for killing Euronymous, LOC claims that black metalists who act out their violent fantasies gain "a perverse form of credibility over the bands who merely sing and dream of empty morbid fantasies." Speaking to Ohm Clock, Moynihan was even more explicit: I would see these forms of music and expression talk about violence, people who were clearly obsessed with violence, but never would actually go out and do what they were talking about. They never take the logical step...If you're going to sing songs or record entire records about killing people then after a while it gets silly when it's just fantasy. I think that's why a lot of the death metal stuff got really cartoonish and stupid. Then the black metal phenomenon superseded death metal and basically wiped it off the map. They actually did some-thing more than just release records for their friends to buy. The others had been doing a disservice to themselves by not actually going out and committing the act.

this confirms several presently unsourced claims in the article. It also establishes beyond reasonable doubt that it is adequate to categorize MM as neo-völkisch / neo-fascist / "counter-culture fascist": these terms mean nothing if not the precise ideology MM is advocating. dab (𒁳) 12:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've looked up some of these claims and this summary essentially equates to some previously mentioned fact mixed with some very funny wives tales in it. I'd like to point some out:
  1. It claims Moynihan is "according to some reports" a blood drinker. So, what are these reports on that Moynihan is a vampire?
  2. It claims that Moynihan was "suspected" of being responsible for Arson. What is the source for this?
  3. What is the source that the Asatru Alliance is a "racialist" group and that Moynihan is the "head" of it? Here is their website: [6]
  4. What is the issue and year for Seconds where the quote: "I think basically I am a Fascist, because I do think there is a hierarchy, and there are people that are stupid, and there are people that are clever" comes from? Seems we have a more modern counter-source that states that Moynihan would no longer be involved in such politics: [7] where he's recorded as adorning "..an envelope full of recordings with sprightly "TEACH TOLERANCE" stickers."

This is an extremely dubious source with comedic claims, Dab, and it fails the Reliable source test for living people. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

um, this is an article by a well-known journalist in a major music magazine. If we're going to reject articles by well-known journalists in major music magazines for musician bios, I am not sure how you propose we'll be able to keep any musician bio referenced. This is silly. Obviously, we should attribute all disputed claims made by Coogan to Coogan. Coogan claims that MM is a "blood fetishist". He does not posit that he drank blood, he merely throws in a rumour "according to some reports" which would clearly not be permissible on WP, but then Coogan wasn't writing for WP, so I don't see the problem. WP:BIO says we cannot just say "MM drank blood", and I wouldn't propose we do. WP:BIO also says we cannot just state "MM is a blood fetishist" in WP's voice. But we can, and certainly should, include "Kevin Coogan's 1999 characterization of MM as a 'blood fetishist'". WP:BIO does not mean "censor all criticism". You have a severe misunderstanding of policy there. Of course we won't just say "AA is a racialist group". We will say that "AA is characterized by some critics as racialist", which is perfectly neutral, and perfectly true. dab (𒁳) 13:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If Coogan printed that he heard Moynihan was an 8-foot tall fire breathing lizard, we could say that he printed that - and why, if he had a reason - but we couldn't simply go into the lead, plainly describing Moynihan as an 8-foot tall lizard since there seems to be information to the contrary.

I am not censoring any criticism by any stretch - nor would I. I am following: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Sources, like you should be. I am spending an amount of time here going through your claims and "evidence" in an attempt to figure out what is true, what is rumor, who said what where, why and for example, what some facts, like this "rumored" blood drinking and arson on a funnel down to. To me, it seems like Moynihan had some past involvement but has mellowed out quite a lot and that includes some sort of fascination with Charles Manson at some point. I'll see if I can find some more reviews and so furth about "The Gospel.." as it had some impact in post-industrial circles, as well as his work as Witch Hunt with In Gowan Ring and a bunch of other information.

By the way, Dab, you would be doing everyone a favor if you started using the "edit summary" bar. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is the Heretic interview that keeps getting quoted but it's from the (I think defunct, as is long since the distribution company) World Serpent Distribution mailing list archive. If we can find a better place where it's recorded, we could post it in the references here. Heretic No.10 (Oct 1994) Available online:[8] :bloodofox: (talk) 07:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Interestingly, Here is a another recent interview surrounding an art installation where Moynihan speaks of his involvement in Germanic Neopaganism, fatherhood, his feelings that the word "fascist" is "irrelevant" and his respect for all indigenous cultures:

"I respect the people -- no matter where they may be -- who have dedicated themselves in a sincere way to rewakening the older spiritual impulses of indigenous traditions. Since my roots all go back to Europe, there is naturally a special relationship there which gives life a deeper meaning."

This seems to be the most recent source so far but maybe there are more out there. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
look, I couldn't care less if MM drank virgins' blood for breakfast. What I am concerned about are your efforts to remove valid and properly cited criticism. By all means, you can also cite your "dennisdread.blogspot.com" source: npov is achieved by documenting all sides of a debate. But if you're going to use blog posts as sources, you should consider applying the same standards to all sources, not just those you happen to like, and stop moaning about the perfectly notable, partly even academic, sources I brought up that label MM a neo-fascist in no uncertain terms. I realize MM is smart, and prefers to coin cool terminology like "Radical Traditionalism", because, hey, he is far too elite to "adhere" to anything. His "Radical Traditionalism" is still neo-fascism by any other name. I am also not under the impression that MM is the devil, as you seem to assume. He is well capable of making sensible statements: that doesn't erase the criticism of his less sensible ones. MM is only even notable for being a neo-völkisch figure. If it wasn't for that, he could live his life without being debated on Wikipedia. Since he chose to publish his ideas, and found an echo in the neo-fascist scene, he is now a figure of interest to that field, and will be duly discussed on Wikipedia in this regard. Incidentially, I do not endorse "hysterical anti-fascist activism sniffing out fascism in any display of runes or Mjollnirs"[9] at all: this is very much a case where "almost no one looks good"[10]. The hysterical antifa activists represent one side of the debate, MM's sympathetic fellow-folkish interviewers the other. We'll just report on both sides. dab (𒁳) 10:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Back to the current state of the article, a few of the "sources" you're passing information off of as fact in this article from have a lot of obvious problems. I will cite some of them:
  1. Coogen states that Moynihan was a High Priest in the Church of Satan. When, how and where was Moynihan a "High Priest" in the Church of Satan? This sounds like potentially a sensationalistic misunderstanding of the then-structure of the Church of Satan or another confusion with Boyd Rice? As far as I can tell, Moynihan had a considerably less vocal role in the Church of Satan, probably was just an ordained member like figures such as Marc Almond as this 1996 interview source seems to dictate and his involvement seems to be considerably less than Rice's, who had a major role in late 90's, early 90's COS matters. He now seems to have no involvement. If we can find a source relating his rank in the COS when he was a part of it, it would be good for the article but this is very questionable.
  2. The "Nazi Skinhead" thing that you insist on re-inserting. This seems to be Kennedy's (and, given your insistence, apparently your own) opinion, as the quote by Moynihan simply states that he was a Skinhead. Politics and the Skinhead scene don't necessarily mix; it's a subculture as you should well be aware. I've provided the source for this quote and he doesn't say anything about being a "Nazi Skinhead" or a "White Power" skinhead. This is problematic, it contradicts the source where it is cited from. You have it listed simply as fact. Again, you are attempting to provide Coogan's opinion as fact without stating that he's presuming he was a "Nazi skinhead". Thomas Thorn, the other "skinhead" mentioned here, for example, doesn't seem to have been political at all as far as I can tell, especially when he was a part of the famous My Life With the Thrill Kill Kult and subsequently the The Electric Hellfire Club.
  3. Plexus Publishing Limited. Right now, in the article it says this: Two of Moynihan's essays appeared in Plexus. A National Socialist Theoretical Journal of the National Workers League in 1994. As far as I can tell, Plexus seems to release a ton of mainstream stuff and anything relating to music: [11] If they have some seedy past, I am interested in hearing this. Otherwise, it seems that the source for this is either confusing the company with someone else or who knows but we need to find out before just repeating this dead on here without properly stating they said it and with context. The only publication I can track down so far by Plexus that Moynihan has contributed to is Lucifer Rising (book) which just seems like another book relating to the Church of Satan. We should find out exactly what and I am very curious as to what this house has to do with National Socialism, if anything.
Outside of the fact, the "blog post" is obviously an interview with Michael Moynihan. Are you criticizing me about where this interview is after the half-broken Geocities site you attempted to pass off as a primary source of this article early on and still appears as a reference for a paragraph in this article? While I admit it could be better, mentioning an interview that appears on an associated figure's blog relating to an art show and attempting to form an article around the opinion of a man who clearly could use some better informing and with an obvious bias is not exactly neutral, Dab. You have a seriously bad habit of attempting to pass off questionable and controversial opinions as fact without stating that they are, indeed, opinions. Also, you are an administrator, please also use edit summaries and reference tags. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
the "half-broken Geocities site" was hosting an article that had appeared in print. Your blog post does notmake the claim to reproduce anything that ever appeared in print elsewhere. If you cannot appreciate the difference, I really don't see why we even keep interacting. This is beside the point, since I did not reject your interview as a valid source. I don't see how you can keep pretending that I am "biased" seeing that I am fully prepared to report opinions as opinions, relative to their notability. Your behaviour is so blatantly disingenious that I simply cannot assume good faith at this point. You are a fair editor when it comes to minor characters of Norse mythology, Bloodofox, but you have shown to be a reckless propagandist when it comes to ideology. dab (𒁳) 08:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
"Propagandist"? Would you please tell me what I am propagating? I am curious. If it's neutrality and source-checking, guilty as charged. If it were not for my efforts, this article would be hideously misinformed and I hope to make it a very fine source of information regarding this specific figure.
Please note that despite clearly off-the-cuff remarks such as "you are a fair editor when it comes to minor characters in Norse mythology" I will always remain civil towards you. Also what is this "bad faith" business? What on Earth could I possibly be maliciously attempting? I've stated my intentions clearly and concisely. If someone made and edited an article about you that was blatantly, demonstrably wrong, full of libelous claims and I knew something about it, I would most definitely fix it as I can't stand to see injustice. I don't appreciate that you assume bad faith when I have never done anything to display that. I want neutrality - 100% - and I just want the facts. You will never see me deviate from this and if it seems that I do, I would like to know. This is the core fundamental of Wikipedia that I admire, this combined with Wikipedia's stance against censorship, and I am glad to be assisting. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
After doing some more digging around, it seems to me that an amount more of this information is from "Gods of the Blood: The Pagan Revival and White Separatism" by Mattias Gardell. Interestingly, Gardell comes to a considerably less sensationalized reaction than figures such as Coogan and Kennedy above and actually seems to have done his research: [12] We should also include this in the controversy section. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


I agree with most of your edits. Really, we appear to be working together constructively, it is just the tone of our debate that could do with less acrimony. What I am not happy with are your ToC re-arrangements. We don't want a "controversy" section -- the fascism debate should be part of a "reception" section, or part of a "political ideology" section. There should also be a "Music" and an "Authorship" section, the latter with h3 sections on "Lords of Chaos" and Tyr. I am tired of haggling with you over the question whether MM is a fascist, a neo-fascist or a Neo-Nazi, and I think readers get enough pointers to make up their own minds as the article now stands. dab (𒁳) 08:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] regarding the "fascism" label

MM does not "deny the accusation". He made sly comments to the effect that he embraces fascism in the 1990s, and he has been making comments to the effect that the question is a fallacy conjured up by hysterical activist types, and that he cannot give a yes or no answer due to the "intricacy" of the topic. A man can change his views. It is perfectly fair to state that he said "yes, but" to fascism in the 1990s, and "no comment" in the 2000s. I actually agree with MM that the question is irrelevant. If he prefers to label Evola's crypto-fascism "Radical Traditionalism", he is welcome to do so. The same ideology is still crypto-fascism in everyone else's terminology, so there is really no dispute on content, just terminology. dab (𒁳) 09:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, it all comes down to you using "Neo-Fascist" as a descriptor without anything else next to it noting that it is someone's opinion rather than Moynihan's self-descriptor. This is what I've repeated here over and over to you. Also, the "neo-fascist" quote has a "dubious source" tag, which I appreciate you placing as it seems to be. I will check into it later to see if it is. Evola is obviously on one of the sources of inspiration for Radical Traditionalism here. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
well, I placed the "dubious" because MM's statement is translated from German, and it isn't made clear whether the original statement was made in English or German (MM appears to be fluent in German, as evidenced by his reply to Schobert, and by his 2001 degree in German studies). dab (𒁳) 12:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

lol, regarding the "extreme leftist" moniker, that was hardly an "independent source". I appreciate the humour, but I would prefer to keep this article serious and to the point. I agree Gardell is the only reasonably neutral source we have here, and we should orient our presentation along his lines. All our other sources are either provided by MM's friends or fans, or by his activist detractors. Gardell makes a fair attempt at unravelling it all for what it is worth. dab (𒁳) 13:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Nobody ever claimed it was, it was a direct Gardell citation. Zach Dundas provides three of the cited articles referenced here, one of which is a negative review of Tyr. Obviously, he is neither a friend nor a "supporter". Research, Dab, research. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary merge of Tyr (journal) to Moynihan page

Dab, your request for deletion did not go through and you merged it with this article. There was no consensus for this and it is not there are numerous other notable figures who have contributed to this journal outside of Moynihan. I assume you reconstructed this page for this purpose and I would have disagreed on the merge. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

there was "no consensus" to delete the article, which I accept as reasobable. I see no rationale presented on why it shouldn't be merged. See WP:BK. If you want to argue to keep it separate, pray show how these guidelines are being met by Tyr. dab (𒁳) 12:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
There was also "no consensus" for you to merge the article but you decided to hack it up and then do so anyway because your AFD failed. Might I remind you that Moynihan is only one of the editors and contributors to the magazine. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

you said you didn't care about deletion or non-deletion of Tyr. Why the change of mind? Also, merging isn't deletion, and reasonable practice in the event of a "no consensus" Afd outcome. If you suddenly want to argue against merging, come to Talk:Tyr (journal) and explain how it meets WP:BK. dab (𒁳) 13:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Expressed sympathy for the Nazi holocaust"

This is going to require an actual quote and I have removed it outright in the mean time as it is definitely libel. Like most things on this article, it seems like it's an interpretation of what Moynihan has said and not something he has directly said. We don't record interpretations here unless the interpretation is cited as exactly that, an interpretation and by whom. Mattias Gardell actually comments on this matter. Again, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and WP:NPOV. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

look -- if MM is at all notable, it is because of the hysteria he caused with his provocative statements. If course he was just being a big-mouth, per Gardell. I stated above that I agree with taking Gardell as a guideline on how to report this. You do not explain how you justify your removal of material discussed by Gardell even while saying "Mattias Gardell actually comments on this matter". Obviously, I am open to rephrasing suggestions. Just blanking stuff instead isn't wikilike. You seem to keep alleging that I am taking the stance of the "anti-this-or-that activists". This isn't the case at all. I do tend towards Gardell's interpretation of MM as a kid with an inflated ego indulging in provocative assholism rather than his being any sort of demonic underground leader (incidentially, I take rather the same view of Varg Vikernes so admired by MM; they took the same approach to PR stunts, only in Vikernes' case this backfired as he found his self-cultivated bad-guy image brought upon him the maximum penalty for his manslaughter, which would otherwise have been hardly justifiable). dab (𒁳) 13:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Moynihan is notable enough in other areas outside of the controversy surrounding him; he wrote several and edited several books; some of which being Lords of Chaos, a notable book, and wrote The Secret King, which is also notable, has been involved in and released numerous albums, runs a record label and made some provocative statements in the early 90s. It seems to me that he's only notable to you for the latter.
"Blanking" controversial, questionable and inflammatory material regarding living people exactly is what we're supposed to be doing here to avoid libel until we can work it out on the talk page, which is exactly what I did. As an administrator you should know this well. Note the rephrasing is a world away from what was there before. Note that in your edit you didn't state that it was alleged. We could also use the full quote. To me, it seems like it all comes down to Moynihan making some silly but hardly hysteria-worthy comments in the early 90s which an amount of people have made mountains of. The whole "reception" section needs a thorough working through.
You can compare Moynihan to a convicted murderer all you want but I am not sure where this business about Moynihan "admiring" Varg comes from. I recall reading him saying some pretty negative things about Varg. The penalty in Norway for murder is pretty lax and many would argue that Vikernes got a pretty sweet ride since he obviously killed a guy. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
can you stop harping on your "as an administrator you shold know better"? My being an administrator is (a) irrelevant to this debate, and (b) I assure you I know perfectly well what I am doing, what you are doing, and how this relates to Wikipedia policy. Simply be keeping alleging I am somehow in the wrong doesn't make it so. It is you who are trying to spin this articles according to your personal sympathies. And, sigh, I didn't compare MM to VV wrt the latter's crime, but wrt their provocative approach to publicity while in the music business, i.e., I was talking about VV prior to his conviction. You keep blanking the very stuff MM is notable for. If it wasn't for the "hysteria-worthy comments in the early 90s", there would be no material for a biography article, and we would just redirect this title to Blood Axis. No, MM didn't "write several books". He co-authored one book. Apart from that, he's an editor working for some minor publishing company. Hardly WP-worthy. Just like your Annabel Lee (musician), this article would be dubious fancruft if left to your hagiographical tendencies. I don't know what you are trying to say by "sweet ride" when VV received the absolute maximum penalty for murder permissible in his country. dab (𒁳) 19:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
What I wonder, then, is why you insist on violating it. Again, review Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and tell me how you could possibly add libelous material as an unreferenced or uncited descriptor or restore it without discussing it here first.
Actually, I've built the vast majority of this article and dug up the vast majority of the references. If I hadn't gone to this effort, we'd have the grossly misinformed page that you had initially insisted on. While I am glad the page has improved, it still has some issues and I will gladly work towards improving them.
Moynihan has an extensive discography. He's relevant enough as a musician alone to be here. And that'd be co-authored two notable books, as mentioned above. Again, you attempt to spin my actions in your favor, where it's plain to see in the history section that you are not interested in policy. I've extensively checked your "sources" point out when they're BS and you try to pass them off has fact instead of opinion and essentially cleaned up after you the entire time.
"Hagiographical"? I guess this is in regard to my fact-checking. I make no apologies for my fondness for fact-checking. I tend to find it informative and revealing. The fact that I was pretty familiar with this figure and industrial music in general also helps, I will admit.
Regarding Varg, while I rarely mention my own opinions here, I tend to think that the Norwegian penalties are extremely soft for serious crimes, as in the case of Varg. As for my "personal sympathies," I don't recall stating them here as they are irrelevant to my edits. I've been very thorough, stuck entirely to policy and have questioned every step - exactly what one is supposed to here, per policy. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
nope, you have been "very thorough" in deconstructing one opinion while pushing its opposite. If you could apply your thoroughness neutrally, you would actually be a good editor. As it is, your "thoroughness" only serves as a thin veil for your pushing of your personal opinions. I have no opinion on whether Varg "should have" received a more severe punishment. This would be a discussion on the Norwegian penal system, not on VV in particular. Within that system, there could have been debate about a more lenient sentence, but not about a less lenient one. dab (𒁳) 11:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
We're supposed to question sources that seem dubious through Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which is exactly what I did and I showed it to be very problematic and indicative of very shoddy poor research. I don't recall stating my opinion regarding Moynihan, nor does it matter. For the record, I don't find him particularly interesting, I think his early 90's comments were ill-thought out at best and I have no positive things to say about his fondness for new age figures like Evola. I have no particular interest in Tyr magazine, nor would I pay for it. However, I know enough about him to realize what's sensationalistic knee-jerking when I see it and thus my checking up and plethora of references and fact checking and now subsequently we have this entire article. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Progress

I think we are getting somewhere. I more or less agree with the present version, except for the blanking of the "Radical Traditionalism" section: I don't quite see how you can remove that and then go on to state that [13] "Moynihan states no political ideology in any of our references". This is patently not the case. MM persistenly rambles on about a political ideology, namely a fascist one, he just doesn't call it that, preferring his own coinage of "RT". dab (𒁳) 11:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"Radical Traditionalism" seems to be solely associated with the journal itself. I don't think that stances is even particularly political, you could easily be a libertarian with that stance. I don't understand how you keep deducing it as "fascism" - I can only assume solely because of some figures involved that I find, personally, pretty uninteresting, offensive at worst and trivial at best. I guess the fact that it has something to do with Evola also has something to do with your descriptor but it seems to me that you're misapplying the term "fascism" here and something more in line with "Germanic mysticism" with a new age fetish combined with a general distaste for industrialized society is more appropriate. Certainly the journal has a fascination with the "extreme": It looks like their latest issue (#3) has Pentti Linkola, for example, but this is not exactly Rahowa by way of small mustache stuff or fasces on a fez for that matter.
But anyway, I removed it because it was left over from your merger and all we need is a sentence relating to Tyr and it regarding Moynihan. Moynihan is just one of a bunch of people involved in the journal and is one of two editors. If any of these people self-describe as "Radical Traditionalists" or if Tyr itself is just a "Radical Traditionalist" journal (whatever that means) isn't exactly clear yet. Maybe Linkola is considered a "Radical Traditionalist" in the next issue, who knows. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Your insertion of the info just now ([14]) is fine by me and I think we should just leave it at that. If you do, for whatever reason, merge all the Tyr stuff over here again - and I would just assume keep it as reference due to the amount of relatively notable people involved or associated with it piling up - it's going to have to just be reduced down to practically nothing with only info regarding Moynihan as Moynihan is just one person involved. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
precisely -- it "isn't exactly clear yet" because there are no independent opinions we can quote. Which is why I argue the thing fails WP:BK. MM avoids referring to himself as a "Radical Traditionalist", but he is somehow on a campaign of sticking it on the authors he edits as if it was somehow an established term. Since Evola is a "Radical Traditionalist" according to MM, it is straightforward to conclude that MM intends the term to apply to the various "neo-Evolanians" that emerged recently in European Neo-Nazi paganism. I appreciate that there may be something of a cultural filter between Europe and the USA, and that the context of all this is somehow different as soon as you take it across the Atlantic, but this is something no serious reviewer would fail to address.
MM is the only editor of Tyr with his own WP article. It is obvious to my mind that this is his project, just like LoC was his project. The problem is that Tyr is too recent to figure in Gardell, which seems to be our only respectable source on the topic. I have no doubts that if we wait for another year or two, Tyr will be duly listed in this context in some further study of the "neo-völkisch" field. If you would agree to WP:UCS we could insert such straightforward connections into the article now. Since you decided to obstruct neutral discussion by invoking strict adherence to policy, the only way forward is to avoid discussing the topic until it has been discussed in academic sources. Which means redirecting the Tyr article here pending their publication. there are two possibilities: reasonable WP:UCS, or strict implementation of WP:N -- it's up to you which one it'll be, but you can't have it both ways.dab (𒁳) 12:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

ok, I found another source:

  • (German) Andreas Diesel, Dieter Gerten, Looking for Europe: Neo-folk und Hintergründe (2007), ISBN 3936878021 [15]

While this is another sympathetic source relying on interviews with MM, this is at least a largely independent ISBN'd publication discussing Tyr at some length. In the light of this, I think we can proceed with the article, especially since it seems likely that more sources will be forthcoming. dab (𒁳) 12:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, excellent. Regarding your comments prior, I am not interested in original research by way of some subjective approach under the banner of WP:UCS, especially since we disagree. In the mean time, you can wait for someone to get around to calling it a "fascist journal" but then you're going to have to also mention their disclaimer and the fact that it was called that, instead of that it simply is since that is your opinion, there's that pesky disclaimer and Wikipedia is not an editorial. Besides, their "guidelines" don't exactly sound like state-worship to me, as disagreeable as I find the magazine. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Fascist after all

So, NOW we are actually getting somewhere. You have to say that Moynihan is not a 'fascist' in the conventional meaning of the term, (not that Fascist (epithet) had any actual meaning, anyway), but he has been described as a "heathen anarchofascist" and a "counter-cultural fascist", and I've got the source for it. Ok, I could complain about the rudeness of :bloodofox: (couldn't you have a little patience?), but otherwise I am done here for the moment. Zara1709 (talk) 08:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

These sources have been here for sometime, Zara. About the tag, sorry - I never like to seem rude - I didn't see the part about "not editing while in use" until after you brought it up. However, there's a problem here - you're making commentary on Gardell's quotes that are not backed anywhere else. How do we know what Gardell is thinking? We don't. We can't defend or attack the guy, we can only state references, thus my edit. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
To quote someone who has written "Yet what really makes the book fascinating is that its main author, Michael Moynihan, is himself an extreme rightist whose fusion of politics and aesthetic violence shapes a not-so-hidden sub current that runs throughout LOC." as having labelled Moynihan an "extreme rightist" is a misquotation; This is application of textbook knowledge and really, one doesn't need a reference for it. If you want a general handbook reference, I can give you one.Zara1709 (talk) 08:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Whatever the case is, you cannot use terms like "well aware" and expect to be considered neutral. It seems you think that Gardell is incorrectly representing Coogan somehow. This is your opinion, obviously. Everything that expresses any form of opinion on Wikipedia needs to be sourced. Who says it? Anyone? No source, it is policy to remove it per WP:PROVEIT. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Because you apparently don't see this: Gardell writes: "[Moynihan] has been classified as an "extreme rightist" [by Coogan]." This quote from Coogan is taken out of context. The relevant statement from Coogan is: "Yet what really makes the book fascinating is that its main author, Michael Moynihan, is himself an extreme rightist whose fusion of politics and aesthetic violence shapes a not-so-hidden sub current that runs throughout LOC. The book itself, however, is not a "fascist" tract in the strict sense of the term, ... Nor does Moynihan himself fit easily into the more conventional definitions of fascism."
The left/right binary is brought in by Coogan later with uote from Moynihan: In his introduction to Siege, Moynihan also highlighted Mason's call for a unity of extremes against the System: AC this point in history there were no such things as "innocent bystanders." The degeneration and decline of the West had long since passed the point where such ideas had any meaning. Now it all boiled down to whether you were working "for" or "against" the System, and anything which helped further augment instability in society – no matter what comer it came from, or what "opposing" (i.e.. Left Wing or Marxist) group might be responsible. The break with conservatism and "Right-Wingism" (the categories most people invariably believe Nazism falls into) had now been made once and for all...Mason will reiterate that he wishes the best of luck to anyone willing to attack the System head-on.
I haven't added that part yet; But Moynihan and others aren't primarily right wing or left wing extremists, they are just extremists, people who would like to see the 'System' annihilated above everything. I would say that this is included in Coogan's definition of counter-cultural fascism, but it would take some more time to elaborate this for the article. Probably I can reword the sentence into something that is more closes to the quote from Coogan... Zara1709 (talk) 08:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
About the tags: the thing about Coogan being "taken out of context" is all your opinion and unverifiable. Nobody is saying that but you. If someone did, then we could say "such-and-such claimed this was taken out of context." We cannot simply say "this was taken out of context." This is classic WP:OR. It's apparent you have strong opinions about all this but you have to remain neutral and stop inserting your opinion - it doesn't do you any favors. All this besides, it seems Gardell directly quotes Coogan calling him an "extreme rightest." This doesn't even matter - no source on opinion, no go: WP:PROVEIT, especially when it's a living person. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
No, this is not "classic WP:OR". Anyone with half a year in social sciences at a University should be able to tell when a citation is taken out of context. This is not my opinion but application of handbook knowledge. I am not publishing original research or original thought. With such a definition or original research a you are pushing it here, editing Wikipedia would be largely made impossible. Writing any article requires some basic research - gathering sources and evaluating them. For the evaluation of sources it is quite important if source A is misquoting source B. Now you can either start an rfc about this question or remove those fact tags. Zara1709 (talk) 09:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Opinions on Wikipedia require quotes and we do not take a mysterious, monologueing, unattributed Wikipedia voice onanything that opines - WP:PROVEIT. Now, Gardell quotes Coogan calling Moynihan a "extreme rightest." Coogan states:
Yet what really makes the book fascinating is that its main author, Michael Moynihan, is himself an extreme rightist whose fusion of politics and aesthetic violence shapes a not-so-hidden sub current that runs throughout LOC.
My bold. You somehow claim this is a misrepresentation of Coogan.. but there it is. I want to know who is saying it's a misrepresentation and if it's anyone but you - I don't see it because, well, there it is. This cannot simply be assumed. I will not remove the citation tags. Bring on the RFC with a neutral party. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
um, boo, it is Wikipedia's task to reasonably summarize the gist of sources. What you are doing is apply different standards of WP:SYN depending on whether you endorse a position or would like it shot down. It doesn't work like that. I suppose you would insist that you are making your point in good faith, as opposed to filibustering against better knowledge to get your way no matter what? If that is the case, you will have to submit to a consensus of intelligent editors with no stakes in the question. In other words, a case for WP:3O: if you want to insist Zara1709, who without doubt has considerable background knowledge on the topic of counter-culture fascism / Nazi occultism, is misrepresenting the gist of sources to the disadvantage of Moynihan, now would be a good time to seek wider community input. If we cannot juxtapose direct quotations in a coherent way as Zara1709 has done, we may as well stop writing original content at all and be content to replicate the 1911 Britannica verbatim. dab (𒁳) 16:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Dab, I disagree with Zara's assessment that Gardell is somehow misrepresenting Coogan. It's evident that she's insisting on this too advance her position on the subject. This is hardly a new thing with Zara, anyone can take a look at Talk:Lords of Chaos (book) where she's called on similar issues repeatedly by another editor. Again, she's inserting her unsourced opinion that a Swedish professor is misrepresenting an investigative journalist. This has nothing to do with "filibustering" and I apply the same standards (standards that are policy) on any subject I write about, as anyone can see in my editing history. Statements require sources, whether you like to source it or not. You are, again, assuming I have some sort of pro-Moynihan opinion, which is not the case. I understand Zara is your friend but this doesn't make her immune to basic Wikipedia sourcing policy (WP:PROVEIT). If it cannot be sourced, it does not belong - nobody gains anything from someone's unsourced opinion randomly inserted into articles. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)