Talk:Tyr (journal)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 5 December 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Contents 1 Notability 2 Controversy 3 Michell 4 Blanking and Redirecting 5 Diesel and Gerten (2007) 6 Table of Contents 7 Mention

[edit] Notability

This looks like a simple vanity page. It's just an ad for the publication. Catherineyronwode 09:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

The Nouvelle Droite / Neofascist bent is plain as day to the casual observer. "Radical Traditionalism" is obviously in the "Perennialism" (Evola) tradition. It doesn't get any more neo-fascist than that. Hell, Monsieur Nouvelle Droite Alain de Benoist himself is contributing, along with uber-occultist Stephen "Edred" Flowers. But let's hold ourselves to WP:RS. I seem to get some 600 hits on google. Amazon sales rank for vol. 2 is at 605,000, and for vol. 1 at 885,000. The only review that appears to pass any sort of notability threshold I can see is that by Northvegr's Ári Óðinssen. [1]

primarily from the 'Odiann' school of philosophy. In brief, it begins with Thorsson's rallying call against the corruption and degradation of this age, moves into Alain de Benoist's determined stand for the 'tripartate-function' view of Indo-European study, gives Moynihan's argument for the Hagen figure in the Nibelungenlied being Othinn himself, and wraps into a round of praise and admiration for the likes of Julius Evola, Herman Lons, and the dark master of chaos himself, Karl Maria Wiligut.'

any questions?

One could, article by article, contest these views to the contrary and be in very good standing within the [Asatru] faith. In order for the 'cultural morass and chaos' that we are challenged by these writers to be foundering in to begin to right itself, it will take a league of firm voices calling out from the side of right and order. ... In other words, we should not be allowing the voices we hear in this publication to be the only voices pushing the edge of philosophy in this age. They are, by our silence, representing us. I repeat this to make it clear: they are, by our silence, representing us.]

Tyr is a publication of the neo-fascist, neo-racialist ultra-right fringe within Asatru. That's fair enough, but we need to state this up front. dab (𒁳) 11:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Dab, as with anywhere else, cite the sources and if it's against their own position place it in a "criticism" page and fully explain it neutrally. You are not doing anyone a service by just slapping terms like "fascist" and "Neo-Nazi" on things without citations with a complete and careful explanation. We've been over this regarding Odalism and Thor Steinar before. I am only interested in proper documentation on Wikipedia, like any other topic. Just the cold facts, please.

I could find reviews stating random things all day - including unexplained insults - and apply them as opening descriptors of subjects in articles and it wouldn't make them any more neutral. Your calling this group "Neo-Fascist" (something which Tyr denies) is blatant original research. Of course, if you create a "criticism" section stating that they have been accused of it but deny it, then that is perfectly fine as it represents both sides. There's a huge difference between stating it and stating that someone else has stated it in the appropriate section, as you well know.

The above is an explanation for my own actions and I think that the section you've added is a big improvement. :bloodofox: 01:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

if that is so, then why the hostility? The cold facts are that this is a journal of the ultra-right fringe of rather dubious notability. Why did you feel you had to rant against me and complain of my "nasty attitude and penchant for insults"? I have edited straightforwardly, presenting my rationale on talk as I should. I really don't see the problem, and I frankly resent that you should turn a content issue into a personal vendetta. Personally, I find the ideology reflected in this journal absolutely despicable, representing the absolute worst of neopaganism, and, as the Northvegr reviewer said, a stain on the 'faith'. In the article, I have no intention to use emotional terms like that. But I insist to point this thing out for what it is. Since you appear to take what you consider "insults" against the journals as insults against your person, I would like to ask you if you are in any way involved with this publication. dab (𒁳) 07:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I am not involved with Tyr in any way shape or form. With this said, my personal opinion of the magazine is officially irrelevant and so is yours. We are only here to state referenced information about the magazine without interjecting our own personal opinions into the matter and that is all - it's policy. There's still a lot of unsourced claims here, including calling the entire magazine "New Right" without a reference to back it up.. And, of course, once we do have the reference we must state that the reference said it. None of this is anything personal, it's just policy and keeps things from being misrepresented or feeling the wrath of someone's personal crusade. I would expect anyone else to be just as iron clad about my own edits, as I am. :bloodofox:

True. I'm all for neutrality and proper referencing. The problem is that we base this article on three reviews in rather minor publications (a Portland newspaper, a webzine, and a neo-pagan website). This raises fundamental questions of notability. As Catherineyronwode states above, the article as it stood appeared to be an advertisement. The article as it now stands alleges the journal is "anti-modern" and "neo-tribalist". Based on the few independent reviews we have, we might also add it is "neopagan crypto-scholarship". We do not now allege that "the journal" itself takes any political position except for the "Radical Traditionalism", which is ostensibly based on the "Integral Traditionalism" of the New Right. We cannot and should not say the journal itself belongs to the "New Right", because it is American, and the term has different connotations there than in Europe. We also state the main contributors up front, together with their alignment, viz. Nouvelle Droite leader Alain de Benoist, Germanic mysticists Stephen Flowers and Nigel Pennick, besides translations of texts by "Traditionalist" occultist Julius Evola and völkisch poet Hermann Löns. It is left to the reader to conclude that a journal focussing on Nouvelle Droite, ethnic mysticist and "Integralist" authors is probably not about New Age pantheism. Thus, I argue that the present version is acceptable in terms of neutrality. The notability question remains unaddressed. dab (𒁳) 11:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

My solution to this would to simply state that it is "self described" as Radical Traditionalist, otherwise things are going to get arbitrary at the beginning again. I am with you otherwise. I also question the notability of the subject, though the notability may be increased by the fact that numerous notable figures are associated with it. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"Radical Traditionalist" isn't a term that exists outside the pages of Tyr. We can certainly explain the concept as it is defined by the journal itself (as the article already does), but per WP:NOTE, the justification of this article hinges entirely on the existence of discussions of the topic in independent sources. We are bound to discuss Tyr first and foremost in the terms chosen by notable reviewers. dab (𒁳) 16:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The journal's definition of "radical traditionalism" does in fact include the call to 'reject the modern' and the 'yearning for tribal society'. It strikes me as disingenious to criticize the summary of this as anti-modern and neo-tribalist as unfounded. This isn't WP:SYN, it's straightforward paraphrase. 16:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbachmann (talk • contribs)

[edit] Michell

There was also a book published entitled Confessions of a Radical Traditionalist by John Michell in 2005, if that helps anything. It is associated with the magazine as far as I understand.[2] :bloodofox: (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I have come across this too, trying to verify the term. I understand that this is completely unrelated. Michell calls for a "return to Platonism". Nothing in Tyr seems to even remotely touch on that. dab (𒁳) 09:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

correction: you are right, there is a connection. Michell's essay collection was edited by Moynihan. Which opens the question, whose term is "Radical Traditionalism"? Did Moynihan pinch it off Michell? We should try and compile a John Michell (author) article at this point. dab (𒁳) 09:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking and Redirecting

As the AfD was closed as keep (per no consensus), that is not consensus to delete it via page-blanking and redirection. I have no opinion on the politics of the contributors to this journal, but it is clear there was no consensus for Dab to do this. I am going to restore this to the state it was in at the closing of the AfD. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 07:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

there doesn't need to be a consensus to *delete* to merge an article into another one. The question is this: does Tyr meet the criteria at WP:BK? If yes, keep it. If no, merge it. Now, since you have undone the merger, you necessarily need to argue that it does meet WP:BK. I would ask you therefore, Kathryn, to either explain how Tyr

1. has been subject of multiple, non-trivial ("Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable.) published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience.
2. has won a major literary award.
3. has been made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture
4. is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools
5. is the work of an author historically so significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources (for example, a person whose life or works is a subject of common classroom study)

feel free to establish any single one of these points -- if you do so, I will fully concede your revert was justified. If you cannot or do not wish to establish any one of these points, I would ask you to undo your revert. thanks, dab (𒁳) 13:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to re-do the AfD discussion here because you do not like the outcome here. In the absence of consensus, the decision defaulted to Keep, not merge and redirect. I'm not particularly attached to what happens to this article, myself, but I don't approve of the way you're handling this. You appear to me to have decided on an outcome, which you are willing to doggedly push to achieve by a variety of means, including ignoring consensus (or lack thereof). The article certainly has room for improvement. I suggest you either improve it or let it go. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

since when is merging decided on AfD? I am not asking you to "re-do the AfD discussion", I am asking you to state whether you claim this article meets WP:BK. You have done no such thing in the Afd discussion, so you cannot complain about being asked to do it now. Your "comment" in Afd accused me of WP:POINT. My nomination was no such thing, as you can see by the statement I made: The nomination was a bona fide attempt to resolve a deadlock. Unfortunately, it attracted only three votes, one for and two against, so that it didn't help any. "Keep" votes were based on lots of notable people involved . This seems to be a claim of point (5) above. WP:BK doesn't say "lots of notable people involved", it mentions "an author historically so significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable ... for example, a person whose life or works is a subject of common classroom study". This clearly isn't met here. My motivation here isn't some crusade against the Nouvelle Droite or neo-fascism: I am perfectly happy with WP covering all topics of neo-fascism with any notability whatsoever in full detail; it is the concern that this article is {{spam}}, abusing Wikipedia as a free marketing tool. The problem is that boo disputes the obvious classification of this publication as part of neo-fascist literature, and it turns out that there aren't enough independent sources to establish even this triviality: I conclude that it isn't possible to write an independent article on this thing for simple lack of attention it has received. dab (𒁳) 11:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Tyr does not meet the requirements for notability set out in WP:BK. However, that guide for notability only concerns books. From WP:BK: "...this guideline does not presently provide notability criteria (though it may be instructive by analogy) for the following types of publications: ...magazines..." As a (roughly) biannual journal, I am not sure that those notability requirements apply strictly to Tyr. More important is that Tyr is the most notable publication at the centre of the Radical Traditionalist movement. Now that the Wikipedia page on Radical Traditionalism has been deleted, I do not think the Tyr page should also be deleted. Radical Traditionalism as a movement does exist beyond the pages of Tyr, a survey of various blogs, newsletters etc. demonstrates that, so if Wikipedia is to be a comprehensive encyclopedia it should record that fact somewhere. Personally, I would have preferred to keep the Rad Trad article but perhaps to merge the Tyr article into it. That makes more logical sense to me. I don't mind the current system using the Traditionalism disambiguation page, but some page concerning Rad Trad ought to survive. Deleting every page smacks of censorship. Anomenat (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Diesel and Gerten (2007)

ok, I found another source:

• (German) Andreas Diesel, Dieter Gerten, Looking for Europe: Neo-folk und Hintergründe (2007), ISBN 3936878021 [3], pp. 353ff.

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. This is new evidence: I continue to insist that your revert was not justifiable at the time you made it. Had you presented further information such as this, the case would have been entirely different. dab (𒁳) 12:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this source honestly sympathetic? I've heard some pretty bad things about this book. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, never mind, it seems I confused it for another book. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is something I wrote about the magazine on another article as to why I disagree that characterizing it as a "fascist" magazine:

"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.

Originally at [4].:bloodofox: (talk) 12:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't looked at it yet. Let's see. The book appears to be written by and for fans of Neo-folk music. MM in the interview on p. 353f. says precisely nothing beyond "it depends. whatever." The interviewers ask Moynihan about the role of Evola's "Integral Tradition" in his thought, but he does not deign to reply. I guess we can use this book as evidence that Tyr has been mentioned in other publications, but the book does not appear to contain anything like a review, or any other content that would be relevant here. It's not such a big deal. I am not alleging Tyr is written by an underground conspiracy of dyed-in-the-wool fascist. It is, as you say, just catering to a puerile fascination (pun intended) with extremism and occultism. The editors can wash their hands in comparative innocence, but their customers are obviously going to be Nazi skinheads just out of their teens and overdosing on testosterone. The world has seen worse. Notability of this is borderline, but this is Wikipedia, and if we wait for another year, we'll certainly be able to report on another handful of reactions. dab (𒁳) 15:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I would imagine that the journal is probably drawing most of its audience through the music that it is associated with, since it seems to be mostly a music magazine. Much of the music featured caters to specific post-industrial subcultures as well as cross bred with some folk sensibilities, which have a devoted following and, as traditional for genres associated with Industrial Music, at times has a sense of fascination with the "forbidden". If you check out the music, you will see it is very un-Nazi skinhead stuff. Notably, 16 Horsepower is there, which has a devoted following and is a sort of Christian alt-country. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

sure, as I said, I have no interest in somehow demonizing or smearing anyone or anything. But my position is that if a certain extremist ideology has somehow managed to embed itself inside a much larger movement, it is necessary to document and delineate the phenomenon precisely, rather than gloss over it because the discussion might "offend" the many participants in the movement that are unconnected with it. I am completely disinterested in alarmist hype. My aim is detached and meticulous documentation of the situation such as it is. dab (𒁳) 14:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Table of Contents

Is a full table of contents really encyclopedic? Seems like excessive detail to me. Valtyr (talk) 16:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I would say it would be better to convert it to a list of essays and by whom. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mention

For what it's worth, the journal and Moynihan are cited for reviewing Runes And Their Secrets: Studies In Runology here: [5] :bloodofox: (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)