Talk:Simon Darby

His podcast (+controversy)

I've removed the information about his podcast for two reasons - firstly, there are no 3rd party sources, indicating its lack of significance, and secondly, the 1st party sources don't back up the claims made in this article.

I've also added back in the "Controversy" section - I'm not sure why it was removed. Darimoma (talk) 02:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

To be more specific, the claims that aren't backed up by the 1st party sources are that he was given a regular slot, and that it was due to his popularity that he was given his own show. At the very most, these sources could be used to claim that Darby appeared on Boyd's show, and that he has his own show. However, I would still contend that such claims would be of questionable significance without some 3rd party sources to back them up. Darimoma (talk) 04:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I came here via the 3rd opinion post and generally agree with the points made at [the BLP Noticeboard] that the podcast is not worth a section for itself. As Darimoma says, the cites don't back up the article (eg. nowhere do the links mention it is a regular show). Furthermore, if mentioned in the text then there is no need for an External Link to the podcast, that's just WP:SPAM. Finally, the controversy section is notable as it was reported in the press, but care needs to be given to the assertion that they were definitely far-right nationalists giving the salute and not press-mongering opponents, which is a view I saw in checking it out.

However, it's possible this problem might have to be escalated as it seems the other side to this argument do not engage in the debate. It was a good start to come to WP:3 but you might have to carry on up the chain. I will leave a message on User:BritishNationalist's page, and with some IP editors, and I hope they will drop by for a chat.

Cheers, Bigger digger (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Simon Darby's radio show - I do believe it warrants inclusion. Play Radio is one of the biggest internet radio stations in Britain, and boasts some very highly respected broadcasting figures such as Tommy Boyd.

There are a couple of reasons why I removed the controversy section. Firstly, no mention was given to the fact that the photo was taken by a member of Searchlight - an organisation which has a very dubious reputation. There was also no mention of Simon Darby's response to the photograph, in which he described the individuals who made the salutes as "idiots". Finally, there is no proof whatsoever that the individuals who made the salute are genuine nazis - they could be people deliberately posing as nazis in order to smear Simon Darby.

I apologise for taking for taking so long to explain the reasoning behind my edits.

BritishNationalist (talk) 23:25, 6 May 2009

No need to apologise, I would much prefer not to spend so much time on wikipedia as I have done recently! The site is all about notability and verifiability which is normally established through the use of independent sources, especially where there is a dispute. With that in mind, it's really interesting that you present a different point of view on the Controversy section. It would be really good if you could provide sources so we can make the section more balanced. This same line of thinking applies to the podcast section - has there been any comment on the podcast by other media or academic sources? If not, it is unlikely that the podcast is of sufficient importance to include it so prominently in the article. I found a wikipedia article about Tommy Boyd, but just because he is notable, he doesn't infer notability into this article, it must be established separately. Perhaps Darimoma could find balancing cites for the Controversy section?? How does that all sound? Bigger digger (talk) 22:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I pretty much agree with everything Digger's said. I've had a look round for more info on the salute - News of the World calls the saluters "extremists". The Evening Standard article which was cited as the source for the section calls them "far-Right activists" and "members of the conference". The Voice calls them "European neo-fascists". However, I'm personally content to leave out any of these claims, and simply state:

In April 2009, he sparked controversy when he attended a conference in Italy organised by Roberto Fiore's Forza Nuova party, at which he was photographed by Searchlight being given Nazi salutes. When asked about the incident, Darby responded, "I can't do anything about that. There were 500 people and three of them were caught doing that stupid behaviour."

Is that an acceptable compromise? All this information is the Evening Standard article.

Regarding the podcast, I'm happy to leave it in if there are reliable 3rd party sources we can cite. Darimoma (talk) 03:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Another editor put the section back in; I changed it in accordance with the suggested compromise above. Darimoma (talk) 02:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The current controversy section is a lot more balanced, which is good, and hopefully sources for the podast can be found, or it can be turned into an external link. Top work! Bigger digger (talk) 11:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Controversy again

There are editors involved in this article keen to push a specific POV (these changes) on the controversy issue. It is a key tenet of wikipedia that a neutral point of view is employed. The article as it stood [1] balanced all sides of the argument, having previously been unbalanced. It is not for wikipedia to decide on the truth but to use reliable sources that are verifiable to create a balanced article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigger digger (talk • contribs) 15:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Oops!

Editing is still going on to include the POV material. The La Repubblica (which is noted as left-wing) source has the same photo as the thisislondon source and the article translated here doesn't mention Simon Darby, so is now venturing into the realms of original research which is not acceptable. Bigger digger (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is that Darby attended a meeting of a party whose members gave fascist salutes. Darby's claim that it was a few isolated individuals in the party is not born out by the facts. La Repubblica might be "left-wing" but that does not make Darby anything approaching a reliable source. The BNP still maintains close ties to openly fascist groups across Europe. --84.70.225.77 (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not arguing about Darby and the BNP's connections or intentions, I just want this article to follow WP:BLP, to reflect what independent sources have said on the issue. You can see above that I've argued for the inclusion of the controversy section before. I translated the La Repubblica article on google but it only says that some people gave the "Roman salute" (that's the thing I learnt today) and Father Giulio Tam was there. Furthermore, it makes absolutely no mention of Darby. Given that that this is an article about Darby I would expect a source used in his page to mention him... Furthermore, the phrase "contradicting Darby's claim that this was an isolated group." is original research as there are no sources to support it, which is particularly dangerous with a living person's biography. I will regrettably revert it but with the sad expectation that you will reinsert your POV instead of debating here. Fingers crossed though! Bigger digger (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Why should it mention Darby? The issue here is that he was present at the meeting of a neo-fascist party. There is nothing libellous here. The source states the Tam, the party's chaplain and its candidate for mayor of Bologna this year, also gave a salute. --84.70.225.77 (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Because this page is about Darby! Should we also mention that Hitler went to Italy? Your additions on that level are therefore either irrelevant, wrong (my google translation doesn't mention Tam saluting) or original research. The paragraph already links to the Forza Nuova party where it prominently states it is far-right and fascist, and the use of "Nazi salutes" makes it quite clear, so there's no doubt about the type of event Darby was attending or what happened, whilst it is only balanced to allow his POV. I have reported this at WP:BLP/N#Simon Darby Part 2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigger digger (talk • contribs) 18:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that the claims made in the proposed addition, insofar as they obviously relate to Darby (i.e. that they contradict his claims) they are WP:OR, and so shouldn't be includeed. Insofar as they aren't WP:OR, they don't relate to Darby, and so shouldn't be on his article. Further, the article does not say Tam is a member of the St. Pius X, it doesn't mention he was photographed, it doesn't mention that this contradicts Darby's claim, and it simply doesn't mention Darby; as the information in the section is not backed up by the source, it should not be left on a biography of a living person. Darimoma (talk) 03:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

New sources

[Moved T L Miles (talk) comments to new section]

Wow: This article (and discussion) just seems remarkably unbalanced. Perhaps editors should take a look at centrist press coverage on this guy: 1234 (That's just some from this week!) This week he's being denounced as a fascist and racist by a ruling party MP, two newspapers, and an archbishop. But this article portrays him as "right wing". BLP rules don't suggest that claims about people can't be reported, but that they have to be sourced and widely discussed. And the notion that the Social Democratic La Repubblica is "Left-Wing" and thus cannot be used as a source is laughable. All this said, I'm not going to dare edit this, as people here seem to have previously organized editors to oversee it. Very, very problematic. T L Miles (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll assume good faith and that your aiming your comments at someone else ;-) I came here to offer a WP:3O on the inclusion of some trivia about a podcast/internet radio show Darby has. Without my input the article could well look like this. I've only contributed the infobox to the page itself and spend the rest of my time trying to help reach a balanced consensus here. Darimoma has left wp for other reasons, and the ip editors and BritishNationalist (talk) haven't been round for a while. I would support any edit you want to make as per my new favourite essay WP:BRD. As for the sources:

• 1. The Independent. No problem with that source, but only fair to let Darby mention his normal "I can't help who is at an event I choose to attend" excuse.
• 2. No problem with quoting opinion of John Cruddas MP from the Guardian letters page.
• 3. Local newspaper that supports Independent source.
• 4. The Times, good piece of balanced reporting, would be good to include.

For the record, the reason the La Repubblica source was ignored is because it didn't mention Darby which I think is fair grounds to ignore it. After all, the facts are there for any reader to examine. The La Repubblica page told me it was left wing, I'm not that hot on European media political allegiances..! Cheers, Bigger digger (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Simon Darby. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110109180200/http://simondarby.blogspot.com/2010/07/no-more-brother-wars-please.html to http://simondarby.blogspot.com/2010/07/no-more-brother-wars-please.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090415122621/http://www.switchpod.com/cats.php?a=24776 to http://www.switchpod.com/cats.php?a=24776
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090510082756/http://www.switchpod.com/users/simondarby/feed.xml to http://www.switchpod.com/users/simondarby/feed.xml

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 18:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)