Myatt's alleged travels to Islamic nations

Myatt and Coolmoon both claim that he travelled to Islamic countries, but not a shred of evidence has been produced. I will gladly remove the accuracy notice following that paragraph if evidence is produced.Robert0 18:24, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not a shred of evidence has been produced regarding the assertion - which you made and inserted here - about Myatt being a satanist. An assertion by you or a magazine like "Searchlight" is not evidence. Searchlight has not produced "one shred of evidence" to back up such a claim. In the interests of trying for NPOV I have not deleted such an unproved assertion about Myatt, but - I write again - it most certainly is not NPOV to insert "alleged" or "claimed" into the main article time and time again as you have done when a whole paragraph is devoted to that.

Did you not bother to read what I inserted below about NPOV and weaselspeak?

I claim nothing "about Myatt", contrary to what you assert above. Myatt himself has written about such travels in several published articles and in several private letters. You could of course now claim that Myatt is "lying" about this which would be an unproved accusation made by you which might seem by many to show your own bias against Myatt. Please do not bring that bias, that personal opinion - evident in what you write below - into this article. Coolmoon 03:59, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Myatt seems to put a lot of effort into self-promotion (many of the "neutral" external links are probably sites created by Myatt himself). Editors of this article need to be aware of this, and ensure that this article doesn't become another promotional vehicle for Myatt's apparently vivid fantasy life. Robert0 20:35, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

His own site (or sites, insofar as they aren't redundant) are on-topic. I don't think this article will serve him very far as promotional material ;-) - David Gerard 22:40, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

He seems to revel in the attention given to him, both positive and negative.Robert0 21:23, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Robert is just repeating what Searchlight_magazine claims about Myatt, and his comments about Myatt do not appear to be objective: note the smear "Myatt's apparently vivid fantasy life," and that he keeps adding items such as "Myatt claims" to the article.

In one respect Robert is clearly in error - Hamas has used, and does use, articles written by Abdul Aziz ibn Myatt. See

http://www.hamasonline.com/indexx.php?page=Qassam/martyrdom%20operations

I expect this link to be down sometime soon, however, as such sites tend to come and go.

The Searchlight claims have been made without any evidence being produced, and one can see in them an attempt, perhaps, to discredit Myatt.

The Julie Wright site has been existence for over six years, and presents both pro- and con- views.

I have amended the Myatt article in an attempt to be more objective. Coolmoon 07:38, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have removed the web-link to the Folk site as much of the material is replicated on the Julie Wright site.

As for user Robert's assertion about this article promoting Myatt, I agree with user David Gerard - the references are all to material which are uncomplimentary about Myatt. Coolmoon 18:03, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Can we try and keep the article neutral and objective? I mean, avoid the use of terms like "alleged", or "Myatt asserts"? Also, avoid dragging in unsubstantiated allegations made by magazines, or newspapers, or political groups or individuals with probably their own agenda? So "Richard" has his own views about Myatt. Excellent. So do I have my own views - not pro- actually - but I do not wish to push my opinions on other readers. This after all is an encyclopedia, not a work of political journalism. Coolmoon 11:13, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing wrong with "alleged" or "Myatt asserts". The allegations are fine with the sources referenced - David Gerard 16:07, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. That reduces the article to the level of tabloid journalism, for all the allegations made about Myatt are just that - allegations, without any proof whatsoever being offered.

Now, if the sources were researched, academic, or detailed that would be another matter it seems to me. But these sources are far from that. In truth, most if not all of them seem to stem from the "Searchlight" magazine. Now, to apply such allegations, and innuendo and the like to all articles about individuals would make them far from objective.

Are we going to produce articles which just give someone's personal opinion about someone else, or are we going to try to be somewhat objective?

Let me see - take an article on wikipedia about someone at random and do what "Richard" is doing here. What do we get?

"Barack Obama has been accused of being a satanist - the founder of a secret satanic cult. A well-known self-publicist, Obama's weird fantasy life has come under media scrutiny recently when he spoke of his alleged visits to Africa. Obama has denied being a satanist..."

Now is that character assasination, or what? Coolmoon 18:07, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To labor the point - I suggest "Robert" looks at the NPOV article and also Misplaced Pages:Guidelines for controversial articles, and in particular the "Be careful with weaselspeak" section.

For "Richard" it appears is indulging in weaselspeak.

It is not NPOV to continually insert "alleged", "assumed", or "claimed" in the main article about Myatt when I have already inserted a paragraph about some people claim to have doubts about certain events in Myatt's life. Coolmoon 06:17, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Coolmoon about the weaselspeak and have altered the Myatt article a little but keeping some comments about "the doubts" expressed by Robert above. They are all now at the end of the piece. For comparison, go see for example the article about Nick Griffin of the BNP - another neo-nazi - where weaselspeak is noticable by its absence. Deneb 07:25, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Since the article contains seven paragraphs of which the last two are given over to what in my view is weaselspeak, may be we can leave the article alone now, since these last paragraphs are nearly a third of the whole article and the introduction of any more weaselspeak would tip the balance too far. Coolmoon 18:00, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Robert is at it again - I mean, introducing more weaselspeak, which I've deleted. Read what Coolmoon writes above. About one third of the article is given over to other's views about Myatt - we don't need more. Those interested can follow up the Searchlight claims, or whatever, or read the books referenced in the article which give a quite anti-Myatt view. Robert - if you want to pursue what seems to be some kind of vendetta against Myatt, write elsewhere. Remmember, as keep writing here, Wiki is about NPOV.

"Robert" inserted more claims about Myatt - which have been removed by A.N. Other - and even those claims are bogus. I've researched the Usenet archives, and found that such claims have been made, a few times, by others, and also refuted, very clearly, by Myatt aka Abdul Aziz.
- Lest this falls to the level of a Usenet diatribe, others can do the research about Robert's assertions for themselves. They can start with "soc.religion.islam" and submissions by Abdul Aziz. I'm with Coolmoon et al that such "weaselspeak" as Robert is inserting is out of place in this article. I suggest he writes an article for "Searchlight", or even posts one on Usenet, which are far more suitable places for such claims and character assassination. Deneb 12:36, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have somewhat changed the part relating to Myatt's travels in Muslim lands - striving here for less bias (pace, Robert!) and the NPOV which is essential here. Coolmoon 05:43, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Further note re NPOV - if "Robert" inserts more weaselspeak, the next best course of action might be to consider a wiki "Request for arbitration" on this page which should put an end to the edit wars that seem to be going on here. We can avoid this by agreeing that the article as it stands is neutral and contains enough comments from others relating to certain events in Myatt's life, something I have strived to explain in my comments here. Coolmoon 14:38, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Merged articles

See Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Folk Culture and also Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Cosmic Ethics.

British Empire?

How much of a British Empire was there between 1950 and 1967? Rick K 06:18, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Less than there was half a century before, certainly, but enough for his father to have been employed in its administration if that's the statement in the article you're refering to. See British_empire#Decolonisation. Plenty of African countries achieved their independence in the 1960s. — Trilobite (Talk) 13:16, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

References

This article seems to be based almost entirely on Myatt's own websites, or websites he appears to control. It would be useful to track down independent sources, particularly for claims about him having translated ancient Greek texts, being a former monk, and having studied physics. I deleted the section on cosmic ethics as it went on and on, didn't say anything all that different from the previous section, and seemed to constitute advertising for Myatt rather than a summary of his views. I also tidied up some poor writing, odd use of capitals etc. SlimVirgin 20:51, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Forgot to add that I rewrote the intro and added a photograph. SlimVirgin 21:29, May 1, 2005 (UTC)