Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Coolmoon (talk | contribs) at 06:17, 19 August 2004. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)