Jump to content

Talk:David Myatt/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Myatt still a Muslim?

http://nexion3.tripod.com/myatt_muslim.html

  • That link is dead. On this question of Myatt being a Muslim, see Myatt's personal website at

http://www.dwmyatt.info/

and in particular

http://www.dwmyatt.info/jstatement1.html

This, written 27 Rabi al-Awal 1426 (Jan 2005), clearly states - "That over seven years ago I converted to Islam and, despite recent rumours and disinformation, I am still a Muslim, Alhamdulillah, and I shall remain a Muslim, InshaAllah."

Myatt has continued to post on Islamic forums using his Muslim name. 213.122.109.1 04:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

See also http://www.islamonline.net/livedialogue/english/Browse.asp?hGuestID=61ud64 Islam-Online which is more recent Coolmoon 08:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Folk Culture and also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Cosmic Ethics.

British Empire?

How much of a British Empire was there between 1950 and 1967? RickK 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 (talk) 20:51, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Forgot to add that I rewrote the intro and added a photograph. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:29, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
To the anon IP, we can't call suicide attacks "martyrdom operations," though we can add that Myatt calls them this, if he does, bearing in mind that Wikipedia must be based on published sources. See Wikipedia:No original research. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 15:36, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
In reply to SlimVirgin. If you do a simple google you will find Myatt's Greek translations which have in the past eight or more years been used by several Universities. Copies of his translations are in the British Library. His Sappho translations are appreciated in some Sapphic circles, no less. As for him being a monk - this is documented. A photo of him with the other monks even appeared in a brochure published by the monastery in question. As for him studying Physics - again, this is documented. I suggest you approach people like Gerry Gable at the Searchlight organization (UK) if you want proof. But for your records - Uni was York; monk, Fort Augustus in Scotland. As for your remark about the websites - please, NPOV! Julie Wright's, the main one, is hardly pro-Myatt. As for using the term "martyrdom operations" - this is common in the Mid-East, and used by Islamists. Check out Hamas, Al-Qaeda and so on. Also, note that the term "Zionist-Crusader alliance" is likewise in common use by Islamists. I also suggest you read the books which are referenced - they give some background detail to Myatt's life, especially the one by Goodricke-Clark. I hope this helps :) Coolmoon 17:57, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Coolmoon. Do you have a source that says he went to Hull, because it would good to add this, and the matriculation year. I've checked with a friend who teaches Classics, and he doesn't know of Myatt's translations, which is not to say they don't exist, but we'll need to pin it down. The Google searches I've done return only Myatt-related or WP-related websites. Do you know who published the translations and when? Thanks for the Ampleforth Abbey information.
Also, do you know who Julie Wright is? It's not a question of using sources that are pro- or anti-Myatt. It's that we must use credible, reputable published sources, not personal websites. We can use Myatt's personal website as a source for what he says about himself, but if we want to state something as a fact, then we need an independent, reputable, third-party reference, and as we don't know who Julie Wright is (or I don't, anyway), we can't judge whether she counts as that. See Wikipedia:No original research for more details.
Regarding martyrdom operations, this article isn't about what Islamists say; it's about Myatt. If Myatt has called these martyrdom operations anywhere that we can find, then we can add after suicide attacks, "which Myatt has called martyrdom operations." But we can't associate the term with him otherwise, and we can't use it as though it's a normal way of describing suicide attacks. Most people in the world don't call them martyrdom operations. Hope this helps. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:11, May 2, 2005 (UTC)


If you read the Myatt article which is on the Hamas site you will see he uses the term martyrdom operations - the article is reproduced on his own Islamist site, and was on several other Islamist sites, which got closed down. Reference - http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/002935.php

As for his Greek translations, the original edition of his Agamemnon, for example, is 094664635X published in 1994. But I do believe many of his translations have been amended since publication with these amendments being on-line only, since Myatt has announced he upholds copyleft, not copyright. Suggest you try the following sites for use of his Greek texts - http://classicpersuasion.org/pw/sappho/sappmyatt.htm

www.pagebuilder.com.br/proscenio/biblioteca/oedipus.doc www.sogang.ac.kr/~anthony/Classics/Oedipus.htm

You say "reputable" and "credible" sources. And just who decides this? The virtue of this medium, this Wikipedia, is that we are not constrained by the Establishment. The Julie Wright site provides much Myatt material - check out the "Private Letters". We can use our own judgment to decide if what is on such a site is "credible" and "reputable" surely - and "published" now of course includes the Internet! As for her reliability, she has been used as a Myatt source by no less than the Searchlight organization - and is just "an ordinary bystander" with an interest in Myatt's poetry. Coolmoon 18:36, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for all this information, Coolmoon, which is extremely helpful. Regarding jihadwatch, I can't see anything on there from Myatt; sorry if I've missed it.
The ISBN number turned up this: Agamemnon: A Commentary and Radical New Translation, (Thormynd Greek Literature S), Aeschylus, D W Myatt (Translator), September 21, 1993), ISBN 094664635X, as well as other publications of Myatt's. I'd already checked Amazon and had found nothing, but I didn't know he was published as D W Myatt.
Regarding what counts as a reputable source, you are right, of course, and this is something of a bone of contention in Wikipedia, and we have to judge sources on a case-by-case basis. Academic sources are best, mainstream newspapers next best, and so on. The worst sources would be personal websites (unless we're writing about the website's owner, in which case it becomes primary-source material, and that's okay), or anything posted to a website's noticeboard, blog, Usenet etc. The problem with Julie Wright is that we don't know who she is. You say she's an ordinary bystander, but who? The difficulty is that we have no way of knowing if what she says is accurate, and if it's a personal website, there has been no fact-checking process, such as you'd find with e.g. The Times, New York Times etc. — as inadequate as their fact-checking procedures often are, they do exist, and it's this process of peer-review that makes the source credible or reputable by Wikipedia's standards.
If you can find a published source where Myatt explicitly calls suicide attacks "martyrdom operations", then I'm fine with you adding it to the intro, though it would be a good idea to link to the source after the sentence. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:14, May 2, 2005 (UTC)


  • I've given a reference for Myatt's use of the term martyrdom operations, and you and others should know that many Muslims find the term "suicide attacks", or whatever, to be objectionable, and biased. Julie Wright's site contains verifiable information - such as the codename used by Scotland Yard when they were investigating Myatt for terrorist offences in 1998-2001. She gives most of her sources in her Biography of Myatt [1]. She is an academic at an English University, I understand. Her sources have been accepted by people like Goodricke-Clarke, and "Searchlight", and have been used in at least three books which make mention of Myatt. AFAIK her sources are based on her own research, and on her personal correspondence and interviews with Myatt. Coolmoon 05:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Anon IP edits

The world "nature" isn't capitalized, and we can't keep adding to Myatt's views, as this article isn't meant to reflect only his views. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:26, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

  • I beg to disagree regarding Nature in contrast to nature - for that is the essence of Myatt's argument regarding "Nature"; he sees it as a living being. Here is a reference [2] [3]

I have now added some additional references to the Reference section, and deleted the mention of Myatt having rejected Islam - no where can I find an explicit reference, by Myatt, to this. 65.57.106.52 04:00, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the references and correcting the thing about Islam. About the word "nature," if Myatt capitalizes it, we should do so when quoting him, but outside quotation marks, we have to write it as it's normally written, otherwise it looks as though we're going along with his worldview, which we're not allowed to do. Thanks for digging up all these references; it's very helpful. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:49, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
Hi SlimVirgin! Cool name! (Yes - I've checked your page for it's origin!) On balance, I think you're right, so I'll leave as is. 65.57.106.52 08:29, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the edits by 81.135.7.92 as the "Statement" they reference does not exist. I have reverted to my previous edits. 65.57.106.52 05:04, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Abdul Aziz Al-Qari

Myatt has denied using this particular Muslim alias, although it has been claimed, by others (on Usenet and elsewhere) that he does and has used it.

Myatt has only ever admitted to using the Muslim names Abdul-Aziz and Abdul-Aziz ibn Myatt - see his replies on soc.religion.islam for instance and the following link: [4]

Therefore, I have removed this name from the main article - unless someone can supply some evidence. Coolmoon 5 July 2005 06:18 (UTC)

Myatt, National Socialism and Islam

  • I have removed the edits by Anon and reverted to some previous edits as the evidence indicates Myatt's rejection of Islam [5]. See also [6] where Myatt states:

<quote>I am not a Muslim. I have striven to explain the fundamental differences in my essay The Theology of The Numinous Way, which is a re-write of my older essay The Theology of National-Socialism. I have re-written that essay because The Numinous Way of Folk Culture differs not only from Islam, but also from National-Socialism...

Would you therefore describe yourself as a National-Socialist?

No, for I have gone beyond National-Socialism - beyond even that of my own earlier evolutionary National-Socialism - to the essence manifest in The Numinous Way.</quote>

This article is dated JD 2453519.813 which works at around May 29, 2005 CE Coolmoon 05:29, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, Coolmoon. Thanks for keeping an eye on the anon edits. Some of them looked a bit dodgy. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:29, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
I have once again reverted to me previous edits, following more unverified stuff from Anon edits. Coolmoon 04:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I have added that Myatt has rejected "racial hatred" - something evident from his most recent writings. For example: "Racial hatred - hating someone and discriminating against them, or being prejudiced against them on the basis of their race, or culture, or way of life - is simply dishonourable behaviour..." [7] Coolmoon 08:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
I have reviewed the recent edits and find that - according to his own admission, evident on his own Islamist website [http://website.lineone.net/~davidmyatt - Myatt is still a Muslim, still writings Islamist articles, and had indeed praised the bombings in London. See his article on Ummah.com forum, on Islamist websites, and posted on the Aryan Nations website. I have, accordingly, amended the article to reflect all this. 213.122.60.236 18:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Problem

We have a problem here in that some users are reviewing Myatt's personal website, then updating this article accordingly, making Wikipedia an extension of the website. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be encyclopedic, which in this case means we should update the page when Myatt's beliefs are deemed worthy of inclusion in a reputable third-party publication. For example, if a newspaper thinks it's newsworthy that Myatt did or didn't support the July 7 bombings, then we can quote that newspaper. Otherwise, we should probably leave this page alone. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:03, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Let us therefore keep the article as is now. Coolmoon 08:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I have restored most of the previous edits by user Coolmoon because the references are the most up-to-date, and confirmed by Myatt himself in his "Statement" and by other things such as an upcoming book by the Californian academic George Micheal, PhD, with the provisional title "A Strange Alliance". The Islamist references are out-of-date, and the sites down or removed. I would therefore suggest we keep the present edits until such time as further publicly available information indicates to the contrary. 67.159.26.65 05:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
We have to stop taking information from David Myatt's personal website. There's enough of it on there already. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:01, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Hi. It should be pointed out, in all fairness, that the site at http://www.geocities.com/davidmyatt is not Myatt's own website. Rather, the webmaster (or should that be webmistress?!) is Julie Wright who has been mentioned several times already in this Disucssion session. AFAIK Myatt does not any longer have his own website (there was one at www.qulabe.co.uk but that went down around a year ago although I think). I do believe Ms Wright is trying to do as unbiased a job as is possible and her site usually has the most recent items/articles by Myatt. 65.57.106.52 06:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
But we don't know who she is. The way we judge whether someone is notable enough for an entry, or whether a piece of information is notable enough for inclusion, is to see who else has written about it. If newspapers write about it, or reputable publishers, then we know it's worth pursuing. If not, then not. We only publish what other credible sources have published. The point is that Wikipedia isn't an extension of Myatt's or Wright's websites. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:04, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
I did mention who she was in an earlier discussion here - please refer above. Also, we are back to the discussion to what is, or is not, a credible source. If you refer to what I wrote in relation to JR Wright you will see than her information has been used as a source in several of the books which are referenced in the Myatt article here. Coolmoon 07:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
The problem remains that we have no idea who she is. You didn't know, as I recall. (Sorry if I'm misremembering that.) We have to stick to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Cite sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. So we have to know who she is, and why she's a credible, published source; otherwise it's just someone's personal website. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:49, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Maybe I am missing something here? JRW is an academic at Oxford University - she is credible because she has over the years given an unbiased view of Myatt and his activities and writings, and has interviewed him several times. She is currently engaged on writing a book about him, based on the primary sources she has access to, such as Myatt's private letters. As I mentioned previously, her own writings about Myatt are used as sources in three of the books which have referenced in the Myatt article. What else is needed? As I have mentioned before, a website nowadays is surely a published source - we are not just talking newspapers and books, are we? If so, most books which make mention of Myatt do no use primary sources, as JRW does, but rely on gutter-press journalism. When is a newspaper a credible source? When it repeats rumours or makes allegations? Coolmoon 08:28, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I can find no evidence of JRW being an academic at Oxford. Can you say which department she is with, and which college, so we can confirm it? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:57, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Not on a public forum like this, for reasons which will be obvious, given the sensitive nature of some of Myatt's exploits. I'll leave you a message. Coolmoon 05:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Hello. I have changed the article - back to former edits by Coolmoon et al - using material from Myatt's "official" website located at the following URL - http://website.lineone.net/~davidmyatt/abdul_aziz.html. I presume this site counts as a "primary source" in Wikipedia terms? I am sure SlimVirgin will correct me if I am mistaken here. Since Myatt himself has "officially" and recently confirmed his on-going commitment to Islam, then should not this article reflect that? Thus the changes I have made to the article. Also, the Wright site which was discussed above, has been updated as of yesterday, and now reports on the continuing Islamist stance of Myatt. 216.112.42.61 04:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I've reverted those edits because the Wikipedia article isn't an extension of Myatt's website. You're right to say that he's a primary source, and as such may be used, but must be used with caution. We're supposed to stick to credible, third party, independent sources. If none exist, that's a sign that the subject should have no Wikipedia article. There are independent sources on Myatt, including the Observer which mentioned him, and then there's Searchlight, so I'm not arguing that he shouldn't have an entry, but at the same time, we can't keep filling it up with material Myatt publishes on his personal website, or that Julie Wright, whose identity is unknown, publishes on hers. If no credible, independent third parties have updated their records on him, we can't update ours. Otherwise, we get into a situation where Myatt could publish anything at all on his website, and we'd have to repeat it. Sorry, I realize this must seem counter-intuitive, but you see the problem. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:53, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Well, now there is a problem here! I agree (mostly!) with SlimVirgin - but the fact is that now the Julie Wright site has been updated, the links in the "reverted" version no longer work! The articles on the Wright site now tally with the version of User 216.112.42.61. Where I differ with SlimVirgin is in the nature of what makes a credible source - which IMNSHO Searchlight is not one! There are indepedent and recent sources which refer to Myatt's commitment to Islam, so should not the article reflect that, rather than the now outdated edits which SlimVirgin has restored? Here are some of the independent sources which reflect Myatt's status as a Muslim - 1) http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=543 This is a report given at a recent NATO conference which mentions Myatt; 2) www.waynemadsenreport.com Special Report By Wayne Madsen and Umberto Pascal which mentions Myatt If I restore the previous edits, will SlimVirgin, I wonder, change them? Coolmoon 05:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the links, Coolmoon, I'll take a look shortly. We do say in the intro that Myatt is a Muslim. What the new edit was saying is that he's an Islamist, and further, that he's no longer a neo-Nazi. I'll take a look at the dead links tomorrow and fix them up. Thanks again for the new information. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:22, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
First link is an excellent source, thank you. With the second link, I couldn't find his name. Rather than reverting, would you mind waiting until I take a look at how best to incorporate the new source you found, and check out the dead links? SlimVirgin (talk) 05:27, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
OK, will wait - but I do think it is best to reflect Myatt's Islamist status, as he's still writing new Islamist articles such as the following - http://www.as-sahwah.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=782&sid=0375baa475f815b07c367d5a978b0c79 - and the previous edits which you changed did reflect this, giving links to his "Statement" and his pro-Taliban article, among others. Coolmoon 05:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Here is another link from a newspaper in the States - http://www.americandaily.com/article/7040 - which indicates Myatt is an Islamist. Thus, the current version of the Myatt article is incorrect on many points, particularly in respect of saying that Myatt "has abandoned Islam" when clearly he has not, and is clearly active in pushing Islamic fundamentalism. I do think this point should be made, clearly, in whatever re-write is done. Coolmoon 06:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

His Islamism

Hi SlimVirgin (and others). I've done a temp change, removing the items with dead links, and added Myatt's Islamist and "official" web-sites. Waiting on you to suggest changes/re-write the article. Coolmoon 06:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I've waited three days for SlimVirgin to get back and suggest updates - so far, nothing. So I'm going to revert to my previous edits, with the addition of the quote about Myatt from the NATO conference. But suggestions welcome! Coolmoon 04:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, Coolmoon, I've been busy. The version you put up looked pretty good. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:55, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Coolmoon, I reverted your changes because we don't have a source saying Myatt's an Islamist and not a neo-Nazi; we can't use dates like Yaumul Jumma 27 Rabi al-Awal 1426, and it's not clear what's meant by Myatt issuing a statement. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:25, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Do we have a source for this: "His work has been included on the website of the radical Palestinian group Hamas"? SlimVirgin (talk) 06:18, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • SlimVirgin - thanks for the updated version, looking good, although I've added a quote from Myatt, for balance, since it all seems to be ignoring his conversion to Islam and his claim of not being a neo-nazi anymore.Coolmoon 08:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin Rewrite

  • Great re-write, thanks. I have now added a quote regarding the "Practical Guide" to give some indication of its contents which reveal how controversial it was, and is. The quote is from Micheal Whine, of the British Board of Deputies of British Jews, and is contained in "Studies in Conflict and Terrorism", published by the RAND corporation. Coolmoon 05:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Coolmoon. I appreciate the feedback. I'm going to remove that his work has been published by Hamas, as there's no source. Another thing we need a source for is that he founded Reichsfolk, and that they're a real organization. Thank you for adding the material from Michael Whine. I moved it out of the intro (intros are normally a maximum of four paragraphs) and into the body of the article, and did a few other bits of tidying. The aim now is to go through the piece and make sure everything is sourced as well as possible. A date of birth would be good, as well as confirmation that he was born in Africa, went to university, which one, subject studied, year started and stopped. Also, he talks of convictions on his website, but I haven't seen any details (when, what for etc). SlimVirgin (talk) 01:07, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
I've removed Hamas, added a few more details from independent sources, and have removed the following because they're not sourced, though I'll put them back if I find credible sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:14, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Following his conversion to Islam in 1998, Myatt was active in trying to bring National Socialists and Islamists together to fight what he regarded as their "common enemy," which he has called the "Zionist-Crusader alliance," a term used by Osama bin Laden.

As well as founding the National Socialist Movement, Myatt also founded and leads the neo-Nazi Reichsfolk organization, which advocates a new racialist philosophy Myatt calls "The Numinous Way of Folk Culture." The neo-Nazi Aryan Nations organization has promoted Myatt's National Socialist and Islamist writings.

Credible sources

Coolmoon, we can't keep using Myatt's personal website as a source. From now on, we have to rely on third party sources, and run with them even if you think what they're saying isn't entirely correct. See Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability (which are policy), as well as Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Cite sources (guidelines). The criterion for entry into Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, as counter-intuitive as that sounds. For example, the Myatt response to the newspaper article was only a response if the newspaper published it. His putting it on his personal website means we have no way of knowing when he wrote it, and so we're in danger of getting into a situation where he might place something on his website in order for Wikipedia to publish it, and that's something we have to avoid, not just for him, but for anyone, because we're not a news agency. We publish only what has already been published by credible sources. We may take material from websites when writing about the subject, but we have to exercise caution when doing it, and not rely on them exclusively if they're controversial. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:25, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Hi, SlimVirgin. I have added the statement by Myatt to balance all the quotes from the Searchlight organization, as they are the ones who have consistently pushed the "satanist" allegation for decades without ever having published any evidence. This lack of evidence is important - Searchlight makes allegations against Myatt without providing any evidence, and it has been claimed that Searchlight is not reliable and may even be used by MI5 to spread dis-information. Without the counter-balance of Myatt's statement, I do think the tone of the article is unfair and biased toward Searchlight's view of Myatt. Plus, the newspaper articles you refer to always quote Searchlight and repeat the allegations, again without proof. I do not think that gutter-press news articles that make unsubstantiated allegations qualify as reliable independent sources. If the Statement by Myatt is not added then the Wkipedia article just becomes an extension of Searchlight.
Hamas. Their site has been down for a few months now. If you check above, you will find the Hamas link to Myatt's article - it was there last time their site was online.
Okay, I'll check later whether it's back up, and if it is, I'll re-add it. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:01, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Reichsfolk. Myatt's founding of Reichsfolk is documented in the folowing books. 1) Encyclopedia of White Power; 2) Black Sun; and in the article by Kaplan in "Religiosity and the Radical Right". Therefore I suggest putting this back - I will add it later.
We'll have to verify that it's in there first, and what it says exactly. There's no indication from the Reichsfolk website (that I could find) that he had anything to do with with founding it. It seems to be run by Aryan Nations, an American group. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:01, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Aryan Nations. There is a whole section of the Aryan Nations website devoted to Myatt's Islamist articles. See also http://www.americandaily.com/article/7040 Therefore I suggest this is also put back - maybe you could do this is you agree? Coolmoon 05:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
The American Daily looks interesting. I'll look at it later. Thank you. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:01, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy

Well, if the criteria on Wikipedia in relation to individuals is "we have to rely on third party sources, and run with them even if you think what they're saying isn't entirely correct" then Wikipedia becomes less valuable in my view.

I know it sounds odd, but it's because we are a so-called tertiary source, which basically means we publish only what has already been published by credible sources. See Wikipedia:No original research. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:01, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

You are also stating that "third party sources" cannot be websites, are you not?

No, we can use websites as sources, but they must be credible/reputable/authoritative. They can't be personal websites, blogs, message boards, or anything from Usenet, in part because we have no way of verifying who is posting. For example, we don't know that the wesite purporting to be David Myatt's really is his. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:01, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

That they must be books and/or newspaper articles even if the newspaper articles make allegations without offering any proof. So, it is fine to quote such an article and repeat the allegations, without allowing the person who is the subject of such allegations to reply in the only way they can now reply, to wit, via the Internet?

Yes, those are the rules we follow. If Myatt wanted his rebuttal published by Wikipedia, he would have to arrange for it to be published somewhere else first, then we could pick it up. There's an example of this at WP:NOR#Verifiability.2C_not_truth. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:01, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

This surely is negating the free-speech which the Net has begun to make available, and to reinforce the power of the Media.

We're not here to further or suppress free speech, just to write an encyclopedia, the contents of which must be verifiable with reference to credible sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:01, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Why not allow the quote from Myatt on a public Islamic forum? This is not "his personal website". This is dated as well. Coolmoon 05:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Because we have no idea whether he actually wrote it. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:01, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Yes we do - I can supply proof that Myatt is indeed the author of that posting.
It must be proof that is available to all the editors and readers. We don't use personal websites as sole sources, especially when the subject is controversial.
I have just deleted, in the interests of fairness, the personal comment of Gerry Gable regarding Myatt. Just because it has been printed in a newspaper does not make it reliable or true ...
It does. It makes it reliable for Wikipedia. We have to follow our policies. Please do read them, particularly Wikipedia:No original research and perhaps also try Wikipedia:Reliable sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:55, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
...and I repeat that if you place that opinion in the article without giving Myatt's reply then it is unfair.
We must edit in accordance with WP policies. There is a lot in this article that is sourced only to Myatt, so he's had his say. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:55, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
In addition, the balance of the article - since it uses so many anti-Myatt quotes from Searchlight - has in my view breached the NPOV guidelines. I refer you to the section "The Machinations of Journalists" in Julie Wrights "Biog" at http://www.geocities.com/davidmyatt/biog.html for Myatt's response.
But we don't know who he or she is either, and again, it's a personal website. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:55, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
Read this section of Wikipedia:Reliable sources: WP:RS#Using_online_sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:00, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Here's an extract from WP:RS. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:06, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources. This is because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them.

A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source i.e. when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website. But even then we should proceed with great caution and should avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source. This is particularly true when the subject is controversial, or has no professional or academic standing.

Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources. That is, they may never be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website.

The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. It is impossible to know which is the case. Visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post, and should be treated accordingly.

  • I have read the above, several times - and it seems to me that you can use the reply from Myatt according to these guidelines because you have inserted a personal comment about Myatt from someone else. In fact, the comment by Gable is merely Gable's opinion - there is no evidence to back any of it up - and moreover it is a very pejorative comment, is it not? The article is about Myatt - the reply is from Myatt; the comment by Gable is about Myatt. Therefore, a comment from Myatt's own website is, I believe, applicable, especially given the perjorative nature of Gable's comment, and the use of other Gable/Searchlight quotes in the Myatt article which, as I stated, gives a rather non-NPOV. The best course might well be to not have the Gable comment - for it does as I keep repeating tip the balance of the article far in excess of what is fair. In addition, if you know - from the author of the post on an Internet forum - that he/she has posted an item, then cannot such a post be used? Coolmoon 07:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
One proof that the item on the Islamic forum is from Myatt. The item, word for word, is on Myatt's own website - as are other items posted there. You could also e-mail Myatt - his address is on his website. Coolmoon 07:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Gerry Gable is someone who is regarded as a credible source for Wikipedia, and he was quoted in a credible newspaper; therefore, what he says is useable as an opinion. The British National Party spokesman said the same thing of Myatt, by the way. Please do read Wikipedia:No original research. We don't do our own research, e-mail people, check that they exist etc. We publish what other credible sources have published in credible publications (not personal websites), right or wrong, true or false. And we never use posts from Internet forums as sources, no matter who they purport to be from, because our readers have to be able to verify our sources, not just us. The policy is clear on this issue. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:37, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
Well, I disagree. What makes a credible source? Is every item in every newspaper therefore a credible source - even if the article just repeats or makes up rumours and allegations without giving any source or providing any evidence? I respectfully suggest that Wikipedia look at this issue again - or else, as in this Myatt article, you will merely reproduce pejorative comments and/or rumours about someone, which become widely spread on the Internet, without giving the person, or anyone, a chance to counter these. This is most certainly unfair - and seems to contradict the NPOV which wikipedia strives for. As I wrote, the current approach gives just re-inforces the power of the Mass Media, and ignores the freedom, and often the fair comment, that the Internet makes possible. Coolmoon 09:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
By all means, try to have our policies changed, but in the meantime, we have to abide by them, and yes, it means that everything published in a mainstream newspaper may be reproduced in Wikipedia. The newspaper you're referring to did give a source (Gerry Gable) for the claim that Myatt is a self-publicist, and put the claim in quotation marks, but even if they had given no source, we could still have used it (whether true or false). We don't do our own research. We publish what other credible (mainstream) publishers are prepared to publish. It is the essence of NPOV that we publish only majority and significant-minority opinion, but not tiny-minority opinion. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, particularly this section WP:NPOV#Undue_Weight: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia ... regardless of whether you can prove it or not." (Jimbo Wales) SlimVirgin (talk) 09:57, August 18, 2005 (UTC)


SlimVirgin. Thank you for taking the time to reply in detail, and answer my questions. How does one go about trying to change Wikipedia policies? Furthermore, NPOV as used by Wikipedia is then a misnomer because it is not neutral, but rather based upon what is often printed in the mainstream Media, and represents an opinion held by those who write for newspapers and the mainstream Media, even if such opinion is wrong and contrary to the truth. On the matter of Myatt - you have given reference to the BBC Interview, but the broadcast interview did not contain remarks made by Myatt in relation to his Islam and other matters. Such remarks by Myatt were cut-out. Thus what was broadcast did not give a balanced view - just as the newspaper whose report you quote, and where the Gable quote was printed, did not print the reply Myatt sent them, by post and e-mail, and which reply he posted on his website on several Islamic forums. My view is that the Internet can be a powerful tool to re-dress the balance of the mainstream Media and I had assumed in my naive way that Wikipedia would in some ways aid this balance. But it seems I am mistaken.Coolmoon 12:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy is about fairly presenting properly sourced and significant points of view. It's about as neutral as one can get in reality. Policies are changed by getting consensus from the Wikipedia community that there is a need to have policy changed; you might start on the Talk: pages of the policies in question. And if someone is quoted in a mainstream newspaper, then they can certainly be quoted on Wikipedia as well. Certain other sources, however, are not credible - anyone can put up a website or a blog, or make a post under a pseudonym on a discussion board, but that does not mean they are credible, verifiable, or encyclopedic. Jayjg (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

More about credible sources

Coolmoon has a point, though, at least in reference to the article on Myatt. The inclusion of so many quotes from one person, which represents the opinion of that person, tips the balance of the article towards the opinion of that person. That the opinion of this person (Gerry Gable) has been printed in newspapers does not alter the truth that what was reported was just his opinion. To not allow any contrary opinion is unfair. Certainly, to not allow Myatt's response is unfair. Myatt's response has not been printed in a newspaper because they refused to print it. Surely, Myatt's response is a significant point of view in realtion to Myatt himself? You are giving too much credence to the mainstream Press, I feel. I might fairly ask - "what makes Gable a reliable source"? The answer here appears to be - "because he has been quoted in the mainstream Press". Does anyone else notice the problem here? 67.159.26.65 03:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
We have to edit in accordance with our policies. See above for where to find them. We can't reproduce a reply that didn't get published. If the reply that he sent wasn't published anywhere, then he didn't reply for our purposes. His personal website doesn't count, and has been used often enough. Also, where are the "many quotes from one person" you talked about? I can see one from Gable. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:14, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
My point has been proved, I think - the article is now reproducing someone's opinion about Myatt just because that opinion has been published in some newspaper. No contrary opinion - wich contradicts what are assumptions made by Gable and others about Myatt - is allowed in the Wikipedia article because no contrary opinion has been published in some newspaper. So, let us forget about the Internet, then, and leave the article as it is - biased against Myatt, and certainly not giving a NPOV. You won't allow a NPOV in this case because of the limitations imposed on "reliable" and "sources" - which seem to be defined so that Wikipedia is nothing more than an extension, on the Internet, of the established Media. BTW, the "many quotes" relate, I think to your extensive use of "Searchlight" - edited and mostly written by Gable - and the perjorative Sunday Mercury article you mention and link to which uses at it whole, its only, source, Mr Gable. The author of that journalistic hatchet-job on Myatt never even bothered to contact Myatt to ask for Myatt's opinion. So, no fairness here then. SlimVirgin, you sum everything up when you write "If the reply that he sent wasn't published anywhere, then he didn't reply for our purposes." Now - is not an article on a web-site being "published"? No, it seems not, according to Wikipedia. How bad is that? Coolmoon 12:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Not particularly bad. Newspapers have editorial policies, codes, standards. They must answer to someone, whether it is readers, advertisers, industry organizations, or the government. This is what gives them at least a degree of reliablity. On the other hand, anyone can put up a website that says anything at all, and millions do. In any event, you are now debating Wikipedia policy, which is not the purpose of this Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I for one would like to request an arbitration about this article, which as it stands and given the reversions of SlimVirgin, strikes me as unfair and certainly does give NPOV regarding Myatt. 67.159.26.65 12:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Coolmoon, Wikipedia can't aid the balance you talk about earlier. We're here only to write an encyclopedia that (hopefully) will develop a reputation for being reliable. That means we use published sources that have a degree of editorial oversight, and we cite them so our readers can check that we've correctly reported what the sources say. That's all we do. If we were to allow personal websites or bulletin boards as sources, anyone could say whatever they wanted about themselves, and we'd have to report it, which would turn us into Usenet overnight. By placing the restrictions on ourselves that I've described, we maintain certain editorial standards, even if they do seem counter-intuitive at times.

I agree that the BBC ought to have broadcast Myatt's response (though they might argue that if they asked him about Copeland and he replied about Islam, he had wandered off-topic), and that the Sunday Mercury ought to have printed his rebuttal, at least in the form of a letter. But if it's led to unfairness againt Myatt, it's not up to Wikipedia to correct that by seeking out unconventional sources with no editorial oversight.

As for changing Wikipedia policy, you can go to the talk pages of the policies, which would be Wikipedia talk:No original research and Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. There's very little chance of getting them changed substantially, as the weight of opinion (including the founder's) is solidly behind them, but you may be able to introduce small re-interpretations.

To the anon IP, I don't know whether you're also Coolmoon, but arbitration isn't appropriate for a content dispute, especially not at this stage. However, we can file what's called an article RfC (request for comment), which invites other editors to take a look. I'll do that today if you like. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:43, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Coolmoon, I see you've filed an RfAr, so it's probably not appropriate for me to put up an article RfC until that's dealt with. One other thing: as you seem to know Myatt extremely well, do you know where we can find third-party sources that talk about his criminal convictions? I see Myatt mentions them on his website but we can't use that as a source, and he gives no details. We also need an independent source for his early life: that he was born in Africa, went to school and university in Britain etc. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:15, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe I was being a bit hasty, there, and on reflection unless I or someone else changes Wikipedia's policies, then I believe you are right, much as I disagree with the result in this instance! Therefore, please remove the RfAr, or if you can't them tell me how to do so. My apologies :) Oh, and BTW, the anon IP is not me. Coolmoon 07:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


Myatt's youth and schooling are reported in Goodrick-Clarke's Black Sun and Kaplan's Encyclopedia of White Power. �Morning star 19:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Morning star. If you have copies, do they have any more details than we do, and can you tell whether Myatt is the source? It would be good to know, for example, which university he attended and when. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:01, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Pseudonyms

Does anyone know whether Myatt has also called himself Anton Long, Algar Langton, Stephen Brown, and Christos Beest? Also, I found an extract from Black Sun describing his early life, see below, and wondered whether Morning star could say whether it's a true copy of what it's in the book. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:46, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

The chief representative of Nazi satanism in Britain is David William Myatt, whose thought has been a major influence on this international cult.

Born in 1952, Myatt was brought up in East Africa and Singapore, where he was fascinated with spirit-dancing and martial arts.

In 1967 Myatt came to England to complete his secondary education, while his father returned to Africa.

The young Myatt made contact with a coven in Fenland the following summer and later joined secret groups in London practicing the magic of the Golden Dawn and Aleister Crowley. Around this time the activities of Anton LaVey and the Church of Satan became widely known. Yet Myatt remained unimpressed by what he saw of ritual magic and occultism. He sought something altogether more exciting, dangerous and truly evil. At the same time he began to think of satanism as a means to create an new fearless individual, a higher human type in a Nietzschean sense (Anton Long [i.e. David Myatt], Diablerie: Revelations of a Satanist.(Shrewsbury, U.K.: Thormynd Press, 1991)" Pages 216-217, Black Sun: Chapter "Nazi satanism and the new Aeon", Goodrick-Clarke, 2002

Yes. Word for word. It goes on to say: —Morning star 01:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

In 1969 Myatt first encountered the British Movement (BM) started by Colin Jordan the previous year. While on his way to a magical temple, Myatt chanced upon a street fracas following a skinhead rally. Ever in search of adventure and tests of nerve, Myatt felt instinctively drawn by the comradeship of these young fighters engaged in a struggle against superior numbers of left-wing protesters. He joined the movement and regularly attended BM rallies and meetings, acting on occasion as Colin Jordan's bodyguard. Myatt was impressed by Jordan's writings on National Socialism and was also introduced by Jordan to the writings of Savitri Devi, whose book The Lightning and the Sun, enthralled him with its eulogy of Nazi values (David Myatt, Cosmic Reich: The Life and Thoughts of David Myatt (Paraparaumu Beach, New Zealand, Renaissance Press, 1995). In his own mind, Nazism and satanism where both representative of Nietzschean self-overcoming and a creation of bold, fearsome warrior type: "To me, at that time, Adolf Hitler and his movement seemed to embody some of the ideals I believed magick should achieve - they seemed to represent a Satanic spirit, an urge to conquer, discover and extend.... a zestful, life-enhancing character, a dynamism and charisma" (Long, Diablere)"

After completing his school education in 1970, Myatt studied for a physics degree at Hull University and later moved to Leeds, where he continued support the BM. In January 1974 he came to prominence on the far-right scene here when he formed his own radical group, the National Democratic Freedom Movement (NDFM), with his followers Joe Short and Eddie Morrison. Starting in October that year, the NDFM briefly published a monthly bulletin, British News, under the subtitles "For Race and Nation" and "The Newspaper of White Power." Its propaganda was crudely racist and anti-Semitic, and NDFM members were involved in a series of violent attacks on colored people and left-wingers. ("David Myatt and the Occult-Fascist Axis," Searchlight, No. 241 [July 1995], pp. 6-7) During this time, Myatt wrote propaganda, organized meetings and rallies, and regularly spoke in public, once even taking his message to Hyde Park Corner. Myatt was twice arrested in political street fights and convicted for public-order offenses, receiving six-month prison sentences on both occasions. (Long, Diablere)

Myatt's activity on the far-right political fringe proceeded in tandem with his deepening involvement with the black arts. In 1973 he met a woman who led the ONA, a small satanist-wicca group whose tradition and practices greatly excited his interest. The ONA claimed descent from a cult surrounding a dark violent goddess who prevailed in Albion (England) as early as 4000 B.C. As a pagan nature-religion, its rites were related to the flow and ebb of cosmic energies, the rising of certain stars in the spring and autumn, and ceremonies were performed at henges and stone circles. From these supposed neolithic origins, the cult had declined with the advent of Christianity into a clandestine folk way practiced and handed down by a handful of individuals since the medieval times, especially on the Welsh Marches, the place of its supposed prehistoric origin. The modern history of the ONA began in the 1960's when this woman united three obscure neopagan temples called Camlad, The Noctulians and The Temple of The Sun as a new order ("An interview with Christos Beest," The Heretic, No. 8 [April 1994], pp. 11-18)"

Following the cult leader's emigration to Australia, Myatt took over the order and threw himself into the task of codifying and extending its teachings into a fully developed system of initiation and training for adeptship. His early ONA rituals employed a satanic mass that invoked Adolf Hitler as a noble savior as a form of "positive blasphemy". (ONA, "Satanism, Blasphemy and the Black Mass" [1974], reprinted in The Heretic, No. 9 [July 1994], pp. 25-27.)

Jeffrey Kaplan, in his essay "Religiosity and the Radical Right: Toward the Creation of a New Ethnic Identity" (in Nation and Race), states that the ONA "does appear to have been founded by Anton Long. Stephen Brown (a.k.a. Christos Beest) appears to have joined some time later..." and "Written interviews with both Myatt and Beest make clear that they are not the same person." He footnotes this with the following: —Morning star 01:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Myatt frankly states that his own long history of interaction with England's occult underground was undertaken in a clandestine effort to influence some of these adherents to adopt National Socialist beliefs. Letter from David Myatt to a Mr. Williams dated July 1994. In a recent letter, Myatt clarifies this with the important detail that his relationship with the ONA is based as well on personal friendship and an agreement to disagree on many things. Letter to author from David Myatt, 22 June 1996

Many thanks, Morning star, this is really helpful. I'll try to beef up the bio section with some of this next week. So the author does think Myatt is Anton Long, is that right, but not the others? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:08, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
That's what I thought, but looking it over, I see that Kaplan seems sure that Long is a distinct person from Beest (who he thinks is Brown), but also that Myatt is distinct from both. Goodrick-Clarke seems to think that Long and Brown are pseudonyms of Myatt's, but that Beest is a separate person. Let me know if you want any specific citations on any of this. —Morning star 11:28, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Myatt's Criminal Convictions

Hi, SlimVirgin. You will have seem my comment above asking for the RfAr to be removed. Also sent you a message re this. As for Myatt's convictions, they are mentioned in several Searchlight articles, especially the April 1998 one (headline - "David Myatt: The Most Evil Nazi in Britain") and also in the July 2000 issue which was mostly devoted to Copeland, headline for Myatt stuff was "Theoretician of Terror". Myatt served two terms of imprisonment for political violence. BTW, these articles also mention Myatt was a monk - as does the Nick Ryan book, "Homeland". Coolmoon 07:29, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


Reichsfolk

Can we put back the mention of Myatt founding and leading Reichsfolk? This is referenced in several published sources, as I mentioned above, including Encyclopedia of White Power where Reichsfolk has its own entry. Coolmoon 06:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Coolmoon, sorry, I've been a bit tied up lately and haven't looked here for a few days. Sure, if you've seen this in a credible publication, by all means put it in, so long as you feel confident about it. If it's not online, perhaps you could add the reference to the references section, and perhaps also add it in brackets after the sentence, known as Harvard Referencing like so (Smith 2005, p. 7) or if it's an encyclopedia, it would be (Smith (ed.) 2005, p. 7). Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 08:59, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

"Deleted Material"

Perhaps I should have proposed my changes here first, but... I actually did not delete anything, but rather: rearranged some material. I didn't think the crimes and punishments of NSM members, or the description by the Board of Deputies of British Jews were so especially relevant to Myatt that they needed to be in the lead. At that place in the article they seemed distracting, at best; designed to incite bias, at worst.

I moved the info on what Myatt wrote to Griffin from the section on Satanism (only relevant due to Gable opinion on Myatt's "overriding inspiration") to a new section on Islam, Myatt's relationship to which I think is underdeveloped in the article.

Any objection to the inclusion of information on Reichsfolk, his childhood, or Anton Long? —Morning star 00:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the material you moved from the intro needs to stay there, because it gives a good description of Myatt and the NSM, and the Board of Deputies is a reputable source. I'm opposed to including any more material from Myatt, because there's already too much of it in the article. If a newspaper writes about his views on Islam, then we can use the newspaper as a source, but as things stand, we have no source other than what appears to be his personal website, and no reason to believe that his views on Islam are notable. It's not because of Islam that Myatt is known. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


I support the latest revision that SlimVirgin has done, and agree regarding no more quotes from Myatt, provided we leave in the one published quote from Myatt re the Searchlight allegations which I added the other day, which quote I do believe is necessary for NPOV since so much of the article seems to derive from the Searchlight magazine. Coolmoon 12:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


I don't dispute the relevance of the statements about the NSM being in the article, it just seems inaccurate as a description of Myatt at the present time (given his statements about "acting with tolerance and fairness toward other human beings, accepting and respecting all the other life-forms with which we share this planet" [8]; and the renunciation of his preaching of intolerance and the times when he "went around with such petty and irrational attitudes" [9]). I also wonder about the relevance of the Copeland carnage in the lead, given Myatt's denouncement of "All bombs [as] terrible and barbaric." That he was connected to the bombings by the media and authorities is surely significant, but so is his defense: "Neither myself nor anyone else connected to the NSM can be held responsible for these bombs in any way." [10] (As a side note, Myatt refers to the National-Socialist Movement as "now disbanded")
The info in publication about Myatt and Islam is scant, of limited insight, and mostly inaccurate. I don't argue that Myatt's views of Islam are notable enough be added to the Islam article, but I can imagine many muslims who know of Myatt because of his Islamic writings. To leave the article as is would be confusing to most people who would assume that converting to Islam means that he had left his National-Socialism behind. As the article stands, I imagine many people left wondering: "Is he a nazi? A muslim? Both? Or neither?"
I'm not sure why one would say there is too much Myatt material in the article. As long as it is balanced with outer views, it seems reasonable to summarize, with neutral language, what Myatt has said. Why not build up a great body of verifiable information? —Morning star 18:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Wyatt has said he supports suicide bombing, which doesn't fit well with his view that "[a]ll bombs [are] terrible and barbaric." The thing about taking information from him is that none of it is verifiable. He could add anything at all to his website. Personal websites are allowed to be used when writing about the website owner, but with caution, and we don't have many independent sources to counter-balance material with. We have to go with the third-party published sources in the end. See WP:NOR. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
As I have come to understand, SlimVirgin is adhering to the guidelines for Wikipedia regarding what material can or cannot be inserted into an article. As I have pointed out (somewhere above) this may lead to a rather biased view of the individual who is the subject of the article, but unless and until the guidelines are changed, that is the way it is. This means the source material that can be used is primarily that which has appeared in print elsewhere and can thus be verified. This is somewhat unfortunate, given the nature of the Internet, but... On the question of sources, Myatt is quoted at length in a new book to be published, in the USA, in March 2006 entitled The Enemy of my Enemy: The Alarming Convergence of Militant Islam and the Extreme Right and written by a Professor at an American University. Quotes from this book may helpfully redress the balance somewhat. Coolmoon 06:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the new book info, Coolmoon! —Morning star 16:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I guess what I meant by verifiable is that (via websites), it is possible to make "descriptive claims that are easily verifiable by any reasonable adult" about what Myatt has said (primary sources) without "mak[ing any] analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims" (relying on "third-party published sources" for that). —Morning star 16:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • If I may add my two cents here. I think Morning Star has a point, and the truth of the matter as I understand it is that Myatt's views have changed over the past five years. This change is expressed in the items on his personal website, and I quote from his personal Statement - "Those who are seriously interested in my life, and my views and conclusions about life, should read my letters, my poetry, and my most recent writings concerning Cosmic Ethics and The Numinous Way, for there has been, for me, a learning from adversity and experience." 67.159.26.71 06:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the book information, Coolmoon. It could be helpful not only for Myatt, but for lots of other articles on WP too. Morning Star, you quote the NOR policy. What's meant by "descriptive claims that are easily verifiable by any reasonable adult" would be "the sun rose in the east this morning," and not "David Myatt rejected neo-Nazism but remains committed to the idea of the Volk." It's not so much that, in quoting from his websites, we'd be making interpretive or evaluative claims, but that it's not clear that his views on Islam are notable enough. If we added to his website that he has half a grapefruit for breakfast every day, would we add that too? We have to decide why Myatt is notable enough for a Wikipedia page, and then stick to that area of interest, with a bit about his background to make it three dimensional, but we can't get into every thought he's ever had, otherwise it starts to look like fancruft, or something he'd have written himself even, and not an encyclopedia entry. The NOR policy kicks in because there are no third-party sources to back up what he's saying, and although we're allowed to use Myatt's website as a source because this is his page, we have to do so with caution, and try to find third-party sources wherever possible. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
67, are you saying his views have changed again from Islamism to something else? SlimVirgin (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
The following is from the Myatt entry of the Encyclopedia of White Power (pp.217-8):

Then, in 1999, Myatt abandoned the movement. Following a front-page exposé on Reichsfolk and the ONA that appeared in Searchlight, which declared Myatt to be "the most dangerous Nazi in Britain," both David Myatt and Christos Beest announced that they were going underground.

Shortly thereafter, rumors began to surface in the movement to the effect that Myatt had converted to Islam. This may seem anomalous, but in the milieu of the radical right, it is not surprising, really. Myatt, as noted, is a true religious seeker who has sampled Buddhist and Christian monastic paths. Moreover, whenever the personality types that are drawn to the radical right wing decide to take their leave and try to return to mainstream society, they often require a text, a dogma, and a more or less absolutist set of truth claims to replace the beliefs that had bound them to the movement. In the United States, born-again Christianity has been one faith community that welcomes such seekers while absolving them of their past and offering the benefits of a supportive community of fellow-seekers. Conversely, in Europe, where highly formalistic state churches are the norm, a communitarian religion such as Islam can reasonably be expected to serve much the same role as the born-again faith. And thus, as with the amalgamation of Satanism and National Socialism, David Myatt may be once again just a bit ahead of his time.

This book was published in 2000, so Kaplan didn't have a chance to evaluate what Myatt's conversion was 'all about'. I post it here to establish that Myatt's conversion has been notable enough to appear in an academic third-party source. —Morning star 18:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
The book is also a good example of the bias that is introduced when only such published sources are used - the author ignores Myatt's own comments about the reasons behind his various quests, and I quote one example - "For nearly forty years I have been on a Promethean-like quest to answer such questions as "What is the meaning of life?" In the course of this quest I have studied, and acquired practical experience of, many religions and ways of life, including Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, paganism, Hinduism and Christianity...." 67.159.26.71 06:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • SlimVirgin - in answer to your question, yes, it is quite clear that Myatt has gone beyond Islam. This is clear from his private letters (some of which are on his website; many on Julie Wright's site); from his articles written in the past three or more years (on his website); and from his recent poetry. He still admits to supporting National Socialism - or, to be pedantic, his own version of National-Socialism [11] and I quote -

"Would you therefore describe yourself as a National-Socialist?

Yes - but not a "conventional" National Socialist, an adherent of the type of old National Socialism that depends upon the State and the concept of a large, centralized Nation, for I have gone beyond this old National-Socialism - beyond even that of my own earlier evolutionary National-Socialism which still depended on the concepts of The State and The Nation - to the essence manifest in The Numinous Way."

It's just such a shame that the Wikipedia article as it stands now is so much based on the information, and unproven allegations, supplied by a magazine such as Searchlight which has its own political agenda, and by journalists and others who repeat such information and such allegations without either providing any proof for them, or giving Myatt's own reply. 67.159.26.71 06:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Narrative flow

The article, as it stands, lacks a good chronologically-based narrative. I appreciate the difficulty of establishing the facts regarding Myatt, but it seems that (with a bit of "source-based research") it would be possible to establish, for example: "During this period of time Myatt advocated X. In the following year he began to champion Y." —Morning star 16:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Moring Star - liked you addition giving details of Myatt's conversion to Islam. It does add something hitherto lacking to the Myatt article, improving the narrative. Coolmoon 06:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Removed the last part of Morning Star's addition because it is a quote from "a personal website". See the detailed discussion above relating to credible sources. While I'm in favor personally of keeping the quote, we have to abide by the rules of Wikipedia here. I'm sure SlimVirgin (and others) will correct me if I'm mistaken. 67.159.26.65 13:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Coolmoon - it's clear that the new site at www.dwmyatt.info (of which there is a mirrow at http://david.myatt.tripod.com) is Myatt's personal site, and that the lineone site is out of date, containing Myatt's now somewhat old Islamic/Islamist writings (old as in one or two years out of date). Up until you changed the URL, for some time the link given in the Wikipedia article for Myatt personal site (lineone) was to a javascript redirect (abdul_aziz.html) to the Myatt info site. The URL I'm talking about is http://website.lineone.net/~davidmyatt/abdul_aziz.html 67.159.26.65 06:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


Myatt Islamist

    • Slim Virgin - you restored the previous edit, making Myatt a neo-nazi when it does seem quite clear that he has renounced his nazi views. See in connection with this not only the link I posted above (not Myatt's own site) the following link http://www.thesavedsect.com/articles/Biographies/AbdulAzizibnMyatt.htm which is also not Myatt's personal site. Or are we going to have another discussion that because his opponents have not seen fit to admit in their printed material that he's a former neo-nazi, we can't use info from the Internet, even if that info seems to be more accurate and less biased? Hence, I'm reverting to my former edit. Coolmoon 10:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
We've discussed before that we can't keep on using his personal websites as sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Slim Virgin - they are not his personal websites! That was my point. The items are on several other Islamic sites, one of which is among the most highly respected Muslim sites on the Web, to wit IslamOnLine. Coolmoon 04:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Giving Myatt's Reply Restores NPOV

I have reverted to my edit, since it is my belief that giving Myatt's reply to libelous unproven allegations restores NPOV. I have given two sources - one from Myatt's own website, which, according to my reading of Wikipedia guidelines, is quite acceptable in an article about a living person.

My view is that the comments of Mr Gable - quoted several times in the Wikipedia article about Myatt - give a biased view, particularly as they represent his personal view regarding Myatt, given that Mr Gable provides no proof for any of the allegations he makes about Myatt, and given that Mr Gable is heavily involved in a political organization which actively opposes the political views that Myatt has espoused. 65.57.106.15 08:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


Link to Wikipedia Satanism article

I have amended the internal link, in the Myatt article, to the main Wikipedia article on Satanism, as that Satanism article - unjustifiably it seems to me - deals only with one type of modern Satanism (relating to Anton La Vey) which type of Satanism is totally different from the type that Myatt is alleged, by Searchlight magazine and others, to have been involved with. Therefore, I have made the link point to the ONA. Coolmoon 11:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Greek translations

His "translations" are published on dubious geocities sites, amazon has no entry on his alleged works, copyright issues are dealt with by claims of email notification. There's no proof the he even speaks greek, he could've paraphrased prior translations. There's no peer review, no print publication, no authoritative info on his work's factuality or its quality. Mentioning his translations relies merely on him claiming authorship using some pseudonym. This should be deleted until proven true. --tickle me 13:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

re: SlimVirgin's revert
There's nothing wrong using footnotes: "Footnotes are an excellent way to cite sources...", but you're an admin owning the article, have your way. However, what's the point in restoring broken links like:

"...still supports neo-Nazi groups and contributes to their websites. This letter is probably some kind of bluff in their favour." [12]"

Besides you wholesale revert deleted my changes on the dubious translation claims. Why don't you at least add {{Fact}} to it? --tickle me 03:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Incorrect - copies of his Greek translations are in the British Library, as they were first published in written form. This has been discussed before, here. Check out their ISBN. 65.57.106.34 04:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Re what tickle wrote - you are making various allegations about Myatt here; presenting your opinion. The article is not the place for this. Furthermore, as re the Anon edit above, Myatt's Greek translations have been published, and copies are indeed in the British Library. They have been out of print for some years, which is why you cannot find them by doing a Web search on the Amazon site. Coolmoon 04:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Please quote and reply, wedging replies into my post is vandalism. The ISBN doesn't return anything that would prove David Myatt's authorship. There's a book called "The 'Agamemnon' of Aeschylus : a radical interpretation, translation and commentary", the author is one "D W Myatt" and yes, it has been published. So what? There's no proven connection between that nym and Myatt except silly port5.com and geocities.com websites without whois confirmation on his ownership. Even if that was confirmed he could have self published the books. All we have in this regard is his word via unconfirmed means.

  • "were used for several years by various Colleges in the US..."
  • "copies of his Greek translations are in the British Library"

There's no evidence presented at all. What's going on here? SlimVirgin, would you bother replying? --tickle me 05:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not following what you're saying, Tickle. First, I reverted your ref addition because this page uses embedded links and it looks a bit odd to have just one footnote. Regarding the books, they're available on Amazon. Are you saying you doubt that is really him? SlimVirgin (talk) 06:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
In response to Mr/Miss/Ms Tickle-Me. Myatt's full name is David Wulstan Myatt - hence DW Myatt. DW Myatt is David Myatt - and has published works under both David Myatt and DW Myatt, for example his poetry (for which refer to Ms Julie Wright's Myatt site, for example). Furthermore, since his conversion to Islam, Myatt has written and published articles using both the names Abdul Aziz and Abdul-Aziz Ibn Myatt. You are just stating your opinion that the DW Myatt of Greek translation and poetry fame, is not David Myatt, former neo-nazi and Islamist, even though if you go to the British Library and check the published Greek texts, you will find the name "David Myatt" on them. You seem to have some aversion to Myatt, of the Searchlight kind, methinks, and so insist of trying to rubbish the man - possibly because you disagree with his political or religious views, or both. May I suggest you write your opinions about Myatt elsewhere and observe Wiki NPOV? Coolmoon 10:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • If I may add my 2 cents here. Myatt's Greek translations - those of DW Myatt - have been, and are being, used by the following Colleges and academics, among others. Prof. Dusan Pajin; Professor Michael Lienesch; Sogang Uni, Korea; University of Reading; Rio Hondo College; Suffolk University (USA). Also, Myatt's translations of Sappho are highly regarded by some gay women. Cloudnajafi 10:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin: "they're available on Amazon". I can't verify this, a search turns up all kinds of Myatts: amazon search=Myatt - but no David Wulstan Myatt or related permuations/variations. So far there's only one ISBN that returns only *one* result for the author: worldcatlibraries.org. "Thormynd", the publisher given, which is likely "Thormynd Press" to be found by googling, seemingly hasn't even a website of his own, which needn't cost a dollar per month. A google search returns 248 results, from which only 92 are genuine, the rest are duplicates. From these 92 most are wikiclones, angelfire sites or the like. No address is given, except for a PO BOX in Shropshire, sometimes detailed to Shrewsbury, a Shropshire town - which happens to be in the Midlands, where Myatt is supposed to live. This makes it more than likely that he self published the book. All we have in this regard is his word via unconfirmed means and some wikipedians who don't bother to make their claims verifiable according to WP:V. There's no indication *at all* that he knows greek and that he did the translations. I fail to see why wikipedia should publish his boastings as long as they are not confirmed. --tickle me 16:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Tickle, here are Myatt's publications on Amazon. It doesn't matter if they're self-published (and I don't know whether they are) because we're not using them as sources or listing them anywhere other than in his own article. See WP:V and WP:RS. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
In reply to "Tickle Me" again - please stop pushing your own prejudice, bias, against Myatt so obvious in your phrases like "his boastings" and your unproven assumption that he does not know Greek. You have ignored the fact that academics use his Greek translations so that even if they were publishd by him, they have been found to be useful and accepted by academics. You seem to be pushing your own agenda here - just who are you, attacking someone while hiding behind an anonymous name? I might write that there is *no indication at all* that you have even read his Greek translations or know anything at all about him other than what you have read on the Internet. Now, pace - for had you taken the trouble to read his now out of print published Greek translations, you would have seen the notes, often in Greek, in them. Books, BTW, go out of print, and accordingly may not be listed by Amazon. Please do try to keep NPOV. Coolmoon 05:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, I didn't expect amazon.com to yield other results than amazon.co.uk, that was a real blunder. However I didn't contend the existence of the books in the first place but the factuality of his translations. Would we write that he has a PhD or discovered America if he claimed so? It is claimed here that they're used in academe, I found some mentions online in this regard and will try to get specific information. --tickle me 07:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
No worries, Tickle. There seems no doubt that he's published translations, which is pretty interesting in itself even if they're not very good (and I'm not saying they're not; just that I don't know either way). We don't comment on the quality of them, so I see no harm in leaving it in, though it'd be good if we could say more. If they really have been used as textbooks, that would be extremely interesting, and might even merit being used in the intro. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Tickle: why are you still making an assumption - without evidence - about Myatt? You make claims about his Greek translations - and it is therefore for you to provide some evidence for your claim. It does seem you have no evidence and are just putting forward your view regarding Myatt. Why is that? What is your agenda, in respect of Myatt? It does seem you bias is rather showing and that yu are on some kind of crusade, here. It is interesting that you do not reply to my comments. Coolmoon 05:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Results of my inquiries on D. Myatt's translations. --tickle me 15:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey, Tickle Me. Have you read Myatt's Greek translations? Seems you're on something of an anti-Myatt crusade here. Please inform us why. 81.131.120.63 06:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
A point well-made in respect of user Tickle. I might also suggest Tickle read Myatt's poetry - and make some comment on them, or try to debunk them. Although I disagree with a great deal Myatt has written prior to his reversion to Islam, I do accept he is an interesting individual who deserves to be studied in an unbiased way. If Professor George Michael can say that Myatt "has arguably done more that any other theorist to develop a synthesis of the extreme right and Islam," then Myatt deserves some attention. Tickle and others like him who present their rather prejudiced views about Myatt might not be aware of Myatt's growing influence - or they may well be, which might explain their political attitude and attempts to debunk him. This recent comment, from an Internet forum: "Myatt is a very intelligent man. I believe he has a deeper purpose with everything he does. There is nothing is his writings about NS I disagree with. І соuld саll myѕelf а Мyаttіаn." Coolmoon 17:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
OT: some trolling. Mr. Myatt, I had no intentions of ever reacting, but methinks this is funny, so here goes. Of course, it'll cease to be funny once google catches up with this talk page... Besides, "Myatt is a very intelligent man...": That's one bold stance, at least not confirmed by this page. But hell, you don't let loose for sure. Best: --tickle me 02:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Tickle - you still have not replied as to why you are on such an anti-Myatt Crusade and why you continue to ignore Wiki's NPOV. Is it for political reasons of your own? Peoples views regarding Myatt differ widely - you cannot, it seems, keep your own biased views out from your contributions here - and why do you seem to suggest that anyone who does not agree with you might be Myatt? A biased tactic, it would seem. 81.131.3.244 04:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Rumors, Libel and NPOV

Comments (in this instance by Tickle Me) such as "He's a notorious liar..." which were appended to an edit, are not suitable, and go against Wiki NPOV. You, Tickle, are making an unproven accusation, as you have done before - please keep your personal opinions out of Wikipedia. You offer no proof for your malicious and libellous statement. Slim Virgin - please do something about this as it is surely against Wiki policy that someone presents their biased views and makes such libellous statements. Previously we had used Richard0 making such claims. Now we have Tickle. Tomorrow, who knows? Coolmoon 04:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to the Final Conflict pamphlet - it is not a book; and contains only allegations and rumours, not evidence, as well as being a neo-nazi and racist publication distributed by a few people on the neo-nazi fringe. 81.131.12.24 05:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I quote - <quote>Jimmy Wales has said: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." </quote> Maybe this can be applied here to comments by users such as TickleMe? NPOV is important! 81.131.86.246 18:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

en:David Myatt

Prof. Dusan Pajin (dpajin@afrodita.rcub.bg.ac.yu)
Incidence:
 http://dekart.f.bg.ac.yu/~dpajin/text/women.htm
Reaction to inquiry:
 No reply

Professor Michael Lienesch (lienesch@imap.unc.edu, amerstud.unc.edu)
Incidence:
 none
Reaction to inquiry:
 Subject: Re: question regarding the alleged use of David Myatt's
              Greek translations at UNC
 Editor: I have no knowledge of translations of Greek classics by David Myatt. If such
 translations exist, I do not recall having ever assigned any. Michael Lienesch 

Sogang University, Korea (ansonjae@sogang.ac.kr, hompi.sogang.ac.kr)
Incidence:
 http://www.sogang.ac.kr/~anthony/Classics/Antigone.htm
 http://www.sogang.ac.kr/~anthony/Classics/Oedipus.htm
 http://www.sogang.ac.kr/~anthony/Classics/Agamem.htm
Reaction to inquiry:
 Subject: Re: question on David Myatt's translations from the Greek language
              you refer to on your site
 Hello,
 Thank you for your message. I linked to the translations in question several
 years ago since I found them interesting and potentially useful for students,
 they are at least lively. I cannot vouch for their academic value or their
 accuracy as translations since I know no Greek. 
 Sincerely
 An Sonjae

University of Reading (classics@reading.ac.uk)
Incidence:
 http://www.rdg.ac.uk/classics/Link/index.php?view=Other%20Poetry.csv
 (Link to http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/4979/sappho.html)
Reaction to inquiry:
 No reply

Rio Hondo College
Incidence:
 http://library.riohondo.edu/Research_Help/Citing_Sources/MLA_Style_Online.htm
Reaction to inquiry:
 No reply

Suffolk University (grichman@suffolk.edu)
Incidence:
 http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Asuffolk.edu+%22DW+Myatt
 http://www.cas.suffolk.edu/richman/IS111/Model.htm
 http://www.cas.suffolk.edu/richman/IS111/
 http://www.cas.suffolk.edu/is/111anthology.htm
 http://www.cas.suffolk.edu/is/burnstein111mwf.htm
Reaction to inquiry:
 Subject: Re: does Suffolk University use the works of David Myatt
              in its curricula?
 Dear xxxxxxxxxxxx,

 We do indeed use Mr. Myatt's translations, but neither I or my 
 colleagues know ancient Greek, so we can't evaluate the 
 translations. The translations, however, are not appreciably 
 different from other translations of Sappho.

 [...]

Gerald Richman, Coordinator, Integrated Studies Program
Suffolk University
Beacon Hill
Boston, MA 02114

References

When providing citations, could people please supply the page number if it's a book? Also, there's no need to use the cite templates, as they only make more work: just write <ref>give the full citation, then close the ref like this </ref>. If you think the ref might be used again, give it a name: <ref name=Smith>give the full citation, then close </ref>. The second time it's used, all we have to write is <ref name=Smith/>. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The section below has been unsourced for a long time, so I'm moving it here. We need full citations of third-party sources, articles, paper, or books, with page numbers if the latter. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
When Charlie Sargent of Combat 18 was arrested [when was he arrested], later receiving a life sentence for murder in 1998, Myatt took the leadership position of the "Sargent loyalist faction" in the internecine conflicts within Combat 18. [citation needed] Myatt also founded and led the neo-Nazi Reichsfolk organization, [Kaplan, J. (1998) 115 ; Kaplan, J. (ed) (2000) 216, 512] and founded and was the first leader of the National-Socialist Movement. [Goodrik-Clarke, 2002, p.50]
    • I have reverted to previous edit - removing my most recent edit (Oops!) - considering the need for verifiable sources and remembering a previous now archived discussion with SlimVirgin regarding not updating the article using material from personal websites. Coolmoon 04:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. :-) (talk) 06:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
My edit has given Myatt's view in respect of the comments made by George Michael since this is only fair and restores in my opinion the NPOV. In respect of sources, I have quoted the article in The Times of London newspaper, one article from Myatt's personal website, and one article from the Islam OnLine website, which is one of the largest and most respected Islamic sites online. Regarding using as a source an article from Myatt's own site, I do think this is allowable according to the Wikipedia guidelines, given that the article is about Myatt, and the quote from George Michael makes a specific point, which Myatt himself disagrees with and has contradicted publicly several times in the past year or more. In addition, according to the Wikipedia Guidelines, "Material from self-published sources, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves." Cloudnajafi 05:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I added another reference - also from Myatt's personal site, although note please that this interview has also appeared elsewhere on the web, for example at http://revolutioninternational.blogspot.com/2006/03/interview-with-abdul-aziz-ibn-myatt.html and was also quoted at length in the article in The Times of London newspaper. Cloudnajafi 06:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi CloudNajafi. [Cool name, BTW!] If you care to look at the archive here, you'll see a discussion between myself and SlimVirgin regarding changing the article when a personal site is updated. If you also check out her contribs you'll see she is on the ball regarding Wikipedia policy. In the discussion I had with her, I had to admit she was correct, and I was mistaken. Thus, I don't believe you can do what you have done. Therefore, I now have reverted to the previous edit, removing your recent edit of the Myatt article here. If your assertion is correct, then when we have a verifiable source, not a personal website, this assertion can be included. Also, I can't find two of your references (URL's) on the Myatt site. Coolmoon 07:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I have read the archive, and with due respect, Coolmoon, I disagree and have put back my edit which you removed. I think it's important to give Myatt's version here, and using The Times article is a good, credible source. Did you read the quotation I gave about using self-published sources? This applies here, I think, so that my edit gives a balanced view in line with Wikipedia policy. If George Michael's view is given without any comment it unbalances the section, and seems to label Myatt a Murtad, which is a very serious matter, and not to be taken at all lightly. Cloudnajafi 22:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
OK then Coolmoon, i agree. Thanks for the advice. I've read a lot more of the guidelines and policies here, and I'll undo my changes, restoring your edit. I've also checked out Mr Myatt's sites and those of his supporters and fans. His Islam site (if it was his) has been removed, and his personal site (linked to in the main article here) contains many new articles and items (May through to July, this year) suggestive of his withdrawal from Islam. You're right as well about two of the links I gave - they're dead as of today. Cloudnajafi 06:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Cloudnajafi! Re your comments about Myatt's Islam: I have added a new section on this Talk page and given a quote from one of his new essays.Coolmoon 07:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I have removed from here some anon and negative remarks about Myatt, in line with the Wikipedia guidelines quoted at the beginning of this Talk page, which guidelines I shall add here to make the point - "This article should be edited in accordance with the policies and guidelines outlined in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should not be posted to articles or talk pages. If you find any, please remove it immediately." Coolmoon 11:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


Myatt's Islam and The Numinous Way

In view of the recent discussion with Cloudnajafi on this Talk page, I give here a quote taken from one of Myatt's newer articles on his personal website. The articles appear to indicate his rejection of Islam and a change of heart. These newer articles further seem to indicate a development of what he calls The Numinous Way, toward a Buddhist like compassion. Those interested might read articles such as http://www.davidmyatt.info/compassion.html and http://www.davidmyatt.info/recent_writings_numen.html. Here is the quote I mentioned taken from http://www.davidmyatt.info/no_ideology.html -

"One of my mistakes was to hope that Islam might offset the lack of numinosity so evident in the modern, urbanized, West, and that it might undermine the materialism, the abstractions, of the West in a quite practical way and so enable the world, and our own folk, to be free of these abstractions, and free of the physical tyranny, the world order, the world-government, the supporters of such abstractions were creating. But this just encouraged suffering; it created more suffering. It distanced me - and others - from the numen; from what is ethical, right, honourable, compassionate. My intentions may have seemed, to me, to be good, and noble, but that was no excuse. Yet I made it an excuse for some time, unwilling to rigorously apply the ethics of The Numinous Way to what I was supporting and encouraging. In the end, I had to make some fundamental decisions, some choices - and my decision was to reform myself; to apply the ethics of The Numinous Way to everything. That is, I realized that the cessation of suffering - and everything that goes with it, such as empathy, honour, and personal love - is the most important thing: not some short or long term strategy; not some tactics to bring about some change; not some future vision, not some causal form which one might use, in the present, to bring about some allegedly "good" changes in the future. The cessation of suffering has to start in the moment; it had to be part of me, part of every individual, and that, as I tried to explain earlier, is the answer."

Such quotes from such sites should be treated with caution, in my view. Contradictory quotes - affirming Myatt's Islam - are available on several other sites, plus there is the recent article in The Times (London) newspaper, mentioned in the main Myatt article here http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2149297,00.html as well as the two articles Myatt wrote this year which are quoted in that newspaper article - http://ibnmyatt.tripod.com/convert2.html and http://ibnmyatt.tripod.com/ibnmyatt_interview.html. There is also a transcript on the Islam On-Line site, also this year, of Myatt answering questions from Muslims from around the world in which he again affirms his Islam - http://www.islamonline.net/livedialogue/english/Browse.asp?hGuestID=61ud64 . Here is Myatt's own transcript - http://ibnmyatt.tripod.com/replies-online.html 65.57.106.34 21:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Correct - such items in respect of Myatt having left Islam should be viewed with great caution, as there is no proven authorship, in this case. In the article by Abdul-Aziz ibn Myatt (aka David Myatt) quoted in The Times, ibn Myatt has this to say when asked about rumors in respect of his having left Islam: "Bismillah. No, they [the rumors] are not correct. I am a Muslim, Alhamdulillah, and I shall remain a Muslim, InshaAllah." http://abdulhaqq.jeeran.com/ibnmyatt_interview.html. In a previous entry here, I wrote that is an extremely serious matter to call ibn Myatt, or any Muslim, a murtad. I shall quote what ibn Myatt himself writes regarding this matter, again quoting from one of the sources used by The Times newspaper, which, I think, makes this source a most suitable one, if not a primary source in Wikipedia terms, and therefore outweighs the unverified ones quoted here by others. ibn Myatt writes: "as I wrote in my Thinking Like a Muslim, when we undertake Shahadah - testifying to and declaring our acceptance of Islam before witnesses - we are making a binding oath of loyalty, bayah, on our honour, to Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala and His Messenger, Muhammad (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam). This is a life-long oath, loyalty unto death to Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala and to His Messenger, Muhammad (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam). If we break this oath - if we abandon the duty we have sworn to do - we are being dishonourable, and it is right that those who break such a sacred oath as this are killed. Over eight years ago, I gave this oath, and it is as binding today as it was then. Thus I cannot, and will not, InshaAllah, break this oath of loyalty." (An Interview with Abdul-Aziz ibn Myatt) Cloudnajafi 22:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The Personal View of Users

I have reverted to the previous edit which User TickleMe removed. This user should keep their personal views, comments and opinions about Myatt out of their edits - as per the Wikipedia guidelines regarding articles about living persons. The comments this user added seem to contradict, yet again, Wikipedia's NPOV and these guidelines. In my view, giving Myatt's opinion is quite apposite here, since his views have changed in a significant manner. Coolmoon 13:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have offended poor old 65.57.106.34. "giving Myatt's opinion is quite apposite here": Not in the least. What relevant change does the edit below relate, that isn't dealt with in the preceding two paragraphs and the intro?
According to Myatt himself in a recent statment [1] "The Numinous Way... with its Cosmic Ethics, its compassion, empathy and honour, represents my own world-view, for there has been, for me, a learning from adversity and experience."
The lead already tells that the Numinous Way is his, not Goofy's - ne bis in idem the Romans said: let's too.
That his road is a long and winding one, that life didn't shield him from adversities and misadventures, has been dealt with by quotes sufficiently:
  • journalists, and [others] have been circulating rumours...
  • These rumours and allegations were started by...
  • For the West, nothing is sacred...
Only the elements Cosmic Ethics™ and empathy are new, though only arguably noteworthy. I put them into context. It's on the house. On a personal note, I so wished Mr. Myatt could participate personally here. I trust his magnanimity to handle the dispute gracefully and with wise constraint, as befits a man of the word - and sword. Zero-sums are so brittle. --tickle me 15:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Tickle - thank you for your comments. I appreciate the humor (yes, honestly!). Compassion is also new, BTW - and noteworthy, in my view, given Myatt's past effusions and past associations. Yes, some users can be quite sensitive, it seems; but isn't that good, in the context of being human, methinks? Coolmoon 17:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The relevance of the quote I inserted should be obvious - it balances the article with what Mr Myatt believes and upholds now, which as [User:Coolmoon|Coolmoon]] wrote includes compassion. It balances the articles because the article deals with mr Myatt's past associations and beliefs, and gives the impression that he is still a Nazi and/or an Islamist.
"Over the past five or six years - partly as a result of my involvement with Islam - I have reviewed every thing I believed in, as I have also tried to admit my mistakes, and learn from them. I have also saught to answer some of the most fundamental and perplexing questions about life, about our existence. I had been searching for such answers since I was around thirteen years old, and in the course of this search I saught practical involvement with many of the major religions of the world. Now, as I mentioned earlier, I do believe I have found some answers, which I have tried to explain by means of The Numinous Way. Thus, I have gone beyond Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, and conventional nationalism, and beyond National-Socialism itself - creating, in effect, a new, apolitical and ethical Way of Life." (Myatt - The Development of The Numinous Way and Other Questions)
The above quote should therefore be of interest, and I do think some comment on or explanation concerning Myatt's current stance should be included in the article. 65.57.106.34 18:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I object, Your Numerical Highness: compassion is already mentioned. Speaking of which, showing a lack thereof, possibly: I see that Mr. Myatt's work on Sappho is referenced to:
"Gary Daher Canedo: Safo y Catulo: poesía amorosa de la antigüedad, Universidad Nur, 2005"
That doesn't seem right, as Mr. Myatt's translation doesn't necessarily appear in that book, there's no bilingual edition mentioned, that only could be guessed at - it just happens that el excelentíssimo Seňor Daher Canedo had the good thinking of translating Sappho not from Greek, but from Мyаttіаn English. And even that is only half of what the book covers, the rest is his own translations from Latin. O dear, let's hope Mr. Myatt's were better. On a snide note: El muy ilustre Don Daher had it printed in, whew, 500 copies. I hope he sold some. Then again, the Bolivian winter is not for the faint of heart, he might make better use of them: nothing tops steaming hot chicharrones when it's freezing outside.
Como sea, le escribí por correo electrónico al escritor famoso, por si las moscas - quizás que me mande una receta. --hazme cosquillas 20:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The Anon user above is, I believe, incorrect in his/her assumption(s) regarding ibn Myatt's current beliefs. Please refer to my most recent reply in the Myatt's Islam and The Numinous Way section, above. The quote given by Anon user may, or may not, be authentic - personally, I regard as more credible, according to Wikipedia guidlines, the sources quoted by The Times newspaper, and others, as well as the Islam On-line dialogue which ibn Myatt conducted earlier this year, all of which sources indicate ibn Myatt's continued adherence to Islam. Because of this, and because the issue of apostasy is a serious one, I am somewhat inclined, having considered the matter further, to reintroduce my former edit, deleted by Coolmoon, which balances the statement by Prof George Michael by providing ibn Myatt's own verified view of this particular matter. If no one objects, I shall reintroduce my former edit. Cloudnajafi 22:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Cloudnajafi - I believe you are mistaken, and are using out of date stuff, or stuff with no dates on it from unverified free sites like Tripod. If you care to take a glance at Dave Myatt's own site, registered under his name, you'll see the stuff he's been churning out these past months, and all of it is that numinous way stuff, or personal poetry, or things like that, and several items mention his commitment to this numinous way, and several mention his rejection of islam. So by his own words, he's an apostate - I don't think there's any getting away from this fact. Plus, The Times article is mostly quoting old Myatt stuff anyways, so you can't use that in favor of your argument. 65.57.106.34 12:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
User 65.57.106.34 is quite mistaken IMNSHO - the items are recent, and are on Myatt's own website. Plus, if 65.57.106.34 had checked the Islam-Online item you would have seen that it is dated only some months ago, so therefore is reasonably up to date. Therefore, I have restored the previous edits of Cloudnajafi. Myatt/Abdul-Aziz is still posting Islamic articles on forums and newsgroups, including soc.religion.islam - the last one, there, was just a few days ago. Coolmoon 21:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


Hey guys (or should that be gals, as well?!) - those sites change every so often, so we can't use them IMHO. This point was made by Slim Virgin aeons ago (see the Archive). You can't keep updating the article everytime a personal site is changed or updated (some have been changed again, BTW)- stay with the published material, like the Michael book. That's what I've done - a revert to keep this thing sensible.70.84.56.165 18:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Anon User 70.84.56.165 - you are in error, I believe. Please refer to my comments, and those of cloudnajafi, and take note of the fact that two of the Myatt items from which the quotes were taken affirming Myatt's Islam were sourced in The Times article which is a primary source. Which site were you referring to in relation to "change"? I can't see any changes on Myatt's site. Coolmoon 21:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi CoolMoon. The site I meant is at http://www.davidmyatt.info - which is Myatt's own site. Check it out. There's no Islam items there, at all. Ditto the Myatt mirror site on Tripod. Prof George Michael (any relation to the singer I wonder?!) is right, and he's a primary source. The newspaper article you all keep mentioning is based on old material - years out of date. Go check Myatt's Statement for Journalist which user User:Tickle me put a link to in the main article - see his comments, above. It's also at http://www.davidmyatt.info/jstatement.html . Did you read what SlimVirgin wrote here a while back about using personal sites to update this Wikipedia article? Sound advice! I'm gonna do a revert to the sensible, confirmed, sourced material. 66.98.130.128 12:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I have checked it out, which is why I have reverted your edit. You may wish to check the dates on the Myatt articles quoted in The Times - all are from this year. BTW, that newspaper article is, as I keep mentioning, a primary and recent source, whereas Michael's book is based on material from 2003. So, let's hope this is an end to "Anon" vandalism of the article (please!). Coolmoon 20:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Myatt's Islam

I have reverted to previous edits because it does seem as if I was mistaken about Myatt, for he's returned to what he's called *the numinous way*. So I'll stop being stubborn, and won't do what I've been doing which is changing the edits of five or six people over the past six months or so who objected to my claims about Myatt's continuing commitment to Islam. Coolmoon 05:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, SlimVirgin! Re the link there to the book reported to be by Long and Myatt (Black Book) for which Amazon gives the ISBN 0946646023 and the date 1984. A search of the British Library shows up two books with that title, both authored by Long and ONA: 1) 094664604X 2nd ed 1984 and 2) 0946646058 around the same time. A search of ISBN's for the publisher finds: 0946646007 Changes by D.W. Myatt; 094664604X Black Book (as above); 0946646058 Book Wyrd (as above); 0946646082 Sappho, DW Myatt. That is, no details for the ISBN given by Amazon, anywhere - at least anywhere I've found so far. So, I've no idea where Amazon got the info from for this particular book. I'll have another look, soon, when work blah blah permits. Coolmoon 10:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

  1. ^ "A Statement for Journalists". Retrieved 2006-08-05.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Myatt/Archive_1&oldid=1039414756"