Talk:David Myatt

Alleged involvement with O9A
Since this is an article about a living person certain criteria apply. In the matter of the Order of Nine Angles it is important give a NPOV which here means giving Myatt's consistent denial equal space, and to state that his involvement with the O9A is an allegation and has not been proven by probative evidence. Merely citing others who in print or online repeat or believe the claim is not evidence but either hearsay or the fallacy of appeal to authority.

What circumstantial evidence that has been presented - e.g by Senholt who is regularly quoted as an authority - is an example of the fallacy of Incomplete Evidence, as Myatt has documented in his essay 'A Matter of Honour'.

In addition, using primary sources such as Myatt's own writings is IMO valid according to Wikipedia criteria in an article about a living person. This applies to Myatt's post-2012 claim of having rejected extremism including neo-nazism. Coolmoon (talk) 08:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * This discussion again? We had the same discussion in the talk page of the ONA article to the point there was official statement from the arbitration that it's not needed. Nazis don't need to be included for balance. Do you think Nazis are asked if the Holocaust happened and that is included in all related pages for balance? This is a perfect example of WP:UNDUE.


 * No, this discussion is about the biography of living person which has different criteria. In addition, Myatt has rejected extremism and nazism so still calling him a nazi is an allegation as well. Coolmoon (talk) 10:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

His life, his choices. Evidence for Myatt and the ONA's involvement in theistic Satanism and far-right Neo-Nazi terrorism can be found primarily in, which is one of the academic, reliable sources that I provided in the article. Ironically, the only people in the world who adamantly deny that Myatt is the ONA's leader are him and the ONA members themselves. Who would have thought? GenoV84 (talk) 09:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The item you cite does not provide evidence of involvement, only make assumptions. Goodricke-Clarke assumed Myatt was Long and that he wrote Diablerie. He provided nothing probative in that matter or any other. Ditto with Senholt who claimed the writing style of Myatt was similar to Long's but provided no evidence from forensic linguistics; plus three other academics disputed his claim. Citing him and Goodricke-Clarke are examples of the fallacy of the appeal to authority.

Post probative evidence - admissible in a court of law - from Goodricke-Clarke, Senholt or anyone else that Myatt is Anton Long and founded and led the O9A. Until there is such evidence they remain allegations, and to remove mention of them being allegations is against NPOV in regard to a living person who has consistently denied such allegations. Coolmoon (talk) 10:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Yet, another scholar of religion specialized in the study of Satanism and the U.S. military magazine on counter-terrorism  reported the same regarding Myatt's involvement with the ONA and the far-right underground, which is a well-known fact about his life, and the main reason for him being notable. If he was never involved in the ONA and the far-right network, then what did he apologize for? Stealing candies from the supermarket? Come on. GenoV84 (talk) 10:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, why are you writing down so many sections for the same discussion? There's no need for that. GenoV84 (talk) 10:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Introvigne
In the work cited, Introvigne provides no evidence based on scholarly research for the claim that Myatt is Anton Long and used that pseudonym. He merely repeats what others such as Goodricke-Clarke and Senholt claimed, which claims of theirs again are not based on scholarly research. Introvigne thus commits the fallacy of appeal to authority.

Where is the research based on scholarly sources, such as authenticated original documents, which reveals that Myatt is Long and founded the O9A? There is none. Where are the sources you cite which balance the claims by providing Myatt's side of the story? So far, only Koehler in the work I previously cited. Coolmoon (talk) 10:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Yet, another scholar of religion specialized in the study of Satanism and the U.S. military magazine on counter-terrorism  reported the same regarding Myatt's involvement with the ONA and the far-right underground, which is a well-known fact about his life, and the main reason for him being notable. If he was never involved in the ONA and the far-right network, then what did he apologize for? Stealing candies from the supermarket? Come on. GenoV84 (talk) 10:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, why are you writing down so many sections for the same discussion? There's no need for that. GenoV84 (talk) 10:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Removing Original Research
The citations are full of original research and primary sources that almost certainly don't meet WP:RS (some of which I've removed). Wordpress articles about and/or by David Myatt are not objective or trustworthy sources for information about his life or ideas and in many cases are irrelevant anyway. David Myatt is primarily notable for his contributions to far right and to a much lesser extent Islamist radicalism so we don't need paragraphs worth of material about his views on the etymology of Pathei-Mathos or similar things. Also worth noting that this is a man who has been repeatedly accused of aggressively curating his online image using sockpuppets. Not saying I can provide a RS for that because I can't but it's something to keep in mind for anyone who watches this page. DirtyDiaperDavey (talk) 06:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Lead section and early life
Nothing has been deleted with the article IMO only rearranged in line with other articles about living persons.

Since the article is about Myatt not about the O9A the long section about the O9A after the lead seems inappropriate - and also seems to contravene NPOV - especially as there is a link in the lead to the detailed Wikipedia O9A article plus the detailed mention of the O9A in a following section. What other articles here about a living person begin with a section not about their early or their personal life but about something they are alleged to be involved with? Example - e.g. does the article about the notorious Aleksandr Dugin begin with his early life or with a detailed account of something such as his alleged links to Putin?

Hence why I have put his early life first and put the personal stuff about Myatt from the O9A section into the personal life section and the stuff about the O9A into the 'occult section'.

Also, why was the link to Myatt's personal website - https://www.davidmyatt.info/ - deleted when even the article about arguably the far more notorious David Irving article has a link to his website? As do many other articles about controversial living persons. Coolmoon (talk) 05:34, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Wubbage
Is that a joke ? TheyGoToWar (talk) 14:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)