Talk:John Tyndall (far-right activist)/Archive 2

Recent images added into the article
What substance does having the images of Rockwell and Le Pen in the article give to the reader? Both of their names are linked to their articles and images shouldn't just be used for the sake of it.--John Bird (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As the editor who added those two images, I believe that they help to make the article more aesthetically pleasing to read. Granted, neither image is essential to the reader's understanding of the material, but frankly neither are the images of a National Front march or Nick Griffin. These images are all illustrative, helping to break up the lengthy blocks of text, which is (in my opinion) a good thing and is in keeping with standard Wikipedia practice. Moreover, both of the images do actually depict things that are described in the text (and thus are not irrelevant to the subject at hand) and can be used without impinging on copyright restrictions. If we had better images available (for instance pictures of Tyndall in his younger years) then I would endorse replacing the Rockwell and Le Pen images with said alternatives, but at present no such images are available, given that all photographs of Tyndall appear to be copyrighted. Midnightblueowl 23:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's image use policy, adding an image into the article is for "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article" - I don't see how either an image of Rockwell or Le Pen give the reader any sort of more pleasure to read the article. If one wants to see what either look like then they could click their name in Tyndall's article which is linked to their Wikipedia article. The image of the National Front march has a bit more substance because it shows how much the National Front rose during that period of time and what a march actually looked like. I agree with you on Griffin, the image of him doesn't really need to be in the article. I find it strange the image of Colin Jordan was removed from the article when he had a far greater impact on Tyndall during the 1960s compared to say keeping Le Pen in the article. And yes, it is a shame that so many images of Tyndall are copyrighted.--John Bird (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The issue with the Colin Jordan issue is that it was under copyright. I actually think that an image of Jordan would be a great addition to this article, but we really aren't permitted to use copyrighted images willy-nilly. We have to have a very good reason for using a copyrighted image, and in this instance we just don't have one. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl

Do you feel it's really necessary to have included in the article one of Madison Grant's maps from the Passing of the Great Race showing the Nordic race and another of Holocaust victims? I can't see how either of these will give the reader any extra information. What's the reason for including these into the article?--John Bird (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I think both have value, but I've restored one by way of compromise. Snowded  TALK 19:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I think that the inclusion of images makes the article a lot more engaging and eye-catching for readers. Paragraphs of lone text just don't pack the same punch. I looked for images that were both copyright-free and relevant to the text. The two images selected fitted the bill. Is the objection primarily to these specific images or the usage of images in this section in the first place? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I feel that images of questionable relevance such as this, this, this, and this, should be removed from this article. Bus stop (talk) 19:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Snowded

Thanks for the compromise. Although, I still do question why either of the images can be seen to add any value to the article. Why do you think so?

@Midnightblueowl

I strongly disagree how either of these images give what you say to the article. Many other people who were/are antisemitic, Holocaust deniers, etc, do not have images of Holocaust victims in their articles, why should Tyndall be any exception? As far as the inclusion of Grant's theory of the Nordic race being included into the article, I don't see how it shows anything more than what the text does. The article is about Tyndall, not the Holocaust or the Nordic race.

@Bus Stop

I'm also with you on this and I raised the question of why the images of Rockwell and Le Pen have been added into the article as soon as I saw them in the article and again with the recent inclusion of two images that in my opinion are not needed to be in the article as they offer no extra value to the reader.--John Bird (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

British Imperialist in introduction
Throughout Tyndall's political career, he was a chest pounding advocate of the British Empire. As the article stands, this is indeed mentioned but buried within a thick wall of text in the policies and views section. We cite Daniel Trilling who says "two guiding stars in ... Tyndall's political universe were Hitler and the British Empire." and in the governance section we mention "In The Eleventh Hour, Tyndall had called for the recolonization of parts of Africa by the British." He got his start in the League of Empire Loyalists. Lets mention his status as a British imperialist alongside neo-Nazi in the first sentence. Claíomh Solais (talk) 01:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure that his support for imperialism is really sufficient to warrant a mention in that very first sentence. It was just one of his beliefs, sitting alongside a whole array of other far-right views. If we were to state in the opening sentence that he was an imperialist, then we would probably also have to state that he was an anti-Semite, a British nationalist, and an anti-democrat, etc, and it would soon become pretty unwieldy. I would however be open to a brief mention of his views on recreating the Empire in the fourth paragraph, where we describe some of his other beliefs; would you be okay with that? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Tyndall's main claim to fame is his rampant Nazism and anti-semitism. He was an imperialist only in he sense that he was opposed to independence for the former colonies; he didn't propose expanding the empire. I don't think it amounts to a philosophy or a justification to call him an imperialist. (Consider the large number of mainstream politicians post-war who also opposed independence. Few would we describe as imperialist.) Emeraude (talk) 07:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry to contradict you Emeraude, but Tyndall did support the recreation of the Empire after it had collapsed. Even in his final decade he was calling for the recolonization of Africa, or at least parts of it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't make myself quite clear. Sorry. Yes, you are right about him wanting to maintain and reinstate the empire. The point I should have been making is that he was not an imperialist in the sense that Cecil Rhodes was in seeking to forever expand the empire by conquering new territory, though it is likely that would have become an onject once the empire was restored. Emeraude (talk) 10:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it would be a good solution to put it in the fourth paragraph. I suppose what is key is that Tyndall's primary political agenda was British ultra-chauvinism, even his time dressing up as a Nazi was towards this end, which is important to convey in the article. There is a tract of thought among some probably well meaning English anti-fascists, that seeks to disassociate these figures from Britishness (ie - the Tyndalls of the world are just mimicking "foreign" ideas, which have nothing to do with the noble British), as if the history of the British Empire (which Tyndall was a fanatical champion of) and its centuries long campaign against the rest of the world isn't shameful enough. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but I don't see that this is confined to "English anti-fascists" or the English or anti-fascists. I well remember a long discussion with a Welsh politics lecturer in the '70s whose view was precisly that dressing up as a Nazi and expounding fascist views was somehow anti-British, and that something in the British psyche made us somehow resistant to such ideology! Emeraude (talk) 10:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * George Lincoln Rockwell.jpg

Let's delete it
I can see a quote with pejorative words about an ethnic group. Let's delete the article.--A.Khamidullin (talk) 02:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)