Talk:John Tyndall (far-right activist)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Notability

"Unfortunately Tyndall resembled Colin Jordan from the point of view that he worshipped his mother. On his 30th birthday (still unmarried and living with his mother) he invited his faithful to a party where his mother presented a birthday cake which she had baked especially for the occasion. The day was a Friday and time was 6pm. At that particular moment a pop show called Ready Steady Go presented by a local girl named Cathy McGowan was screened on the TV. Everyone dashed off into the back room to watch Cathy while Tyndall remained alone in the front room with tears streaming down his face, crying over his mother's uneaten cake." Does this really need to be in a section about ideology? I hate the nazis as much as anyone, but I really don't see what it has to do with his ideology. 143.167.78.30 16:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC) Samiam

This is a bit pointless. It could be cut down to "this jerk got nowhere with his silly Nazi views". But since he got nowhere, and is a dolt, why mention him?

Indeed his silly Nazi views got him nowhere. But his party (the BNP) is slowly getting somewhere in the UK, I'd heard of the guy before I found the wikipedia, so he is definitely notable. Jackliddle 07:05, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is a very good reason for mentioning him - he was probably the most important figure within Britain's far-right during the post-WW2 period bar none, regardless of what anyone thinks of him as a person or his politics - there was a good reason for Searchlight magazine's obsession with him over & beyond his "tabloid sensationalism" appeal (Colin Jordan & Martin Webster could boast as much).

In terms of sheer work "for the cause", no one else matched to the same degree of enthusiasm/obsession (call it what you will) as Tyndall. Much of the direction that the 1970s National Front - and thus the British far-right in the main - was to take was down to him & his machinations (particularly his habit of undermining fellow party members he thought of as "rivals" and ensuring his acolytes advanced in party ranks), shaping the rise and fall of the two main post-war far-right parties in the UK, and with it that curious type of politics known as "British Nationalism" which lies and overlaps between the more hard-line patriotism of old fashioned Conservative types within the likes of the Monday Club and the outright racist groups steeped in ever deepening extremes of obsession and echoes of violence.

Tyndall's death marked a watershed, and it may well be that time will show that the sort of uncompromising "racial nationalism" he spent the best part of every spare moment of his life promoting - with its echoes of anti-semitism and white supremicism - will largely vanish from view in Britain for good, or at least be submerged under more compromising versions more in keeping with the British temprement demanding some level of tolerence and moderation.

Mark_Boyle

Age

The bbc says he died at 72 rather than 71. Who is right? MyNameIsClare talk 14:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is, of course! David | Talk 15:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

So we are - BBC has changed to 71! MyNameIsClare talk 15:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Offensive Language

I have removed the offensive statement about his death. Regardless oif what people think of him, and I didn't think much, I think it is sick to write this sort of thing on an encyclopedia that children have free access to. - 82.37.139.181

When did he die?

The article states he died today (19 July 2005), but so far I've just heard he was found dead. Could he have died yesterday?

"Sussex Police said there were no suspicious circumstances surrounding Mr Tyndall's death which was reported at 0815 BST on Tuesday." - BBC - Tuesday being 19 July. Could have been last night or this morning. Today is the only date we have so far - David Gerard 16:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Examination of his body for post-mortem lividity, post-mortem measurement of core body temperature, etc. could probably narrow the time of death, but since there were no suspicious circumstances to justify such an investigation, we'll probably never know. -- The Anome 16:45, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

The YMCA song

I was a member of the National Front for 17 years. This was in the past though and I've since become very disillusioned and in similar fashion to Matthew Collins, am now working for Searchlight magazine. I was a close friend of John Tyndall, and was there when the song was formulated. It is not mentioned explicitly anywhere for obvious reasons (incitement to racial hatred). Which is why the NF do not publicise it, and every time it is referred to on their Drypool guestbook it is immediately removed by a moderator. Shortly for Searchlight I will be officially exposing this and some other things. -- posted by user:62.254.64.14

Be that as it may, there are two problems. The first is that what you state amounts to original research, since it's not verifiable, and so it can't be included in the article. The second is that the IP you're using has frequently been used by a vandal (which may or may not be you); I suggest if you want to contribute seriously you create a user name. Exploding Boy 00:38, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

If I had a pound for everyone I've ever encountered amongst the far-left & far-right that claims to have been "a close friend of John Tyndall" (which anyone with any knowledge of the man would realise that is a contradiction in terms) or a spy for the now largely tarnished Searchlight magazine (who never really recovered their credibility after the Tim Hepple/Larry O'Hara debacle of 1992-1993), I'd be a millionaire!

The above sadly highlights the main problems for anyone researching the myriad twists and turns of Britain's far-right (& of Britain's political fringes as a whole) - it is a world (ie. both themselves & their opponents) filled with the same sort of Walter Mitty types usually to be found amongst the interests of your average "Fortean Times" reader, and trying to separate both sides fantasies from reality would tax the patience of a saint.

Thankfully there is plenty of NF archive material deposited in places such as the National Library of Scotland and the University of Southampton for those seeking disambiguation (as well of course of numerous newspaper reports available in hundreds of reference libraries nationwide), however there remains gaps and the "sensationalist" persona of the NF alone means that the chances of more sober analysis being made are limited.

For anyone looking for information on the NF, a healthy degree of skepicism is certainly required at the offing.

Mark_Boyle 21 October 2005

Arrests

"Tyndall was convicted of incitement to racial hatred in 1986 and was jailed three times" Details needed! Rich Farmbrough 14:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Categorisation

The category for extra-Parliamentary Conservative activists is there for the spectrum of people further right than the Conservative Party without becoming authoritarian. It is not for the organised far right, and Tyndall fits more accurately into this group. It also seems like a way of proving "guilt by association" for the other people in the category. David | Talk 10:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:John Tyndall.jpg

Image:John Tyndall.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It's the wrong Tyndal, it's John Tyndall (Canadian poet) and looks nothing like the BNP guy!--86.29.135.167 (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Death

What was the cause? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 06:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You're all wrong

John Tyndall was not a Fascist.

Fascism was a phenomenon unique to Italy during the 1920s/30s/40s, under Mussolini. It was an attempt to unite the working classes and "big-business" in some kind of Italian nationalistic expansionism. There was no expression of anti-semitism under Fascism. There was no expression of racism under Fascism, other than the normal degree of contempt that Europeans held for all other races, that prevailed at the time: "Coons start at Calais, etc"

John Tyndall was a British Nationalist, a racist (as he enthusiastically conceded) and and anti-semite, and therefore of no relation whatsoever to a "Fascist".

82.5.68.95 (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You're even more wrong. According to you, there was then no British Union of Fascists, Imperial Fascist League, National Fascisti, the Dutch Fascist Union, the General Dutch Fascist League, the Albanian Fascist Party, the Canadian Union of Fascists, the Russian Fascist Party, National Fascist Movement (and its predecessors, the National Italo-Romanian Cultural and Economic Movement and the National Romanian Fascia) etc. etc. etc. And that's just those that used the F word in their name. In the 1930s, the Italian Foreign Ministry even published a survey on fascist parties in other countries. Tyndall was not just a fascist, he was the particularly nasty type known as Nazi. Emeraude (talk) 16:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Tyndall was a British Nationalist and an anti-Zionist. I think that it is better that we stop calling him a neo-Nazi, there is nothing Nazi about his book 'The Eleventh Hour' —Preceding unsigned comment added by NatDemUK (talk • contribs) 16:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I posted two assessments from academics on your talk page that he was a Neo-Nazi. Your opinion of Tyndall is not useful: we work from sources. Fences&Windows 20:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

no autoaim here

Wikipedia doent call NF a fascist movement, I would like to know what was wrong with my edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by No autoaim (talk • contribs) 22:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It does, actually. In the info box, it (correctly) describes the NF's ideology as "fascist". And the article on the BNP notes that "the party's predecessor, the NF, was overtly fascist". RolandR (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Tyndall was a fascist!

Editor Yorkshirian is going out of his way to remove "fascist" as a description of John Tyndall. This is totally false. Tyndall spent a lifetime in, usually leading, fascist groups including some that were overtly Nazi in character. Indeed, he was imprisoned for organising a Nazi style private army (Spearhead). The artricle itself covers all of this and following the links to the oraganisations he was associated with backs this up. Of course he wasn't a member of the BUF - he was too young - but then not every fascist in Briatain was in the BUF even when it existed. There is not a single reliable source anywhere (there's a challenge!) that says Tyndall was not a fascist, and that is not the view of, as Yorkshirian would say, the far left but of respected academic writers, journalists, mainstream politicians and, it has to be said, the far right as well. Inventing descriptions that no one else uses ("radical nationalism") is just not on. Emeraude (talk) 11:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Tyndall allowed Jews in the National Front: Gerry Viner and Albert Elder- both were Orthodox Jews! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.178.253 (talk) 06:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

So what? Fascism and anti-semitism are not synonymous - it is perfectly possible to be one and not the other. More importantly, no matter how many Jews may have been in the NF, it is beyond doubt that a) Tyndall was a fascist and b) Tyndall was anti-semitic. Incidentally, you may like to read the following words of Tyndall's, written in his own magazine Spearhead in September 1995: "In fact, just a year ago a situation arose in which it was necessary for me to make a ruling on the question of whether membership of the party should be open to Jews. I ruled that it should not."{Source: Spearhead Sept '95, online here.) Of course, by now he was talking aboout the BNP. Emeraude (talk) 15:13, 15 January

2010 (UTC)

I have read his book 'The Eleventh Hour' and he does not go obsessive about Jews but just small individual ones who cause problems within the government. He was not much of a fascist, he supported democracy and wanted that it be reformed. Still, he tolerated Jews in this country and he was only against individual ones. In the old days of the BNP in the early 90s, the party had a Jewish candidate called Maxwell, perhaps if he were to allow Jews into the party, it would have probably shown that the party would have become pro-Zionist and therefore shutting down free speech on historical revisionists as the party has done now. Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.178.253 (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2010

"He was not much of a fascist" You what!? He was one of the leading fascists of post-war Britain! He was a member of the National Socialist Movement, whose name ratrher gives it away, before setting up his own equally odious groups. Don't read his book, read any number of independent books and newspaper articles between the 60s and today which demonstrate just what a Nazi he was. Look at the photos of him in Nazi uniform in the 60s before he tried to appear respectable. Read what other fascists of the time say about him. "He was not against 'individual Jews'"; it is highly probable that he may have good relations with 'individual Jews'. Tyndall was and out-and-out anti-semite and there is more than ample evidence of this, including in his own writings. To suggest otherwise is just hopelessly naïve. "he supported democracy and wanted that it be reformed" What!? This is the man who regularly denigrated democracy as "government by head counting" and had nothing but contempt for ordinary people. He supported democracy in exactly the same way that his hero Hitler supported democracy - it got him into power. Hell, just read the Wikipedia article!!!!Emeraude (talk) 14:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No, he was one of the leading Nationalists in post-war Britain, he was only involved in the NS movement for a while and rejected it because he did not admire Nazism for that much. All those articles were written in the 1960s in his past before joining the NF. He went from an out-and-out anti-Semite to an anti-Zionist as he allowed Orthodox Jews in the NF so that is hardly likely that the NF was National Socialist. He denigrated liberal democracy as weak and soft, he was more in favour of direct national democracy. Hitler admitted that his plan was to abolish democracy whereas Tyndall did not, Tyndall was not in favour of abolishing other political parties while he was in the NF. Before joining the NF, Andrew Fountaine and Arthur Chesterton made sure that Tyndall could join so long as he no longer associate with Nazism. Over the years, Tyndall became less Judeo-obsessive. Bear in mind, Alan Clarke the former MP for Plymouth Sutton said that he was a Nazi and said that it was a shame that it was extinguished, so does that mean that the Tories were Nazis? No. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.178.253 (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep on apologising for Tyndall, but the fact remains he was a Nazi for more than "a while" and wasbanned from joing the NF because the other leaders knew this. He never, ever, disavowd his early views - he just got better at hiding them, though not clever enough. And yes, just like Hitler he didn't want other parties banned before getting into power; how could he???? And I think you'll find that there orthodox Jews in the Nazi Party and in Mussolini's Fascists for a while - so what? Emeraude (talk) 13:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

There were no Orthodox Jews in Hitler's Nazi party but there were in Mussolini's Fascist party because the Fascists were not anti-Semitic until the Nazis started to dominate Italy. The NF has never been National Socialist, it may have had some but that is not much because it is only a minority and the Labour party had a few Communist members but that does not mean that the Labour party was Communist. Tyndall just rejected Nazism when he was in the NF and when he formed the BNP, he was not that obsessed with Jews that much but Zionists so that does not make him much of a Nazi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.178.253 (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Its simple, third party sources are needed, non currnetly exist, 94.192.142.38 (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Reinstatement of intro

User 94.192.142.38 has repeatedly attempted to remove descriptions of Tyndall as fascist and anti-semitic, claiming that the "source dosent support statement" or that it is a "scandalous and slanderous unsourced label". These edits have been reversed by other editors and I am going to do so again.

The source is The Times obituary, a reliable source, which says of Tyndall that "Throughout his career he was vehemently anti-Semitic as well as a firm believer in white racial superiority." It goes on to say that he founded the first BNP to "preserve the Northern European race and free Britain from Jewish domination and coloured influx" (Tyndall's words) and that "In 1962 Tyndall and Jordan left the BNP to found the British National Socialist Movement. As secretary of this new fascist body, Tyndall began to attract the attention of the media. He was noted for his virulent anti-semitism, and was regularly photographed in Nazi-style brownshirt getup." The article also refers to "his avowed admiration of Hitler" and describes him as "an obssessively anti-Semitic autocrat".

I think that is all pretty well summed up in the Wikipedia article as "Throughout his career he was vehemently anti-Semitic as well as a firm believer in white racial superiority." and allows the description "fascist" in the intro. In any case, these issues are covered in more detail with reliable sources in the main body of the article.

On a wider point, it really doesn't matter what Tyndall's position was at his death or in later life, though there is no great evidence that he ever changed his views. If he had just joined the Communist Party it wouldn't alter the fact that for most of his life he was a fascist, had been a leading neo-Nazi (National Socialist Movement, for goodness sake), and a virulent anti-semite. We're dealing here with what he was known for, not with what some would have us belive he never did or later recanted (he didn't). His supporters and apologists may not like it, but that's the way it is. Emeraude (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The times obituary you cite is a broken link and thus no such verification can be made at present, there is no way you could know that the times sources makes those allegations unless you have a hard copy yourself, especially the direct quotes you have made. I would generally like to read the article so if you can provide a link please do post it me, im not going to engage in an edit war, im not a socialist and thus i don’t engage in violence when i don’t get my own way, i believe in rules and regulation and wikipedia clearly states that third party sources need to be provided. If the article was that of a living person then there is no way those statements would be acceptable. 94.192.142.38 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC).

Quote: "im not a socialist and thus i don’t engage in violence when i don’t get my own way". Strange notion of socialism you have there. Anyway, The Times reference will now only be available online if you pat a subscription since News International put its websites behind a pay wall. You may note that the source was accessed on 26 June 2008 and has clearly been referred to by WIkipedia editors since then, or it would have been challenged long ago. You will find similar statements in the other references for the article, particularly the obituaries. As to your assertion that "If the article was that of a living person then there is no way those statements would be acceptable", this is nonsense - if the sources say it, we use it. Emeraude (talk) 10:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Strangely, I have just tried the link to The Times and it works perfectly. Must be that old obits are not behind the pay wall.Emeraude (talk) 10:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

For some reason i cant read the article, ill assume good faith anyway. 94.192.142.38 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC).

Still works for me. The link is [1] Emeraude (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Nazi image from the 1960s

Does anyone know where a free copyright of the infamous photo of Tyndall dressed as a Nazi with two others and a picture of Hitler behind them is available?

http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/blog/images/4067_5797.jpg

I think it would certainly be worth adding to the article.--John Bird (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it would be a good addition, although I doubt that there would be a version that was in the public domain and thus copyright-free. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

It has been used in several publications. I believe it was first seen in the News of the World in about 1962. Emeraude (talk) 07:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Might it be possible to add reference and an external link to the text about him dressing up? Emeraude (talk) 08:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

What would be the point in that? After reading the article, if one were to Google 'John Tyndall Nazi' then the image would come up via Google images. Unless we can get the image added to the article then I don't see any point in including a link to the image.

Here is a much larger size of the image http://hoffman.photoshelter.com/gallery-image/000-BNP-NF-and-other-racists/G0000knK1Ye2FVqM/I00000heDm.8ixeQ

But again, unfortunately it's copyrighted and says that the copyright belongs to Searchlight Magazine.--John Bird (talk) 23:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I contacted Searchlight to see if they would place the picture into Wikipedia with appropriate permissions ----Snowded ^TALK 07:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Good move, Snowded, thank you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

However, on further contemplation of this issue I would question whether the copyright to this image is really owned by Searchlight. After all, it does not seem very likely that a member of Searchlight actually took that photograph. Searchlight may have obtained the original photograph, but that does not necessarily mean that they owned the copyright. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure. Let's see what response User:Snowded gets and hopefully we can see this image added into the article.--John Bird (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Politician vs National Socialist

@Emeraude

You seem hell bent on reverting "politician" to "National Socialist", when in fact Tyndall was not the latter. It's true that in the 1960s he was involved with neo-Nazi movements but he later commented on this and said that it was "unwise" and that his views had "changed" from that time and that he was still only "very patriotic" and a "nationalist". Nationalism is not the same as Nazism. Tyndall never considered himself a Nazi and his involvement with Nazi movements in his earlier days is mentioned throughout the article.

Without trying to be personal, the fact that on your User Page you have "Politics - particularly anti-fascism, elections" I think has a lot to do with why you're insisting on this to be on the page.--John Bird (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Of course, you are trying to be be personal. And selective. My user page says that my interests are "Politics - particularly anti-fascism, elections". You need not read anything into that; it simply means that by education and research they are subjects about which I have a particular knowledge and interest.

As to Tyndall, he was a member of the National Socialist Movement, indeed, a leading member. Ergo, he was a National Socialist, even if, as you assert, not for his entire life. So the description is accurate. In his later parties (GBM, NF, BNP), he at no time recanted his views, so we must assume, with no evidence to the contrary, that he remained one. From the 1960s onwards, fascists and Nazis of all shades in Britain started to call themselves "nationalist", but as I said before, that is just shorthand for national socialist with the social taken out. Tyndall did regret his earlier career in the NSM with Colin Jordan - he went to jail and Jordan stole his fiancée! - but nowhere has he denied that "Hitler was Right", a slogan he had lived by.

As to "politican", I doubt that anyone in the UK would describe him as such. It implies much more than Tyndll ever did. He was engaged in politics, yes, but politician, hardly. He is notable only as a leading fascist of the postwar era and as the founder/leader/theorist of fascist groups. Emeraude (talk) 12:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Of course he was a "politician", fascists can still be politicians e.g Mussolini and Hitler. His involvement with neo-Nazi groups during his early years is mentioned throughout the article. But to simply say he was a "British National Socialist" is not true.

What is your source for the assertion he remained a Nazi?--John Bird (talk) 17:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Really, what we need to do is to delve into the academic sources to establish a nuanced understanding of Tyndall's beliefs and how they progressed and developed over time. This can then be reflected both in the "Biography" section and in a more specific "Beliefs" section. On another note, I've added "political activist" to the article; does that work for everyone? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes we need to checked sourced material It is not acceptable for you to replace National Socialist without talk page agreement. Other changes should be discussed here - these right wing articles frequently attract people trying to sanitise history and the process to resolve such issues is not to make mass changes to the article without consensus first ----Snowded ^TALK 21:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I support the use of "Neo-Nazi" in the lede; although perhaps not "National Socialist" as that links us back to the Nazism article, which suggests that Tyndall had a pre-1945 pedigree, which of course he did not have. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm with Emeraude on this one ----Snowded ^TALK 07:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone think that an RfC or something of that nature might be good in this situation? Is the main question whether to refer to Tyndall as a "politician" or not in the lede? Although would "political activist" be a more appropriate alternative? Is there also a debate as to whether to refer to Tyndall explicitly as a "National Socialist" and/or "Neo-Nazi" in the lede? Or as a "fascist"? We have a lot of options open to us. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

We've got one largely SPA editor with little experience using primary sources. Until there is better evidence I don't see why we are wasting time on this ----Snowded ^TALK 06:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's correct to say "British National Socialist" in the leading part of the article. Tyndall's involvement with neo-Nazi groups is well documented throughout the article but to make the claim he held those views throughout all his life is incorrect, he himself stated in his book and in interviews that his views had changed from that time. Tyndall remained a British nationalist, white nationalist and white supremacist but he was not a National Socialist/neo-Nazi.--88.109.66.54 (talk) 17:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I've changed the leading part to "was a far-right British politician and political activist who in his earlier years was allied to Neo-Nazism in post-war Britain. Tyndall began his political activities during the 1960s with neo-Nazi movements, most notably being the deputy leader of the openly neo-Nazi National Socialist Movement under Colin Jordan.[1] As a prominent figure in British nationalism during the second half of the twentieth century, he is best known for leading the National Front (NF) in the late 1970s and founding the contemporary British National Party (BNP) in 1982."

I think this best explains his earlier involvements with neo-Nazi groups and then after this phase mentioning that he was a prominent figure in British nationalism and what he is best known for, that is, leading the NF and forming the BNP.--88.109.66.54 (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

In the section "Policies and views", I have tweaked a paragraph to "In his earlier years, Tyndall was a National Socialist and was a strong proponent of neo-Nazism in post-war Britain, although from the 1970s on wards he increasingly shielded this behind the rhetoric of "British patriotism" and distanced himself from his earlier involvement with extremist organisations."--John Bird (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

A one time single issue IP, shall we call sock? There is no consensus for the change, please wait agreement on the talk page. ----Snowded ^TALK 20:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

A sock? It was me but I forgot to sign in. Cited information shouldn't be removed for no reason.--John Bird (talk) 20:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

You have reinserted disputed material in the lede - and it is not the first time. I realise you are an inexperienced editor but read WP:BRD, you were bold, you were reverted you now discuss. You do not simply edit war, you have to make arguments here. At the moment you have two experienced editors against you for reasons stated and one experienced editor who is sympathetic. That does not permit you to make the changes. As to cited information, to have a citation is not enough of itself it has to pass tests of weight and relevance, You appear to me to be trying to sanitise this guys history but if you can advance arguments fine lets look at them, In the meantime stop edit warring. ----Snowded ^TALK 20:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I was the one who created this section in the talk page because User:Emeraude simply kept reverting it back to "National Socialist". I've already stated my arguments as to why this in the article is incorrect. Tyndall's involvement in neo-Nazi groups is mentioned throughout. Sanatise his history? I think that counts as personal attack, nevertheless, I don't think so. Two can play that game, your talk page states "This user identifies as a Democratic Socialist", I'm sure that has nothing to do with your adamant determination to keep 'National Socialist' in this article, right? Anyways, let's be mature and stop the silly personal attacks and actually talk about the article. I've added into the article he was far-right and a white supremacist. Nobody disputes he was both of these things, along with being a British nationalist and a white nationalist but to label him simply as a 'National Socialist' because of his past associations is simply wrong. Tyndall reflected on numerous occasions that he was in the wrong for having being involved with such groups, distanced himself (or at least never mentioned it publicly) from neo-Nazis and instead worked towards his view of British nationalism.

Edit warring? I've presented my arguments a couple of times and it seems that it's getting ignored and you and others are determined to have 'National Socialist' in the leading part of the article. In my opinion, this does nothing more than present the reader with misinformation because his earlier associations does not reflect how he thought forever.

What are your arguments for keeping 'National Socialist' in the leading part of the article?--John Bird (talk) 21:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

You are not being ignored, other editors disagree with you; its not the same thing. I posted some information on your talk page that you need to read. To give an example, the main argument with which you open this thread comes from a primary source which is not the way wikipedia works. If you make a contested change without agreement on the talk page you are edit warring, even if you think you are right. If you want agreement to a change you will have to present secondary sources which support your edit, and get agreement here before you make a change ----Snowded ^TALK 06:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The points I'm making out are being ignored. I'm well aware of the difference between ignored and disagreeing but both is happening. You've also accused me of sanitising this man's history, I'm sure that counts as a personal attack which is prohibited by Wikipedia. And if you care to have a look at my edits on the article you'll find I've not added anything that could be remotely called watering down his history of political activity.

You've also said "At the moment you have two experienced editors against you for reasons stated and one experienced editor who is sympathetic." - how does how long someone has been on Wikipedia make their opinion any more valid? It doesn't.

The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion and I've asked a couple of times for evidence that he was a 'National Socialist/neo-Nazi' and no evidence is being presented but rather it simply being added to the article. Nobody disagrees that he can be described as this in his earlier years of political activity but his views changed and he no longer associated with such groups. But he did remain a fascist, British nationalist, white nationalist and white supremacist.

User:Midnightblueowl also attempted to change it to "British political activist who was ideologically allied to National Socialist" and again this was reverted without any particular reason.

For the people wishing for it to stay as 'British National Socialist', where is the evidence to support this assertion?--John Bird (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

In partial defense of John Bird's position, I am not sure why we are avoiding the description of Tyndall as a "politician" or "political activist" in that lede sentence. After all, I don't know of any biographical article here at Wikipedia that says "Mr X was a British social-democrat" or "Ms Y was a British classical liberal", they usually say "Mrs K was a British politician" or "Mr H was a British political theorist" etc. Moreover, Tyndall was clearly involved in political activity, having led various political parties and stood as a candidate in elections; Copsey (2008, p. 73, p. 98) for instance repeatedly referred to Tyndall's "political career" in his book Contemporary British Fascism. While Neo-Nazism is an extreme ideology which is widely regarded as beyond 'beyond the pale' of mainstream, acceptable politics, I'm not sure that that is reason enough for avoiding the terms "politician" or "political activist" in the lede. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Tyndall only had a brief phrase in which he openly advocated National Socialism but later reflected on this time and called it "unwise". I think it's a misrepresentation to call him a 'British National Socialist' because of the fact that during the 1960s he was associated with groups that advocated such a doctrine when his political activity and politician years spanned for much more than this and were much more of a British nationalist and white nationalist tendency, rather than Nazism.--John Bird (talk) 07:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

As I read them, the reliable sources that discuss Tyndall's life seem to accept that he was a Neo-Nazi from the 1950s/60s right through to his death. They note that he toned down the overt Neo-Nazi rhetoric as he moved into the NF and BNP but that his basic beliefs remained the same, i.e. that his move away from overt Neo-Nazism was cosmetic as opposed to a reflection of a genuine ideological change. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Which sources and what evidence do they have to support this thesis?--John Bird (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Thurlow 1987, p. 274 and Copsey 2008, p. 98 both stress that Tyndall did not divorce himself from the Neo-Nazi beliefs that he held in the 50s and 60s, and that his political views in the 90s and 00s were essentially the same. However, I will stress that if there are other historians of British fascism and the far right who disagree with Thurlow and Copsey's assessment then I am certainly happy to look at those sources and incorporate those views into the article. I have no axe to grind with regard to whether he was a Neo-Nazi in later life or not; I just want to follow Wikipedia policy by adhering to the WP:Reliable Sources produced by academics and other respected scholars. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't view either of these references via Google books, what evidence do they say to support this assertion? How academic and respected are Thurlow and Copsey? We need to be careful that there is no WP:TE and ensure WP:NPOV within the article as I'm sure you are aware that it's not hard to find bias when it comes to describing the politics of people.--John Bird (talk) 14:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I've added the specific quotes from both of these sources into the article. Thurlow and Copsey are two of the best known academics commentators on the British far right, although it will also be importance to add the work of other historians in to the article too. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

After researching these two writers, it becomes quite apparent that there is an evident political bias in Copsey's works, especially given that he's a self-proclaimed anti-fascist writing about fascism. It's all good and well for Copsey to write that in his book but I'm interested in what evidence he has to support such a thesis. Although I'd agree much more with Thurlow's quote because he says "Tyndall was to retain the basic extremist views which had always characterised his thought." which is true, he always remained a strong nationalist and held what a lot of people would consider 'extreme' views but he doesn't say he remained a Nazi and that's the key point. This is why I don't understand why some people are insisting for 'British National Socialist' to be used in the leading part of the article. I think it's extremely misleading to the reader when you take into account he was only a neo-Nazi for a short period of his political career and it was very early on and after moving on from that he distanced himself completely and called it a "mistake". Tyndall never said anything like that with regards to any of his other views and he always considered himself a nationalist and did not hide any of his views.--John Bird (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Recent reversion

Hello all. I recently added a lot of academically referenced information to this article, replacing the mass of unreferenced material: this was my variant. Snowded has removed both this and the subsequent edits by User:John Bird because of the current debates over whether Tyndall was a "politician" and a "Neo-Nazi", debates which I haven't really involved myself with in any depth. Unless anyone has any particular qualms with my edits, could I get some support for restoring them? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

It looks like User:FreeKnowledgeCreator has since restored my edit. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

You should not have changed the contested first paragraph, happy to simply make that change but please do not include controversial with uncontroversial edits ----Snowded ^TALK 07:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I still think that "Neo-Nazi" may be a better term than "National Socialist" in this context, however. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@User:Snowded

What is controversial here exactly? A few points have already been mentioned as to why this seems to mislead the reader. Tyndall can only be considered a National Socialist during the 1960s which is mentioned throughout the article, after this brief time with such groups he cannot be considered as such. People's views change over time, Tyndall was no exception.

@User:Midnightblueowl

Is there really any difference between 'National Socialist' and 'neo-Nazi'?--John Bird (talk) 07:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

One is 'neo' the other is, hence the objection to removing it ----Snowded ^TALK 08:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

"National Socialism" appears to be the preferred term of both the original German Nazis and the post-1945 Neo-Nazis. However, reliable sources tend to favour "Nazism" over "National Socialism" and given that Tyndall's political activities and involvement in Neo-Nazism were all post-1945 then it seems logical (at least to my mind) to call him a "Neo-Nazi" or describe his ideological bent thusly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Well one only has to look at Stormfront to see that modern day Nazis call themselves 'National Socialists' not 'neo-Nazis'. But whether or not Tyndall post-1960s should be considered as such is dubious to say the least.--John Bird (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

As I said before I think the arguments above are clear. We do not go from Tyndall's claims about what he was or was not. If there is a source which says he ceased to be a National Socialist in reality - not just for PR purposes then fine we can look at it. ----Snowded ^TALK 22:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Let me repeat: Tyndall expressed regret at his actions in the early 1960s, but never repudiated his views. He changed his mind about how to do things, but not what he wanted to achieve.

The debate over whether he was a Neo-Nazi or a National Socialist is rather splitting hairs (the same goes for "fascist"/"neo-fascist"). The neo- tends to be used for groups set up post-1945, but has no real meaning politically: all political theories and parties evolve over time as new issues arise, but the direct lineage is still there. But, and I've said this before, even if Tyndall did cease to be a Nazi, it doesn't alter the fact that he was one! Emeraude (talk) 10:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Emeraude, what evidence do you have to support your assertion that "Tyndall expressed regret at his actions in the early 1960s, but never repudiated his views. He changed his mind about how to do things, but not what he wanted to achieve."?

Tyndall said in an interview during the 1970s:

Many of my views have changed since that time as they do, some of my views have remained the same, yes, I was always very patriotic, always a nationalist, and those views remain the same.

I can't see any evidence post-1970 from his published works and speeches that can even remotely be described as pro-Nazi.--John Bird (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

What you can't see is any evidence of which of his views changed nor that he said "I am no longer a Nazi." But, even if he did say that. it doesn't change the fact that he had been a Nazi! Emeraude (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim and you were the one who said that he never "never repudiated" his former Nazi views so it's up to you to provide evidence for this claim. Nobody is denying that he was a Nazi during the 1960s, Tyndall himself even spoke about this on numerous occasions.--John Bird (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Tyndall WAS a Nazi, no one disputes that. I claim nothing, so there is no burden of proof on me. YOU claim that he ceased to be one. The burden of proof is therefore on you. Thus far, you have failed to show any. Emeraude (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Emeraude, the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence that he "never repudiated" his views. Nobody disputes that Tyndall was a Nazi during the 1960s, even Tyndall himself admitted this and called it unwise and a mistake.--John Bird (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Not the case - his word is not what we base our judgement on but third party sources. You need to find one of those, we do not (I repeat) work from claims of a primary source here. ----Snowded ^TALK 13:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

No, you need to provide evidence that he remained a neo-Nazi post-1960s. It's not up to the disbeliever to prove anything. Primary sources can be used in Wikipedia articles (in fact Tyndall's own book The Eleventh Hour is used quite a bit currently in the article). And if we look at the actual evidence, one sees that after the 1960s Tyndall had absolutely nothing to do with neo-Nazi groups and distanced himself entirely from such organisations and people, unlike say Colin Jordan, who rightly can be described as a 'National Socialist' in his article.

Wikipedia also has a no bias rule, are you telling me that some anti-fascist writers who publish books on fascism or other ideologies that are perceived as right-wing will not have a bias? For example, the source given that he was a neo-Nazi is titled Bloody Nasty People: The Rise of Britain's Far Right, I don't think it takes a genius to work out that this will likely have a high degree of bias towards people and ideologies that the author considers "far-right".

If we look at the evidence, we see that Tyndall was involved with neo-Nazi groups during the 1960s and considered himself a 'National Socialist' but after this brief phrase of his political career which spanned over fifty years, he had nothing to do with such beliefs and groups. Thurlow's quote doesn't state he remained a neo-Nazi just that he kept his 'extremist views' (who decides what is considered to be extreme?). Copsey is an anti-fascist writer who has a clear agenda against 'fascism' and people that are 'far-right', I don't see anywhere in his book that provides any evidence for his assertion "Moreover, regardless of some cosmetic changes, his ideology had remained the same from start to finish."

Anyways, this 'debate' seems to be beating a dead horse because early on in this debate when I put forward my points as to why I think it's incorrect for 'National Socialist' to be in the leading part of the article, you straight away personally attacked me by accusing me of sanitising this man's political history, when in fact if you bothered to look at my edits to the article you would find the opposite. And now you're trying to dictate to me which sources are acceptable and not when it's quite apparent by this you're only going to accept sources which seem to confirm your opinion that he was a neo-Nazi for his whole life.--John Bird (talk) 16:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

There are a couple of points that I'd like to clear up here John, with regard to your comment above (and bear in mind that I am not personally committed to the retention of "National Socialist" in the lede). You argue that sources like that of Copsey are biased because they are written by people who have anti-fascist sympathies. This may be true. However, these are still academic specialists in the study of the far right, and moreover given the general unpopularity of fascism in the post-1945 world it would indeed be difficult to find many academics who are either pro or neutral when it comes to fascism. Related to this, I would recommend that you familiarise yourself with WP:Neutral Point of View; it doesn't mean that we have to be scrupulously neutral or 'objective' in presenting information (i.e. by counterbalancing any negative comment with a positive one etc). Rather, it means that we must neutrally present the information contained in WP:Reliable sources. Given that Copsey and other academic specialists in the far right are the best form of Reliable Source available to us, our job as Wikipedia editors is to neutrally present what they say, not to ensure that the actual coverage of Tyndall's life is 'neutral'.

Your second point that I wanted to comment on was your view that he ceased to be a Neo-Nazi because he ceased referring to himself as such. As I have seen the term used in some academic literature, "Neo-Nazi" does not exclusively mean those who continue to claim to be "National Socialists/Nazis" post-1945, but rather applies to all those with similar beliefs regarding a Nordic/Aryan race, adherence to anti-Semitic conspiracies, an authoritarian state etc. By that definition, I think that there can be little contention that Tyndall remained a Neo-Nazi even after jettisoning the Nazi iconography. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying that all of the sources that are used for the article that are from self-proclaimed anti-fascists have a complete bias but some of them by even just their title are a big give away, you can't honestly tell me for example that Trilling's "Bloody Nasty People" is not a sign that the writer is hardly going to be writing objectively about what he perceives to be the far-right in Britain.

I'm already familiar with how articles are supposed to be edited.

From WP:NPOV:

"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

It doesn't matter how unpopular an ideology or anything may be, the point is that it's about representing it fairly and accurately. And also, I'm sure you are familiar with "If it's written in a book, it must be true!". So going off that, I'm interested in what evidence Copsey has to support his thesis that Tyndall remained a neo-Nazi. As I've previously said, the page that the quote is on is not available via Google books so if you have the book, does it have a reference for the quote or is it just simply his own words?

Here are a couple of interesting quotes from Martin Walker's book The National Front (1977):

He had also flirted with Nazism without being tainted with it to quite the same degree as Colin Jordan. Although he was in his late twenties when he was a keen member of the Nazi movement, Tyndall always subsequently dismissed his involvement as youthful folly. Men do change their minds. But in the January issue of Spearhead for 1972, he pointed out that he was not ashamed of his Nazism, but simply regretted it. 'Though some of my former beliefs were mistaken,' he wrote, 'I will never acknowledge that there was anything dishonourable about holding them.'

— p.68

Although his supporters and detractors still dispute whether or not he remains a convinced National Socialist, nobody has ever questioned Tyndall's drive and dedication.

— p. 69

--John Bird (talk) 05:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The whole of that first quote would be a valid inclusion, but you just took the second part which changes the sense of what was said in the third party source ----Snowded ^TALK 11:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hardly. The rest of the quote is Walker's explanation of Tyndall's Nazi past, the rest is the direct quote from Tyndall himself explaining his Nazi past. There are already more than enough full quotes added into the article. Anyway, I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence for your belief that he remained a Nazi. How come you're not even providing any evidence? The burden of proof lies on you. I'm still waiting to find out from User:Midnightblueowl whether or not Copsey's claim that he remained a neo-Nazi is just his opinion or has an actual reference, I strongly suspect it's going to just be the former. By the way, it isn't just what you find acceptable that can only stay in the article you know. As this 'debate' is going on it's becoming increasingly difficult from refraining to get personal (although I'm not really personally attacking but simply mentioning political beliefs of users) because so far the impression I'm getting is basically all what is going to be considered 'acceptable' by a 'consensus' is what left-wing people such as yourself, User:Emeraude, etc consider to be fit to be added into the article and anything contrary simply gets removed. This is of course despite the fact that so far there is not a single shred of solid evidence to suggest Tyndall remained a neo-Nazi after the 1960s but of course a couple of quotes from anti-fascist writers on fascism is considered sufficient and acceptable, righto.--John Bird (talk) 00:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Stop making personal allegations and try and deal with the evidence. In my opinion you are selectively quoting - I have said I am happy with the full quote. You have yet to produce a third party source to say be stopped being a neo nazi, primary sources don't count. Have you read the editorial guidance I posted to your page? ----Snowded ^TALK 04:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Such perverse thinking! Everyone accepts that Tyndall WAS a Nazi. That is well-documented and properly sourced in the article. There is no need to provide evidence that he remained a Nazi; what would be needed is evidence that he ceased to be one. Apart from a quotation from Tyndall himself (unacceptable/unreliable) published in a magazine that he owned (unacceptable/unreliable) there is not a single piece of reliable evidence that this is the case. Indeed, reliable sources all say the opposite. Emeraude (talk) 07:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Snowded it was actually you who first personally attacked me earlier on when you accused me of satinising this man's history by simply questioning the authenticity of labeling him a 'National Socialist' and especially in the leading part of the article. Or are you just forgetting that? I've not even made any personal 'allegations', your political beliefs are there for everyone to see on your page and it doesn't take a genius to work out that it's not rocket science to know that when you're discussing things such as this then you're going to have a bias. I wasn't born yesterday or in a field. I'm not 'selectively quoting', the first part of that quote is Walker's explanation about Tyndall's past, the rest were Tyndall's own words and I did say "in Spearhead". I don't need to provide any evidence that he stopped being a Nazi. How many times do you need to be told? The burden of proof lies on you and all the others making the claim that he remained a Nazi. Have a read of the several articles linked on the Wikipedia page of Proving a negative as it seems you're either purposely ignoring me when I'm pointing this out since you're repeatedly asking me to provide proof or you are simply failing to comprehend how the burden of proof works.

User:Emeraude your usage of the word 'was' is ambiguous as it simply refers to the past and Tyndall 'was' a Nazi in the 1960s but the word 'was' is also used to describe his life post-1960s when he stopped associating with neo-Nazi groups and as far as the evidence shows did not hold such beliefs anymore. Although you saying 'everyone accepts' is wrong (I don't accept he was a neo-Nazi post 1960s) it's also using the appeal to the people fallacy which counts for nothing. Are you also another one who doesn't understand how the burden of proof works when a claim is made? Have a read of the link provided above and you should be able to get the gist of it, hopefully. It's funny how you say Tyndall's words are unacceptable/unreliable (why?) yet his book The Eleventh Hour is used heavily within the article. And no, statements of opinion do not qualify necessarily as facts or to be used as reliable sources, perhaps also read WP:RS.--John Bird (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

You've been told this several times but I will repeat it once more. You have to have a reliable third party source that says he stopped being a National Socialist. His own word is not enough for Wikipedia. We have it sourced that he was, you need to source that he ceased to be. When you have that come back here, otherwise you are wasting everyone's time.----Snowded ^TALK 03:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I've told you plenty of times and I will continue to do so, I don't need to provide any source that states he stopped being a National Socialist, that is not how the burden of proof works. Statements of opinion in a book don't prove a thing, their opinion is no more valid than mine, yours or even Tyndall's. How about you stop wasting my time? You've repeated the same thing half a dozen times with you repeatedly asking me to provide evidence that he stopped being a neo-Nazi when in fact I don't have to prove a thing and the quotes you have that are sourced are just statements of opinion without any references. Opinion does not equal fact: some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion.--John Bird (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

In Wikipedia statements in reliable sources are more valuable than your or my opinion, or for that matter Tyndall ----Snowded ^TALK 00:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh really? Try re-reading the quote I used from the Wikipedia article regarding reliable sources and personal opinions. A quote that is a statement of opinion in a book doesn't necessarily count as a 'reliable source' or of any more value to another person's opinion (whether published in a book or not). Stop wasting my time.--John Bird (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Go the RS notice board if you don't believe me ----Snowded ^TALK 10:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Moving forward

Let's just try and move past the back-and-forth arguing here and actually establish something approaching a consensus. At present the article begins by stating that Tyndall "was a British National Socialist". This version appears to be supported by Snowded and Emeraude (please correct me if I am mistaken). John Bird opposes this variant on the basis that Tyndall ceased to explicitly describe himself as a "National Socialist" in the late 1960s, when he instead adopted the description "British nationalist". He has also raised concerns that this wording reflects a lack of neutrality and demonstrates an anti-fascist bias. I have concerns about this same variant because a) the term "National Socialist" isn't generally favoured by Wikipedia (i.e., our article is titled Nazism, not "National Socialism"), b) the term "Neo-Nazism" would be clearer as it reflects that Tyndall was operating post-1945, and c) it completely ignores the words "political activist" or "politician", which is a much clearer way of describing Tyndall's actual activities, rather than just describing his ideology. I proposed the version stating that Tyndall "was a British Neo-Nazi activist", which in turn was supported by FreeKnowledgeCreator but then opposed and reverted by Snowded.

Now, clearly there is a fair bit of opposition to the current wording. Can we, as a group, come together with an appropriate alternative, or are we going to have to take this to RfC? What about something like "Tyndall was a British far right political activist who was ideologically committed to Neo-Nazism and racialist British nationalism". Would that deal with everybody's concerns? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I basically agree with your points above. A problem with labeling someone like Tyndall a "National Socialist" is that it equates people who are inspired by or fascinated with Nazism with the original Nazi movement itself, and thereby confuses two really very different things. "National Socialists" should probably be restricted to the original Nazi movement. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

That would be a policy issue for Wikipedia - restricting National Socialist to the original Nazi party. I can see the argument but it would need to be a wider discussion possibly at the Politics Norcie board/ Now that is a completely separate issue from John Bird's argument that we should use a primary source to determine if Tyndall ceased to be a National Socialist. A third issue is process, once something has been reverted a couple of times by experienced editors then proposed compromises should be agreed on the talk page. Just trying different options on the main article without agreement first just creates problems.

So adding in political activist is fine from my perspective. However I think the evidence shows that Tyndall was a Nazi/National Socialist and the only evidence of change presented so far that he changed is his own words - which don't count. Neo-Nazi seems weaker but I think there is a case to be made, but it should be opened as a wider issue of style/policy.

In respect of the immediate issue, Midnight's language might work if we added National Socialist to the phrase referencing when he got started. I'd be open to discussing something around that but we need ALL editors engaged to agree before changes are made----Snowded ^TALK 05:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding neo-Nazi/National Socialist: The German party never called itself "Nazi", only National Socialist. Nazi is a UK/US contraction, so perhaps Wikipedia's policy described above needs looking at. Regardless, Tyndall was a leading member of the National Socialist Movement, which I think is justification enough for describing him as such rather than as simply a far right activist and makes resticting its use to the original German party somewhat nonsensical.

Regarding "neo-": This is really meaningless, though widely used. It implies that at some point in 1945 some serious and irreversible shift occured in Nazi or fascist thought - it didn't. We don't refer to any other party or ideology in this way and it is not really helpful in discriminating between them. There is clear evolutionary development in Nazism/fascism from the early 20th century through the war and post-war, but that is all. The same people were involved with the same ideas. Personally, I'd just go for Nazi (or, in the wider field, fascist) without the neo-, but I've no strong feelings on this. Emeraude (talk) 08:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Midnightblueowl

The problem with even the words 'British Neo-Nazi political activist' also suggest that he kept onto neo-Nazi beliefs post-1960s and that his whole ideology was based upon Nazism when in fact we don't really have any concrete evidence to support this view. In fact, even during the 1960s when he was heavily involved post-war neo-Nazism in Britain we see that Tyndall found out quite quickly that open Nazism was not going to gain much support and began to gradually distance himself from such organisations, unlike say Colin Jordan who remained an outspoken adherent of neo-Nazism in Britain throughout his whole life. Tyndall's political activism and career was not based entirely on neo-Nazism and only a fraction of it was, to put into the leading part of the article an ideology that he supported during the 1960s and was simply a brief phrase during his whole time of involvement with politics is a non-sequitur. To try and use this in the leading part of the article is really misleading to the reader and implies that he simply remained a neo-Nazi for all his life. The only "evidence" to support this is from left-wing anti-fascist writers who provide no evidence to support the thesis (do any of the quotations used in the article atm have any actual references or are they just opinions?) and show a complete bias throughout the article. I've even found a quote from Martin Walker in his book 'The National Front' which states that both his supporters and opponents disputer whether or not he remained onto his Nazi beliefs after his brief spell with such organisations, this again is in large contrast to what is currently in the article.

User:Snowded

It's apparent to anyone who has read your posts on the talk page that you're not even interested in a debate and simply accuse people of both being right-wing and satinising people's history if their opinions and arguments don't coincide with your own. How ridiculous. Have you even bothered to check the edits I've contributed to Tyndall's article? No. Otherwise you wouldn't say such nonsense. I'm not going to bother wasting anymore of my time when it comes to discussing about neutral point of view, burden of proof, reliable sources, etc, with you because you just don't care and have ignored everything I have said and simply revert everything from the article you don't like.

According to you "the evidence shows that Tyndall was a Nazi/National Socialist and the only evidence of change presented so far that he changed is his own words - which don't count." a) provide the 'evidence' that Tyndall remained a Nazi post-1960s with references and not just someone's opinion from a book. b) Why doesn't his own words count as evidence? Primary sources can be used in Wikipedia articles. Also, in accordance with your second point, I've even provided a quote from Martin Walker from his book 'The National Front' that even in 1977 it was not clear to both his supporters and opponents whether or not he held onto his Nazi beliefs from the 1960s.

How can 'ALL' editors agree when you're not even willing to look at the counter-evidence and are ignoring everything I have said?

User:Emeraude

Have you actually done any research on the Nazis and the Nazi party? In the early days, the word 'Nazi' was used frequently enough by the Nazis themselves and Goebbels himself used it occasionally, including in his diaries. Although once they came to power, the name was rarely used by them and instead only by their opponents. The word Nazi did not start out as a UK/US contraction and was used by the opponents of the Nazis because of the way 'National Socialist' is pronounced in German. Tyndall was involved with the National Socialist Movement in the 1960s and during this time he can rightly be called a Nazi, something which he himself never denied. Tyndall's Nazi phase during the 1960s is well documented throughout the article, nobody disputes that. Are we to describe people's political based on what they were part of for a short time? Many Nazis of the Third Reich were former communists, what does one label them? People's opinions and political beliefs can and do change, to label someone something because they held them beliefs for a certain period of time makes no sense. It's more accurate to describe him as a 'far right activist' because that is what he remained throughout all of his time with political activism and never changed those beliefs. How is the term 'neo' "meaningless"? It distinguishes the people of the original movement to those in the post-movement period who adhere to that ideology. You said "We don't refer to any other party or ideology in this way and it is not really helpful in discriminating between them" then what about neoliberalism, neo-Marxism, etc? The "same people" were not necessarily involved with the same ideas, hence the difference. If one were to put just 'Nazi' then the reader would assume he was a Nazi during the 1933-1945 period, the same with 'fascist' to mean a fascist from 1922-1943, including the word 'neo' easily tells the reader they mean to describe someone post either of these movements but who adheres to the ideology.--John Bird (talk) 10:02, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah well, all of the experienced editors on this page are somehow or other mistaken while you, a relatively new and apparently largely single purpose account are right. We've been here too many times on right wing articles I'm afraid. If you think it is right to use primary sources then take it to the RS notice board and see if the community agree with you. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Given that both Snowded and FreeKnowledgeCreator seem happy with the "political activist" label, and that no one else has objected to this particular terminology, I am going to be bold and add "political activist" into the lede. We would therefore open the article with "was a British National Sociaist political activist". This of course does not mean that the debate regarding the lede ends here, but I hope that it is at least a step in the right direction. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Snowded

A user that has been registered longer on Wikipedia doesn't mean that their opinion is anymore valid. There you go again, first you have accused me of trying to satinise Tyndall's history and now you're trying to make out I have some sort of agenda "largely single purpose". Have you even bothered to check out the contributions I have made to Tyndall's article? I don't think so. It's also quite ironic that how you've personally attacked me and then when I mentioned your political views which is not even a personal attack you said "Stop making personal allegations and try and deal with the evidence" and yet here you go again actually making another personal attack against me. Now you're putting words into my mouth, I've never said that we should only use primary sources but that they can be used on Wikipedia. What I have questioned is the reliability of the quotes from self-proclaimed anti-fascist writers about John Tyndall that are claiming he remained a Nazi post-1960s. It appears none of them have any references (or evidence of post-1960s neo-Nazi activity) which is why I'm questioning the authenticity of having 'National Socialist' in the leading part of the article.

User:Midnightblueowl

I don't think the words 'political activist' will cause any stir because that is essentially what he was for the most part of his political career. However, I don't see why people are favouring 'National Socialist' over 'neo-Nazi' when the former seems to imply to the reader that Tyndall was a pre-1945 Nazi when in fact he was a Nazi during the 1960s and people post-1945 tend to be called neo-Nazis rather than National Socialists (although they themselves do describe themselves as 'National Socialists' as a way to try and adhere to the original German National Socialism of the 1930s and because they view neo-Nazi as a 'Jewish term' which is utter rubbish). I'm still wondering why people are insisting on 'National Socialist' to be in the very first sentence of the article when his Nazi activities are mentioned in the first paragraph and all the way through the article. I would personally say something along the lines of 'Tyndall was a British far-right political activist' because that is what he was for all of his political career and in the second sentence the article reads "A leading member of various small Neo-Nazi groups during the late 1950s and 1960s" again, which nobody disputes, and is factually correct and is right up there at the beginning of the article for every reader to see.

Some of the phrases that I find are dubious are things like:

"was a British National Socialist political activist"

"Although never changing his basic beliefs, by the mid-1960s Tyndall was replacing his overt references to Nazism with appeals to British nationalism."

"Tyndall adhered to Neo-Nazism during the 1960s, although from the 1970s onward he increasingly this behind the rhetoric of "British patriotism"

"Nevertheless, his basic ideological world-view did not change."

In order for such things to be in an article they need to be supported by actual evidencee, a simple quote from an author which is nothing more than a statement of opinion does not suffice.

As I have said before, when the article is using sources which have titles like Bloody Nasty People: The Rise of Britain's Far Right then I think one should question the authenticity of such sources. It's the exact same as far-right, fascists, etc writing about Karl Marx, Marxism, communism, socialism, etc, and then using them as sources in Wikipedia, they obviously will have a bias and should not be used as sources. The same goes for the anti-fascist writers opinions on here that make such bold statements about Tyndall without having any references to support them. Can't you see where I'm coming from? Surely you must.--John Bird (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I can appreciate your concerns, John, but I would urge you to look more closely at WP:Reliable sources and similar policies. All sources have a bias, in that they are written by someone who has an opinion. In some cases, an individual may be very good at shielding that opinion by playing the devil's advocate, while in other cases their opinion may come through far more blatantly in their writing. Regardless of how good they are at shielding their own views, everyone who has written on a subject (in this case the life of Tyndall) has their own perspective, informed by their own experiences and ideological position. This means that there are no objective, neutral sources when it comes to Tyndall, and we just have to accept that. Thus, for Wikipedia's purposes we don't need to find 'non-biased' or 'neutral' sources; we need to use 'Reliable Sources'. The best form of reliable sources are those produced by academic specialists in the far right and published in peer-reviewed academic sources (i.e. Copsey's book). Also acceptable are sources from respected mainstream journalists and mainstream publishers (i.e. Trilling's work). If these individual's analysis of Tyndall is influenced by their bias against his particular beliefs and world-view then so be it: their published work is still "reliable" as the term is understood at Wikipedia. Obviously this means that Wikipedia does have something of a 'mainstream bias' in that it gives priority to the writings of academics and journalists who are writing (and more importantly publishing) within the sphere of mainstream respectability, but that's just the way it is. Remember that Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" policy insists that we neutrally present what the 'reliable sources' say, not that we seek to present a 'neutral' image through the use of both 'reliable' and fringe sources. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I've already looked at the different articles covering what you have said and this is why I'm questioning the inclusion of certain information in the article at the present time. My biggest issue with the article is not so much the quote boxes from a couple of writers which give their opinions of Tyndall but the mention of 'National Socialist' in the leading part of the article. Not a single source confirms this inclusion into the article and the precise term gives the reader the impression he was a Nazi pre-1945 when in fact he was a 1960s Nazi in Britain. I feel that the Due and undue weight part of NPOV needs to be looked at closer regarding certain information in the text and the sources currently used in the article. I actually don't see why there seems to be an on going debate about the mention of 'National Socialist' in the leading part of the article when the evidence available shows he was not one apart from in the 1960s. In the article Tyndall is described as various things (racial nationalist, a fascist, and a Neo-Nazi.) so why is the term 'National Socialist' the one being used in the leading part of the article? I propose this should be changed to "was a British far-right political activist". Given that the consensus is that all of the things Tyndall is described as in the article are considered far-right and it includes ALL of these into one single term "far-right" rather than singling out the neo-Nazi part and for some bizarre reason opting to use the term National Socialist.--John Bird (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Find a reliable third party source, not your interpretation of a primary one. ----Snowded ^TALK 22:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Ad nauseam. You've said the same thing dozens of times now. The burden of proof does not rest on me. However, Martin Walker in his book The National Front writes that in the late 1970s both his supporters and opponents questioned whether or not he still held onto his Nazi beliefs. Also, primary sources can be used as sources in Wikipedia articles so a third party source is not the only source that is allowed.--John Bird (talk) 08:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Because you don't listen. Primary sources can only be used in very restricted circumstances and certainly not for this type of case. If you don't believe me take it to the RS notice board. ----Snowded ^TALK 18:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Listen? I don't listen to you when you try and tell me what to do but I'm well aware of how sources are used within articles. I still don't see any reliable sources that present any references that he was a 'National Socialist' post-1960s. I've also questioned why the article is currently using the term in the leading part of the article when he is described as other things throughout the article. Also, why is it 'National Socialist' and not 'neo-Nazi' which is typically the term used to describe post-1945 Nazis. Perhaps you could explain why you're so determined to have 'National Socialist' in the leading part of the article as opposed to simply far-right (which is a term that covers all of the terms which are regarded as such and he is described as throughout the article) since you're so hell bent on reverting any edit that removes this and opts for something different.--John Bird (talk) 20:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Both I and Emeraude have already said why we see no need for change. Midnight has also explained to you the issue on the use of primary sources. You need a third party source that says he ceased to be a Nationalist Socialist. At the moment you are using primary sources and [WP:OR|adding your own interpretation} of said source. The majority of amendments you have made have been fine but not this. Sometimes it is just time to move on ... ----Snowded ^TALK 05:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Midnightblueowl is the only one who has given me decent replies and can to an extent see where I am coming from, he has even questioned the usage of 'National Socialist' as opposed to neo-Nazi. You keep asking me to provide 'proof' that he stopped being a Nazi, how many times do you need to read this before you understand the logic of the burden of proof? You keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again. I've explained to you that I don't need to provide ANY proof that he ceased to be a Nazi, but on the contrary, you need to provide reliable evidence that states he did remain a Nazi since you're the one making the claim, which so far I see none. Tyndall's own works are used throughout the article, he never denied being a Nazi during the 1960s. The two quotes I gave from Martin Walker's book The National Front questions the opinions of the writers who make the claim that he remained a Nazi post-1960s. So far the article reads like WP:RSUW and when it comes to the two quotes being used then attention needs to be paid to WP:RSOPINION.

You've still not explained why you're opting for the usage of 'National Socialist' as opposed to simply 'neo-Nazi' as well. Tyndall was a post-1945 Nazi during the 1960s not a Nazi during the Third Reich era, there is a difference. No explanation has been given for this and you keep avoiding it.

"Sometimes it is just time to move on" - in other words, because you and Emeraude agree on something then it's a status quo, I don't think so.--John Bird (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Check out your interpretation at the RS notice board then ----Snowded ^TALK 21:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't need to. Plus, it has become quite apparent that you're not even wanting to engage in a discussion or to compromise but simply keep things as the status quo because you and someone else agrees with it. This is clearly not going anywhere. --John Bird (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

If you are not prepared to use processes in place for dispute resolution then yes, things will do nowhere. ----Snowded ^TALK 23:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't need to take this dispute anywhere else. What you need to do is provide evidence that he remained a Nazi after the 1960s and why you are opting for the usage of 'National Socialist' as opposed to 'neo-Nazi' as well.--John Bird (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

You don't have consensus for change and you aren't prepared to use the relevant notice board. Until either or both change there is no point in further responses. You have had your questions answered you just don't like the results ----Snowded ^TALK 09:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Don't ever tell me what to do. I've already told you, I don't need to take this anywhere else. Stop repeating yourself. The thing is, no 'results' have been presented by you which is why I've asked time and time again several questions but I might as well just be talking to a brick wall as you don't ever reply with any answers and just repeat the same stuff. A consensus? You've never even indicated that you were ever interested in compromising about certain things that some people disagree with that are in the article at present. In fact, the majority of your replies are just the same things said over and over again and personal attacks e.g someone questions the assertion that Tyndall remained a Nazi post-1960s and you accuse that person of 'satanising' Tyndall's history, etc. Nothing will ever be changed because any edit that you disagree with just simply gets reverted because you seem to think that the only thing that should be included in the article are things that are in line with your thoughts and anything else should be excluded because you don't think that it's right. Don't waste anymore of my time.--John Bird (talk) 13:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry - been away for a few days. Howvere, disappointed to see no pregress here and annoyed to see repeated misrepresentations of what has been said. I have never said that he should not be referred to as a neo-Nazi in preference to National Socialist; in fact,, I indicated that I wasn't particularly bothered either way though I did prefer the latter. A solution has been offered - go to the RS notice board - but you won't do it and have become unnecessarily beligerent and personal. To repeat: there is more than ample reliable evidence that Tyndall was a Nazi; there is no reliable evidence that he genuinely ceased to be. If a leopard is alleged to have changed its spots, you need evidence that it changed its spots: without that it is still a leopard and we are not required to prove it's still spotty! Emeraude (talk) 11:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

John, you've got an awful lot to learn about editing wikipedia ----Snowded ^TALK 23:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Emeraude

I didn't specifically aim it to you but have asked why is he being referred to as a 'National Socialist' and not the post-1945 term 'neo-Nazi'. The term National Socialist is misleading to the reader as it implies he had some sort of affiliation with Nazism prior to 1945. I'd hardly call that a solution, it is simply Snowded's way of avoiding explaining himself. "To repeat" - then please show the evidence that he remained a Nazi post-1960s. Do you have any other 'evidence' besides two anti-fascist writers statements of opinion?

I've had a read of all your posts on the talk page and I find these two quotes to sum up your way of thinking when it comes to this debate:

On a wider point, it really doesn't matter what Tyndall's position was at his death or in later life, though there is no great evidence that he ever changed his views. If he had just joined the Communist Party it wouldn't alter the fact that for most of his life he was a fascist, had been a leading neo-Nazi (National Socialist Movement, for goodness sake), and a virulent anti-semite. We're dealing here with what he was known for, not with what some would have us belive he never did or later recanted (he didn't). His supporters and apologists may not like it, but that's the way it is.

From the 1960s onwards, fascists and Nazis of all shades in Britain started to call themselves "nationalist", but as I said before, that is just shorthand for national socialist with the social taken out.

So in other words, the first quote shows that no amount of evidence for you will ever be enough to prove that he stopped being a Nazi even if he had joined a communist party because he was a Nazi during the 1960s. You seem hell bent on making the claim that anyone who questions Tyndall's political beliefs and disagreeing with the assertion that he remained a Nazi to be a supporter or an apologist which is utterly ridiculous. The second quote shows that according to you anything that is nationalist is Nazi (a typical cliche from so-called anti-fascists - which of course you are according to your user page). In fact, since you mention the 1960s, many prominent British nationalists in the 1960s were against any sort of Nazism and wanted to keep Nazi groups out of the newly formed National Front (NF) in the late 1960s.

Ad nauseam, give me strength! How many times do you also need to be told? I don't need to prove that Tyndall stopped being a Nazi, the burden of proof is on the person making the assertion and since you've said time and time that there is plenty of evidence then please do show some because so far all that is being shown as 'reliable evidence' are two statements of opinion by two anti-fascist writers. Do you have any other evidence?

User:Snowded

You have the nerve to tell people not to get personal when they simply mention your political views (which is hardly something you are hiding since you've publicly put it on your user page) which isn't even a personal attack and yet you come out with such rubbish. I've told you - stop wasting my time.--John Bird (talk) 03:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, Emeraude's user page does not state that he is an anti-fascist, merely that he has an interest in anti-fascism. As my user page shows, I have an interest in politicians who are Marxist-Leninists, white nationalists, and centrist/centre-right liberals, but I'd be a pretty messed up and confused individual if I actually subscribed to all three of those perspectives. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

"...many prominent British nationalists in the 1960s were against any sort of Nazism and wanted to keep Nazi groups out of the newly formed National Front (NF) in the late 1960s". Indeed so, and Tyndall and his chums were among those they wanted to keep out!

"You have the nerve to tell people not to get personal when they simply mention your political views" You have absolutely no idea what my or Snowded's political views are. Midnightblueowl is quite right about this. Snowded's user page says he is a "Democratic Socialist" - so vague that I can't pin it down - and that he "doesn't like Nazis". What's wrong with that? But the point is, by raising what you claim is a political motive you are making a direct personal attack on the integrity of editors and that is intolerable. Emeraude (talk) 09:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Midnightblueowl

The simple expression "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck." is enough here. Although Emeraude hasn't specifically stated his beliefs, one only has to look at his posts on this talk page alone to put two and two together. If one were to compare your interests and posts then one doesn't see a bias where as this is very easily shown in Emeraude's posts and contributions to Tyndall's article. In my opinion, you are the only one on here who has been posting fair and contributed to the article reasonably, unlike Emeraude and Snowded, hence why I've corresponded with you perfectly fine and have also contributed to the article with you on several occasions.

User:Emeraude

Exactly. But that isn't what you said as you lumped all the people who were considered British nationalists in the 1960s as the same, there's no need to backpedal. Although you haven't exactly specifically stated what your views are, given that one of your interests is anti-fascism and the amount of drivel you've posted about Tyndall, nationalism, fascism, etc, on this talk page then it's not rocket science to conclude that you have left-wing views - you think anything 'nationalist' is Nazi but without the 'socialist' FGS! It doesn't get anymore obvious than using such typical left-wing cliches nonsense as this one. Snowded is a self-proclaimed democratic socialist which means he has left-wing tendencies and which again is very apparent with his posts on this talk page, according to Snowded, anyone who disagrees with labeling Tyndall a Nazi after the 1960s is trying to whitewash his beliefs. When did I say anything about him not liking Nazis? I'm simply raising the relevant point that you and Snowded are not even interested in any sort of compromise or discussion when it comes to Tyndall but simply are reverting anything that doesn't somehow represent him as this extreme right-wing Nazi post-1960s, which is of course, utter rubbish. But, of course anybody who questions this is a supporter or an apologist of Tyndall. That's rich, considering that Snowded said I was trying to 'satinise' Tyndall's history by raising the authenticity of labeling him as a Nazi post-1960s. I notice you didn't respond to any questions raised about the dubious label of 'Nazi' of Tyndall after his 1960s period of being involved with Nazi movements (no surprise - you don't seem to be able to provide any evidence besides two anti-fascist writers statements of opinion) but instead cherry-picked me mentioning yours and Snowded's views and style of posts on this talk page. If you actually care to look back at all of the posts on this talk page you'll see what I never mentioned people's personal beliefs prior to be accused of satinising Tyndall's history by questioning the assertion in the article that he was a Nazi after the 1960s.

I've raised my belief before that I think this article is not at present showing a NPOV and that there is a bias when it comes to what sources are currently being used as 'evidence' for certain assertions into the article.

I'd like to think that in one of your future posts you'll actually address what I've been asking of you for a while now. What actual real evidence do you have to support the assertion Tyndall was a Nazi after the 1960s? And don't even bother wasting my time to read that I need to provide proof he ceased to be a Nazi, because I don't, that is now how the burden of proof works. You believe Tyndall remained a Nazi after the 1960s, it is up to you to prove it.--John Bird (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Can we take this to RfC?

@John Bird:; @Emeraude:; @Snowded: - are there any objections to me taking this to RfC? I really don't think that we are getting anywhere fast and feel that bringing other uninvolved eyes in on this one might help. I could suggest that we offer two options - keeping the current lede or changing it to "was a British far-right political activist". Other commentators would also be able to offer their own versions for discussion, too. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

The whole thing is a waste of time with one largely single purpose editor pushing something based on a misunderstanding of wikipedia third party sourcing. I suggest we just drop it. Multiple other changes have been made which in the main have improved the article. If you are going to launch an RfC then we have to start with the sourcing issue - the RfC would be better phrased as "Tyndall has been identified by the sources as a National Socialist, which is reflected in the lede. Can Tyndall's own work be used to establish that this changed in later life without appropriate third party sourcing" That is the actual issue. ----Snowded ^TALK 20:47, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. And, actually, it's even narrower than that: when Tyndall said that he had changed, he did not specifically mention how. Emeraude (talk) 11:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Snowded

There you go again with your personal attacks towards me. Who do you think you are exactly? Even Midnightblueowl has questioned whether or not it's worth having 'National Socialist' in the leading part of the article compared to 'far-right' which would cover all of Tyndall's political ideologies throughout his whole political career.

@Emeraude

Martin Walker also says that both his supporters and opponents were dubious as to whether or not believe he really still held Nazi views (see quote above). Tyndall's own works are used throughout the article, including quotes from mThe Eleventh Hour, why should his own words about his Nazi past not have any credibility? And now with your input of "he did not specifically mention how" is simply you begging the question and is an awful case of Ad nauseam.--John Bird (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Factual statement not a personal attack, but you can try a case under WP:NPA if you think I am in the wrong. Tyndall's own words don't count. You need to go to WP:RS if you think the rest of us are wrong there. ----Snowded ^TALK 18:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Factual statement? So you don't even know the difference between an opinion and a fact. Argument by repetition. I'm not wasting anymore of my time on you.--John Bird (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Fine my me, if you don't want to use Wikipedia process that is your call. So I assume we can now close this thread ----Snowded ^TALK 18:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)