Talk:Media Lens/Archive 3
|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
Counterpunch article about Cromwell & ML
I cited this piece by Mat Ward because I felt it was a positive article about a group which has very few sympathetic third-party articles about it cited in this WP piece. There are very few positive articles about this group available. Ward is a contributor to Green Left Weekly, an Australian publication and possibly a reliable source, which has published sympathetic interviews with Cromwell and Edwards in the past.
Part of the passage I added pointed out that Media Lens is criticised on the mesaage board, not as much as he implies in my view, but I am obliged to cite only his opinions. This view contradicts the standard argument that the MB expresses a unified opinion, so a point worth adding, I would have thought. The quotes included there from Cromweell were not mentioned because he is not a third party source. In addition I added that Daniel Simpson and Robert Shone have been banned from the message board - Cromwell is not quoted as denying this. This point about banning individuals from the MB has not been made before, and bearing in mind WP:UNDUE is only addressed in passing. None of the other points in Ward's article seemed to me to be new.
'Zrdragon12', a 'new' user who suddenly and mysteriouysly began editing a day or two after I resumed my (allegedly paid) work here, has deleted this addition. (See the twitter feed of @NeilClark66 for the apparent revelation.) I suspect Zrdragon12 did this because of the many comments online by Shone (not including his Znet piece) and Simpson, not RS according to the WP rules, which are critical of Media Lens practices. Philip Cross (talk) 10:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Is this a conspiracy theory? Keith-264 (talk) 16:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- I believe so,one of many that Crossy pushes around here,Zrdragon12 (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- No, Keith-264. This user's edit history is very revealing. Until a day or two ago, Z. was active editing the Oliver Kamm article, but then, for some reason, suddenly ceased this activity. Perhaps s/he fears someone.
- No more revealing than yours PC. Keith-264 (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Evidently the supposed unknown Shone and the the rather relevant Sloboda should not be named. I wish Zrdragon would make up her mind. Presumably the other editor does not like them, but is in reality now certain to be [redacted], accuses me of editing in the same way. Philip Cross (talk) 08:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Constant negative editing by wiki editor
It seems that virtually everything added to this article by User:Philip Cross recently is a negative critic of Media Lens,he does not seem to even try to present anything neutral but is pushing a total bad view of this organisation. He is even removing on a regular basis other edits that have been put in to balance out all his negative stuff. I believe he is just pushing a POV in all of this article..Wikipedia:Neutral point of view ..Zrdragon12 (talk) 08:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- I explainin my edit summaries, but you simply respond with "no good reason" because you have a, not entirely unreasobnable, antipathy towards me. I say this because of the history between [redacted] and [redacted] and myself. There is little positive coverage about ML available, and I have removed material which belongs elsewhere or is first party material for which for which another editor has added a banner. Edwards response about Peterson and Pilger contained rather trite responses of the "brilliant" type, which adds nothing to the article.
- When the issue of positive sources came up (asked by Keith-264, I think) on the MLMB, Cromwell could only suggest adding the comments by the proverbial 'Ms F. of Oxfordshire'. This is not allowable under WP:IRS. I repeat I deleted part of Chomsky and co's defence of the Johnstone book because this article is not about the activist Chomsky and the father of modern linguistics. I am glad you have read the NPOV article, I hope you learn from it. Philip Cross (talk) 09:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- I should add that I do not intend to remove a mention of an obscure figure like David Peterson because that demonstrates the close connection between ML and Herman/Peterson once again. POV if you like, but entirely legitimate. Philip Cross (talk) 09:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Herman has now gone from the summary. Well, well! Philip Cross (talk) 09:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Come on Phil, you've had it your own way for ages. Given the premise of Medialens the absence of positive sources (which I suggest you overstate and which has changed recently with Greenwald & Co's publicity) is an example of the media bias that ML skewers. Why not do a qualitative rather than quantitative analysis of ML naysayers - what judgements come from where: Press hacks (Aaronovitch), useful idiots (Kamm), venal commercial broadcasters (COMbbc) and the difference in content between criticisms and compliments? If the criticisms turn out to mainly be ad hominem and the compliments mainly structural analysis, the page reader would benefit. I think that that would be a far more constructive thing for you and Dragon to debate rather than continue mutual reversion. Keith-264 (talk) 09:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keith-264, you miss the point that Zrdragon12 replies with "no good reason" rather than a proper response. Look in detail at her edit history, the other editor behaves in this way with anyone s/he disagrees with. Some of her edits are plain vandalism. I know it has only been you and me for most of the last year, but that is not my fault.Philip Cross (talk) 09:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- You have already made my point for me today. Your edit here, you added what? Another negative comment.Negative. This is what you do on this page and others of obvious figures you do not like. Your contributions here are all negative. You are supposed to be neutral but anyone can go thru what you have added here and see you are not. I am thinking of complaining about your obviously continuous negative input to this article Zrdragon12 (talk) 11:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't agree Phil. Although I'm not as convinced as I was in the past that your edits are wholly in bad faith, they do tend to point in one direction unless you're challenged. Perhaps you could put a proposed edit here and ask if anyone objects, then you could thrash out differences without edit frenzy?Keith-264 (talk) 11:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- And who else's edit frenzy? Oh, s/he is new here.
- Oh, I think we know the other user's agenda. Not you Keith-264. I probably cannot identity a piece of technology we all use because something negative about an editor you have reverted for days (I'l have to assume other users can guess who) comes up on the blog of [redacted] who you, [redacted], have a close connection with.
- [Former user] has been identified as a person closely identified with you, though I have myself always thought s/he was you, by several journalists and websites which I cannot identify. This [redacted]] individuals spouse has a close connection with a [campaigning group who I cannot identify because redacted is in constant contact with them] on a social network (which I probably also cannot identify) demonsrtrating that you [redacted] have a demonstrable conflict of interest. Is all this clear to everyone. Philip Cross (talk) 11:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't agree, if you put a draft change/addition/removal here and no-one objects within 48 hours and then you implement it, no-one can claim you didn't give us the chance to comment first; if someone objects they will have to give reasons. I've been plodding through revisions of the Battles of Ypres 1917 like that for a couple of years (oddly enough, considering that it's controversial for a historical subject, hardly any bugger has noticed ;O)).Keith-264 (talk) 11:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- PS edit frenzy describes the process not individuals.Keith-264 (talk) 11:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- I really do not know what you are ranting on about Phil but if that is what makes you happy. The point is your inclusions here and many other pages are negative. This Medialens article that you mostly wrote is I would say about 75% negative and if anyone went through who put all that negative stuff there it would be you. Impossible to deny as all your entries are logged.You editing is not up to wikipedia standards and you are breaking the rules about NPOV everyday. Anyway I am just going to let you get on with it as you are not worth the effort. Have fun with you rantings about whatever you are on about,some fantasy.PS, I will not reading anything you write ever again,I am going to get off any pages you hang about on and any messages sent to my talk page will be deleted unread. Bye bye.Zrdragon12 (talk) 12:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Some helpful sources from the Daves
- Last night, I added the citation to the GLW piece in which ML's response to Shone is quoted shortly after DC pointed it out. Yet the comment about the "inner turmoil" of ML's critics suggests they are m-- or p--------, and DC thinks this is a positive addition! If they privately think I am completely unreasonable, the citing of missing material on the MLMB would be illogical. Your point about me needing a nudge to add pieces I don't personally agree with is probably fair though.
- The passage on the Brockes' interview with Chomsky in 2005 was added by [another user], and I cleaned it up. I could add the Herman or Chomsky quote (they are on the page about Gandhi Prize anyway), but one of the criticisms about ML I have missed out is that they are too close to the American writers to have proper detachment from them. The quotes might help demonstrate this point's validity. Another criticism missed out is John Rentoul's mockery of the couple of alerts on North Korea because I could not find a way of incorporating them.
- Given that admiration of H & C is limited on the whole, the blurbs are not going to enable users to see ML in a new light if included, or create many converts. Their quote(s) probably belong, if at all, on the article about "Guardian's of Power", if they are not already present. As you know, despite the number of Chomsky citations, he is often considered rather fringe, and [another user] is having a big problem in including references to him in other articles. (As you know WP:IRS is sensitive on this area.) Despite his reported effect on the sales of NS, Pilger has a mixed reputation, so the same applies to him as to H &C, and I have linked to the Pilger review DE cites. The admiring pieces about the ML books DC cites are generalised, and do not answer their critics on the issues raised, and naturally this article is not intended to be an advertisement. If you think I am being unfair on Pilger, I suggest you look at some of the left-wing blogs online, and I don't mean "Harry's Place" or others which [redacted] "smears" as being neocon. As it is Wikipedia policy to avoid citing twitter as much as posible because of its ephemeral nature, I cannot see a way to use Alex Thomson's very brief points. Thomson has not reffered to ML in a third party source. I removed one tweet from Monbiot a few months ago because of that medium's impermanence when I worked out how to avoid using it. Andrew Buncombe's response to Oliver Kamm might be worth including, and I will get around to checking it again. The point about ML mentioning Srebrenica (1995) only a handful of times is obvious given the evident concentration on current events in the media alerts. A necessarily passing comment could be missed by readers anyway, and the website's emergence in 2001 is mentioned twice.
- Oh BTW, the sockpuppet investigation into the edits of [another user] have developed in ways which are genuinely new to me. The recent insinuation by [reacted] on a [social network which I cannot name] that I am a meat puppet of his most eftfective foe can easily be answered. I have had only a couple of email exchanges with him - and they were only about [redacted] and [reacted] rather than this arrticle. Philip Cross (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Are you still wondering why I ignored your suggestion to post possible edits here, and wait for 48 hrs? Philip Cross (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Just checked Andrew Buncombe's Independent blog for the quote. It appears in the self-authored comments section (which is inadmissible as an RS because it has not gone through an editorial process). This is strictly true too of the alerts, but it would be impossible to write this article without them. As it is, OK does not directly identify Irving in his comment, so Bunscombe's response to him is not an appropriate citation to another piece where OK does name him. Philip Cross (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)