Talk:Oliver Kamm/Archive 3

Oliver Kamm?

I think Kamm under the pseudonym "JohnBull" keeps deleting the criticisms section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.26.189 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I am certainly not Oliver Kamm. Anyone can start a blog and criticise someone, that is the reason why they're generally not allowed to be used as a source. And the Chomsky criticism of Kamm you keep adding is already in the article.--Johnbull (talk) 05:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

BLP

Just a reminder that self-published sources can't be used to support material about living persons. That means Chomsky's website can't be used to criticize Kamm (though C's article published in Prospect can, so long as we use that version, not Chomsky's blog version), and similarly Kamm's blog can't be used as a source on anyone else, which I see it has been. See WP:BLP. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't get any response to this, so I removed the most problematic section, which was calling named people fascists and antisemites, yet the source was a blog. If it can be sourced to third-party publications, it should be fine to restore it. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem with your removal of the blog-sourced material. EdJohnston (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with the removal of blogs, however do you support the removal of material from Kamm's blog and much other self-published material over at criticism of Noam Chomsky- in the name of consistency and non-discrimination?BernardL (talk) 02:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Confusing story about Srebrenica

Can anyone revise the story about Kamm, Chomsky and Srebrenica so it makes sense? Even if you click through and read the references, it's hard to sort out. Is that entire paragraph essential to the article? If it is kept, how about replacing it with a higher-level summary that just lists the parties and the subject, and doesn't try to draw a conclusion? Just now another editor has added a {{confusing}} template to this passsage, and I sympathize with the concern. EdJohnston (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The edit history shows that the Srebrenica section was last actively edited in September 2006: see [1]. The section used to be longer and more comprehensible, and included mention of http://www.srebrenica-report.com/. One of the authors of this report, Edward S. Herman, had co-written a book called Manufacturing Consent with Chomsky, though Chomsky's connection to the Srebrenica report is not stated on the report's web site. The drift of the work of Herman et al. was that the media had exaggerated the seriousness of Srebrenica compared to other atrocities, some where Serbs were the victims. Looks to me that explaining this material properly would take a longer section than what is there now (maybe going back to the Oliver Kamm article of July 2006). WP:WEIGHT probably wouldn't justify this amount of space, especially where the outcome is so vague. Kamm charged Chomsky with something, and then Chomsky denied that he had done the thing he was charged with. How about we dump the section? EdJohnston (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the sentences about Srebrenica from the paragraph on Kamm's criticism of Chomsky. Their overall effect was incoherent. The only way to tell the story properly would require about double the length (per my analysis above) and I don't believe it would deserve the space here. If Chomsky had forthrightly defended the Serbian actions at Srebrenica, the case would be different. He never actually signed on to the Herman et al. views expressed at http://www.srebrenica-report.com, but Kamm talked as though he had. EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

FrontPage Magazine

Oliver Kamm was also a FrontPage Magazine columnist. I will add this to the page shortly. — eon, 20:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Source for "longstanding" critic of Wikipedia

News searches bring up nothing that indicate or document Kamm is an independently recognized expert or critic of Wikipedia, much less justify a section that does little more than string together a bunch of direct quotes sourced to two opinion columns. Without third-party, reliable sourcing this section needs to be removed. And just to AGF me on the front end--I don't give a foo about or have a stake in anything Wikipedia. Flowanda | Talk 08:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The recent WSJ article has piqued his interest and he went to the trouble of recording the article for Radio4, restating his 2007 left/right critique. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

I'm the subject of this article, but I've read Wikipedia's policy and I can see no reason in it that bars me from proposing deletion of the entry.

I'm hostile to Wikipedia and I expect the venture at some point to subside into obscurity. One of my minor objections to Wikipedia is the expenditure of energy on essentially trivial matters, and this entry is a case in point. A genuine reference source deals with a body of work rather than a collection of ephemera. I'm a working journalist who comments on public affairs rather than a writer whose work is commented upon.

It ought to be obvious from the paucity of secondary sources in this entry that, even in an encyclopaedia whose criteria for notability are very loose, I don't meet them. That's not modesty, but a function of the type of work that I do. My view on the matter - which is that I'd be glad to be removed from Wikipedia - is irrelevant to the decision, but it seems to me obvious just from the article itself that I don't meet the criteria for notability. If there is any particular article that I've written, and that appears in a recognised source, that is relevent to some other subject, then it should be referred to in the entry on that subject. If there is any case for having this entry, it should at least be drastically reduced to the first three sentences. What possible significance is it to anyone but me where I went to school or what my non-journalistic professional background is, even supposing that these details are right? --OliverKamm (talk) 12:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there is sufficient comment on Oliver Kamm's writing to justify an article here, for example: The Telegraph, The Atlantic, Khaleej Times, Antiwar.com, and spiked. If you are indeed the subject of the article and wish to pursue removal of the article, there may be avenues open to you to achieve this, although you may not be guaranteed to be successful. Should you wish to pursue this course of action, I suggest you take advice from an administrator.--Michig (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

There is secondary commentary in reliable sources, such as Chomsky's critical article in Prospect, but it's scanty and doesn't warrant an article this length. On my reading of Wikipedia policy on sources, The Telegraph would count as a reliable source, as "a mainstream news organisation", the Khaleej Times probably would (though it's much less mainstream), but the Atlantic is not the magazine but a blog under the magazine's editorial control (which might admittedly still count on the grounds that its "writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control"), Spiked is an obscure and non-mainstream publication, and Antiwar.com would plainly fall into the category of questionable sources ("websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist ... or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions") given its editor's belief that the wrong side won the Second World War (in the Pacific). If Wikipedia believes the very low bar of notability has been scaled, then it's none of my business. But I'm surprised, even given my scepticism about the venture.--OliverKamm (talk) 13:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is problematic. I had long discussion about scientific value of its articles and its strategy on Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 36. I coined the expression "googwik scientist". Unfortunately, hyper production of research by "normal" science also leads to recreation of another kind of "googwik scientist" who does a lot of superficial, inexact research and produces large quantity of false results that translate into malignant noise. This certainly present enormous financial burden and emergance of a class of scientific parasites which is growing. What is the effect on advancement of science, is hard to say though. Draganparis (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I somehow missed the deprod or I would have commented by now. My conclusions were the same as OliverKamm's, but I'd like to go through the article and discussion again. And while Wikipedia has problems, the one area where they shouldn't be tolerated is WP:BLP; the policy is very clear. Flowanda | Talk 22:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Its not clear to me how WP:BLP is at all relevant here, since the policy refers reliability of sources, etc., about living persons, not notability. Is there misinformation about Mr. Kamm in the article? If not then the policy doesn't apply. Is there "superficial, inexact research" on the page? Then it should be fixed. Mr. Kamm's reference to the secondary literature on him as "scanty" is a bit of a joke. By any reasonable definition of the term, under U.S. law anyway, he is a public figure,as the secondary sources cited by Michig show.

From Michig's page, under pet peeves: "People who nominate articles for deletion without making any effort to determine whether the subject is notable and/or improve the articles in question. We're here to build an encyclopedia not to see how much stuff we can get deleted as quickly as possible." You can say that again. --BenJonson (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The original claim that it is of "minor" importance does not hold true. Other people can not be held responsible that you enjoy writing - it's what you do for your living. Noam Chomsky also writes a lot. I concur that the statements need to be relevant to the matter at hand, but why would you ever propose to REMOVE the whole entry? It is not as if they reveal secrets from your life. You yourself have a blog in where you critisize Noam Chomsky - fair enough. I have read through parts of it, and I have severe objections to it. However had, I came to read your blog because when I searched for a quote about the East Timor massacre back then, I wanted to find verifiable sources. And google listed you as one of those referring to Noam Chomsky in what I would like to call mildly derogatory manners. For me as a user of Wikipedia, it *is* relevant that I can be sure to find CREDIBLE sources and citations. You have put yourself into the list of critics from Noam Chomsky, so I wonder why you propose to DELETE the whole article... (Edit: I referred to the original thread starter, not to BenJonson, sorry. 193.83.131.214 (talk) 07:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Criticism of Wikipedia

Leaving aside the root of Kamm's criticism of Wikipedia, the section is entirely sourced from primary sources. "X is a critic of Y, source X criticising Y in The Press" is problematic because we have no reliable independent source for the significance or basis of the criticism. If a third party covers such criticism then the third party may note that, for example, the criticism is based on Wikipedia not allowing the author to write a hatchet job of someone, or that it's based on somoene else writing a hatchet job ot them, or that it's based on us not deleting an article because WP:IDONTLIKEIT or something (not that I'm suggesting this is the case here). Without the context of the dispute, as filtered by third parties, this is basically just Wikipedians saying "this is significant because I say it's significant", which is not allowed. Reliable indpeendent sources for the dispute, please. Guy (Help!) 10:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

But has he not stated before that he does not like Wikipedia much at all, especially not his own article? :-) It is signifcant as long as it is relevant, and his anti-Chomsky stance *is* relevant, so inevitably from this criticism, more information should be collected, and presented in a MEANINGFUL and objective way to the visitor. 193.83.131.214 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Reference to Neil Clark

I cut the following passage (correctly) summarising a passage in an article by Ed Herman and David Peterson:

...and reported "recidivist stalking-behavior" by Kamm of the left-wing writer Neil Clark including "leaving defamatory comments on Clark's Wikipedia entry, eventually forcing the Wikipedia editors to delete the entry, among other attack-dog tactics".

This is demonstrably false. Clark's article was the subject of a Afd debate a year ago and was deleted because enough editors thought he was insufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. It was me who "maliciously" (Clark's word) edited the former article rather than Oliver Kamm. Herman and Peterson have slavishly followed Clark's delusion, clearly demonstrated by searching for references to "Philip Cross" on Clark's blog, that either Kamm and myself are one and the same person or [that] I am an associate of his. Philip Cross (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Ex-Trotskyist?

The claim came from the cited Justin Raimondo article on Kamm. As 'evidence' Raimondo refers to a pseudonymous comment on the Socialist Unity (UK) blog. This is not admissable as a reliable source. Philip Cross (talk) 23:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{Edit semi-protected}} Persistent vandalism of the article over the last few days. Philip Cross (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

If you want the article protected, you will need to ask at the requests for page protection page. Hopes this helps. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 294° 9' 45" NET 19:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I did so after posting the above, but the proposal was rejected. No objectionable edits since then. Philip Cross (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Should he be catalogued under Critics of Wikipedia as per http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/46900,news-comment,news-politics,knowledge-by-consensus-wikipedia-jimmy-wales ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.132.36 (talk) 15:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced material

Wikipedia editor Philip Cross has been deleting pieces from the Oliver Kamm page without good reason,he has also changed sources from pieces posted to sources from Oliver Kamm blog. His excuses are feeble to say the least.His favourite seems to be "(rvt, quoted originally sources in place of fringe Pol Pot apologist", whatever that is supposed to mean it is not a good reason to removed and change sourced material from a known author. He has also called a piece referring to Kamm giving all Chomskys books on Amazon a one star rating as "reviews on a commercial site is trivial - the link to that site is inadmissible" but failed to explain why. I see nothing wrong with the pieces that he wants to delete and as stated they are perfectly sourced,he may not like the sources but that is no excuse to delete them.Thoughts?Zrdragon12 (talk) 19:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Those interested in this complaint are advised to read a section on Zrdragon12's talk page. I posted it there because my comments raise other issues about this users behaviour which are not directly relevant here. This editor has a fixation on placing the "Srebrenica belittlers" in a good light in the Media Lens article as his/her obvious amnesia about what is meant by "'Pol Pot apologist', whatever that is supposed to mean" may suggest. (See the Edward S. Herman article if you genuinely do not know.) Philip Cross (talk) 21:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

So no answer from you about why you have been deleting credible sources and links?Oh so they are not genocide deniers anymore, oh well that is a step forward for freedom of speech.Defending someone right to question figures is not any kind of denial and to the best of my knowledge that is all any of these people have done. None of them deny that there has not been massacres,what they question is how many have died and why the same attention is not given to massacres when they are done by the west.Zrdragon12 (talk) 21:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Getting off the beaten track. I haven't avoided discussing any of the points you raise here (and elesewhere) on your talk page. (Herman and co. question UN figures on deaths at Srebrenica). Philip Cross (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Well you brought it up not me as can be seen by your first post here.You certainly have avoided discussing my points until about an hour or so ago.If you want to bring up Herman etc then you will get off the beaten track.Zrdragon12 (talk) 21:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

"So no answer from you" becomes "You certainly have avoided discussing my points until about an hour or so ago." No wonder. Actually it is now about two hours ago. Philip Cross (talk) 22:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

That's right, no answers from you until now.You avoid my points for over a day so again yes no answer from you until now..Zrdragon12 (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally you referred to a "Pol Pot apologist" (ie, Herman) first on this talk page. I originally used the point in the edit history to show that he is a fringe figure whose article with Peterson is not admiissible as a reliable source on WP. His dismismal of the UN findings about the number of deceased (he thinks 800; they have identified the remains of about 6,200 of the commonly estimated 8,000 dead). and the widespread negative mainstram response to that attitude, supports that view. MRzine is a Trotskyist (thus marginal) publication, you have not questioned this (other than in the edit summary). Philip Cross (talk) 22:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

On the talk page of Zrdragon12 in response to myself: "MR is not a fringe magazine,it has been going since 1949, you can call Kamm's blog fringe and you quote that all the time" (spacing in the original). The length of time a publication has been running is irrelevant as to whether it can be considered an RS. Presumably in your world, The Times is a fringe publication. Philip Cross (talk) 22:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I referred to it as that was an excuse you used to delete one of my sources and it was relevant to what I am discussing first off in this section. You brought up massacres,remember? I was talking about your deletions of my pieces and sources.remember? He might be a fringe figure to you but he is a published author of many many years to everyone else. Using him as a source is not at all inadmissible, just because you do not like him does not mean that you can delete sourced material. The Guardian is a middle left publication with dwindling readers?? It that not fringe? Out of a population of some 65 million souls just over 200 thousand readers and dropping.I bet more people read MR.What is the readership of Kamms blog you keep quoting? Not many,so is that fringe as well? Seems that you like to call one thing fringe and dismiss it while using another fringe source..Zrdragon12 (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The Guardian has "just over 200 thousand readers and dropping.I bet more people read MR." Doubt it. "I was talking about your deletions of my pieces". Perfectly legitimate to edit each others changes to Wikipedia, as you ought to know by now. Philip Cross (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually it is not perfectly legit to deleted someones sourced pieces and also delete their sources.You should know that by now but obviously do not.I see you could not muster any argument for Kamm blog that you like to quote not being fringe.Zrdragon12 (talk) 23:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

"Presumably in your world, The Times is a fringe publication." As Kamm writes for it, I have demonstrated my point. I have only ever cited Kamm's blog in this article. Philip Cross (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

How many readers do they actually have now since they charge to read their website? I would say not a lot and that would actually make them fringe. I mean if you only have a few hundred thousand readers in a population of 65 million you are fringe, you cannot see that though even though it is clear as day. Also Kamms blog is not the Times so therefore you are arguing without a good base.You are trying to equate Kamms blog with the Times newspaper when it is totally nothing to do with it,that is how weak your argument isZrdragon12 (talk) 00:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The source is fringe, the tone ("nefarious") not neutral, and the criticism is of marginal significance.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is fringe? Is it like all westerners thought that the world was flat but the fringe view,that is the one we are not supposed to use thought it was round?Or maybe it is a journalist who was in Fallujah when the Americans were basically shooting anyone that moved and her reports did not really make it on to the main stream as they were all reporting what the American military told them?Maybe the fringe was the very very few people who disagreed that Saddam had WMD's when the whole media was screaming that he did?I could call Oliver Kamm's blog fringe and not neutral but it is being used all the way thru this article as a source.Also, I know all about Chomsky and Hermann and the Khmer Rouge,thanks.Zrdragon12 (talk) 11:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

This partial reversion by User:Lawrencekhoo here does not assert anything which has not been said about Kamm's responses to Chomsky. In addition "the left" as a term is a matter of perception. Kamm admires Tony Blair, thought by many as being of the left (not by myself incidentally), and Blair is a former leader of a party usually considered to the left of the Tories. So Herman's opinion here, as elsewhere, is tendentious. I changed the heading of this section because the debate is about the inclusion of the Herman and Peterson article as a source. Philip Cross (talk) 09:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the text in question is not very informative, and that MR is unlikely to be the most reliable source for such a claim.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Left Wing vs. Right Wing

This person refers to himself as left-wing, but he also supports Tony Blair and George Bush. The first he admits to in this entry, the latter you can read up from his blog in 2005 or from this article http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/17/georgebush.terrorism in 2008.

I don't know how you guys in the UK or USA call it, but in Germany we call such a guy a "Scharlatan", a scape goat if you so will. This guy has NOTHING at all to do with "left wing", he uses those terms to obscure the fact that he likes to support extremist politicans (and Tony Blair is an extremist as well, he led the UK into a war started by Bush, so how can you be a "leftist" when your foreign policy is aggression?). So my gripe with the current stance of the wikipedia article is that it insinuates that he is a "left wing" person, when he is clearly not. Perhaps rather than writing "left", we could get rid of ALL "left" and simply state what he did instead? Peter Wilby is absolutely right and Oliver Kamm is not stating the truth - he is trying to disguise the fact that he is a worker for the network behind Blair and Bush. 193.83.131.214 (talk) 07:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Haven't you ever heard of a liberal hawk? The argument that Left is good and Right is bad, therefore any advocate of "aggression" is automatically right-wing, sounds like original research to me.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)