Talk:Media Lens/Archive 1

POV Stuff

I'm keen to avoid edit wars here, so perhaps we could try and achieve concensus on the discussion page before posting more POV stuff, 81.147.14.143? And how about signing in?Felix-felix

I've removed some more of your tedious POV stuff again 81.147.14.143, and provided links to the relevant aricles regarding Pinter. Your views on Pinter's opinions do not really seem to be appropriate for an encyclopedia page on Medialens.Would be grateful if you could provide links to the other parts of your post on criticisms of medialens-if you can't, I think they ought to be removed. Felix-felix 13:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This feels increasingly like I'm talking to myself-but I'm eager to achieve concensus here, 81.157.14.152 and your frequent and tedious POV reverts are not really very helpful. I've sourced all the stuff which you posted on the criticism part and removed the unsourced hyperbole, as well as supplying the correct quotes, which you couldn't be bothered to do. If you can source it and it's relevent, fine-but if not then I'll keep removing it.Felix-felix 09:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Response: The source for the Medialens quote you keep removing, about it not being worth engaging on this level, was posted by the Editors on their own message board. It has subsequently been removed but I took a note of it at the time. Feel free to contact the editors and ask them for verification if you like, it was certainly on their site.

I have done already, and they couldn't remember anything about it. If you can't source it, I'm removing it.Felix-felix 11:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

And can you please log in?Felix-felix 11:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, Felix. These anonymous POV revisions are irrelevant and tedious. I think one more may warrant measures to ensure they don't continue. All very ironic given the subject matter of the article itself! User:Zleitzen 26 February 2006 (UTC)

How do you log in? I'm happy to. I will try to find the original quote, I think hari quoted it on his website.

Please consult the help section, and read the terms before any further postings User:Zleitzen 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Critisisms of Media Lens

Have made revisions to the “criticisms of medialens” section. The lines about Kim Jong Il were poorly written, made little sense and carried a link to the wrong page. Thus could not be sourced. They have been removed. Have adjusted the Pinter lines to give clarity. Though the section mentions Nick Cohen criticisms which still need to be expanded and / or justified User:Zleitzen 28 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not the page to discuss Harold Pinter's political involvements. The anonymous addition (since removed by Felix-Felix) is not relevant to the understanding of the incident. 86.129.143.118 Please read all terms before further postings, including sections on vandalismUser:Zleitzen 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the oliver Kamm "criticism" which is essentially spurious, amounting to little more than "I dont like David Edwards". And unless someone can come up with a good reason to keep the Peter Beaumont "good example" quote, I think that should go too.Felix-felix 09:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It's gone nowFelix-felix 06:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I will continue to remove it unless agood reason for it's inclusion is given hereFelix-felix 16:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a good reason to delete the criticisms by Oliver Kamm and Peter Beaumont so I've put them back. It's been said in the edits already that Mr Kamm gives his reasons for the criticisms ie he rejects the historical basis of David Cromwell's arguments. To say this is spurious argument is POV and I don't think Mr Kamm is just saying he doesn't like Mr Cromwell. Mr Beaumont is a senior foreign affairs writer and his criticisms ought to be here if there's going to be a section on criticisms at all (and there should be). If you disagree than please don't just keep on deleting but state your reasons fully and refer to arbitration. You don't have to agree with the Kamm/Beaumont criticisms to think they ought to be here.--ElenaZam 16:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The relevant quotes are; "unversed in the conventions of civilised let alone scholarly discussion" (Kamm), "I can say with certainty and as a matter of fact rather than interpretation that David Cromwell is an ignoramus" (Kamm) and "through the increasing presence of print and broadcast media on the internet...exploit their 'critical relationship' with the media to create a virtual soap box for their views" (Beamount) How are any of these substantive criticisms? Kamm here is not criticising the historical basis of Cromwell's arguments, he's calling him names, Beaumont's criticisms are of interest if their interesting, not on the basis of who he is. Out it goes.Felix-felix 07:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

As above, if there are no reasons given to keep it, out it goes.Felix-felix 16:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it's up to you to give a reason for deletion. I asked you to do this and you've just repeated yourself. Truthprofessor has already explained that Mr Kamm's comments are related to his disagreement with Mr Cromwell's comments about history of the atomic bomb. For you to say this is not substantive is POV. Mr Beaumont's criticisms are obviously of interest if he's a noted foreign affairs journalist whether you agree with them or not. If you disagree please give a full explanation of your reasons and refer it to the administrator -- don't just delete.--ElenaZam 21:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Reasons are given above-Kamm's grumbling about Cromwell could be related to anything and are not instructive-Beaumont's are just more grumbling.Felix-felix 08:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No, reasons aren't given above, you've just repeated your first claim which was invalid, even though I've asked you to state your reasons fully.Mr Kamm clearly stated his objections to David Cromwell's account of a historical issue. You delete it because you disagree with the criticism. That's POV. In fact I've looked at your other edits on this site and they are almost all edits to push a political POV -- even in one about a translator, whose subject you showed no interest in and which you consistently vandalized. Please stop doing this. It doesn't belong in a reference site.--ElenaZam 18:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

OliverKamm saying that Cromwell is an ignoramus and is unversed in the conventions of civilised or scholarly discussion is simply not encyclopedic, regardless of the circumstances , be it over a disagreement about the US nuking Japan or physical assault between the two parties. If you want to detail the arguement, and it's relevant to the article, fine. Otherwise I will continue to delete.Felix-felix 00:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You've contradicted yourself completely. At first you complained that the Kamm quote "amounted to little more than "I dont like David Edwards"" (the comment was about David Cromwell.)You've been corrected on this several times as Mr Kamm makes clear his comments are about a disagreement about history. Now your complaint turns out to be "regardless of the circumstances, be it over a disagreement about the US nuking Japan or physical assault between the two parties". So you admit you're deleting it not because of what you first said but because "regardless of the circumstances" you don't like the criticism. I've noticed you do this with other writers' entries especially Johann Hari and so I have reverted there too. You've also not even tried to justify vandalizing the criticisms of Mr Beaumont and I've put these back in.--ElenaZam 12:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Is that the best you can do? That I mistakenly wrote Edwards instead of Cromwell, at the beginning of this thread? Oliver Kamm may have written about Japan in his letter, this edit does not make this clear, hance it's deletion.Felix-felix 17:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

No that's not the best and it wasn't even my comment. My comment was that you'd contradicted yourself. Firstly you claimed the quote was just about not liking a Medialens editor (whose name you got wrong) and then you backtracked when it was pointed out you were wrong. You took up instead that it should be deleted "regardless of the circumstances" -- so admitting that the reason why you kept deleting it was you didn't like the criticism.--ElenaZam 18:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms belong in the criticism section and need to stay -- the personal attack parts don't (and can be found in the links) ... I've copyedited it for a more NPOV that doesn't remove relevant content (Kamm & Beaumont are both relevant critics -- and as with any critic their views are not yours or mine).

That's a good and constructive edit. It reads better now, and I've reverted it after it was deleted.--ElenaZam 18:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted again, on grounds of irrelevance.Felix-felix 11:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

And contradicted yourself again. You already admitted that you'd delete material, period, because you didn't like the criticisms. That's vanadalism. Instead of that, please refer to arbitration.--ElenaZam 17:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Of course Kamm's criticisms are relevant. The reason for their removal strikes me as having nothing to do with "relevance" and everything to do with neutering criticism of Media Lens. Speaking of which, there also needs to be some information regarding the contemptous responses ML have had from the BBC et al. --Zagrebo 14:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced two sourced criticisms which were removed on spurious grounds. I will keep replacing them if removed again. --Zagrebo 14:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"Weasel words"

Are Johann Hari and Nick Cohen really "widely felt" to "represent" the "pro-war left"? This is a claim of popular legitimacy and needs to be verified with a source. Otherwise we should say that they are pro-war and describe themselves as being on the left.

I always thought the "pro-war left" was a perjorative, and thus had no problem with the term, although I take your point, it was originally a self description, and none of them are actually left wing at all, they are all vaguely liberal except when they advocate the destruction of untermenschen. This page needs alot of work anyway, so edit away.Felix-felix 10:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Sort out bias

This page is largely a postitive (mis)representation of Media Lens with the "criticism" section deliberately kept brief from what I can gather from the edits. Media Lens have plenty of critics and criticisms but you wouldn't know that reading this. Someone seriously needs to make this article encyclopaedic. --Zagrebo 14:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I've re-instastated some criticisms and massaged some minor bias. I also removed the huge quote from Media Lens at the end of the first section since it struck me as little-more than passing-on Medialens message rather than adding to an encyclopaedic entry. Medialens philosophy on the media and modus operandi (ie the important things about them in the context of a neutral, informative entry) are already adequately covered. --Zagrebo 14:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I've (re)removed the Kamm and Beaumont sections on the grounds that, well known as the protagonists are, the 'criticisms' are nothing more than badmouthing. I've also removed some of the specious 'claims' which are unnecessary. I( don't think that the article was biased before (although pretty incomplete, I'll admit), unless you think that quotes of loads of journos about a media pressure group are illuminating (hold front page-hacks don't like being pestered!). The article could do with a much better section about the IBC debacle, and probably the bunfights with the 'cruise missile left'-but empty slagging off is pretty unencyclopedic and tedious, especially if you're going to cut the lead section down to less than the criticisms section.FelixFelix ^talk 17:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Media Bite

Is there anything to link this site to Media Lens? I had a look at it but couldn't find anything. --Zagrebo 14:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, they're Medialens regulars who have set up an Irish Medialens site-'Mediabite'.FelixFelix ^talk 17:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism (again)

There is a difference between critical responses Medialens receives from its intended targets (i.e. organisations and people that they purposely investigate) and external criticism of the project by individuals independent from a dispute. The present criticism section blurs the line. Wikipedia is not a repository for Medialens Media Alert correspondence, so much of this criticism can correctly be deleted. smb 08:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I will proceed to trim the section, based on this reasoning. Dynablaster (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Kamm

what is the relevance of his activities as an alternative investment advisor to this article? This factoid doesn't even make it into the lead of our article about the man - what makes it of such important that it needs to be mentioned here? NoCal100 (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It's his main occupation, working in the financial sector. One might get the impression he has been a columnist for much of his life. Not so. It's a relatively new development, in the last few years. Dynablaster (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

How is his former main occupation relevant to this article? is he criticizing ML as a banker, or as a journalist? How is an occupation that's not important enough to be listed in the lead of his WP biographical article important enough to be a "must-have" descriptor in this article? NoCal100 (talk) 03:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If it's not an error and Kamm remains a partner at WMG, the asset management company he founded,^[1] then it certainly belongs in the lead section of his biographical article. The next question is, does reference to his extensive dealings in the financial sector belong here on this page, irrespective of whether or not the same information is found in the lead section? Probably not, as it may be considered well poisoning (if you get my drift). Though it's worth pointing out that Kamm was describing himself as a banker when he originally criticised Medialens.^[2] (see his about page^[3]). Dynablaster (talk) 12:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that putting it here may be considered well poisoning, and thus it does not belong. NoCal100 (talk) 13:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Edit dated 8 May 2010 to criticism section

I've reverted the deletion of the critisms of ML I added recently. I've also expanded them to include a more comprehensive selection of Beaumont's criticism.

I think Kamm's accusations to do with ML's alleged historical revisionism is worth keeping because it puts his other attacks into a context of him badmouthing ML on unfounded terms. Furthermore, I believe Wikipedia's guidelines about citing sources allows for exceptions to recommended practice and in the case of Kamm's online self-publishing, should be admissible on the grounds that he writes for a national newspaper, a condition which is acceptable for WP, to my mind.

As for Beaumont, he's a major figure in British journalism and has had his piece I've quoted at length published by a body external to ML's website, The Observer, which is influential. I can imagine some find the way I've transcibed his words to be unsatisfactory for two reasons: 1) It's unnecessarily long, to which I say that it at least manages to approximately capture his IBC-related comments alongside his personal views about the supposed Stalinist nature of ML's objectives and methods. 2) I've trimmed it down, which is true, but this is not disguised and is referenced and thus can be seen in full. I reckon the overall tone is intact more or less.

ON THE WHOLE I see it to be totally fitting to keep the criticism section in place because ML is not above criticism, even if their critics currently don't seem to fully rise up to challenge them on anything truly beyond polemical grounds, in my opinion. I think the responses to criticisms on ML's website, which are cited at several points in the article as it stands now, are well reasoned to my eye, and therefore essential should stay as ref's. So whilst the style or full extent of the aspects to do with criticising ML may be lacking, I understand the course the section is taking now is something near enough the right one for a WP entry. Aaron 12:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron Jethro (talk • contribs)

Oliver Kamm is not an established expert on the US atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nor the Srebrenica Massacre, therefore his blog fails to meet criteria for inclusion. It has been removed once before for this very reason. Your second source is every bit unsatisfactory. Words of criticism, by Kamm, found not in the main body of a book review, but posted to the reader comments section beneath. Moreover, you neglected to add Media Lens' obvious reply, which makes me curious about your intent. Please take the necessary time to familiarise yourself with the relevant guideline on this matter (see WP:RS for the accepted standard). Peter Beaumont's criticism is well sourced but now runs to an unacceptable length. He is allowed an impressive 303 words (1/3 of his piece in The Observer) whereas the reply consists of two lines. There is no justification for this other than he is "influential". Readers can easily follow the links in order to read what Peter Beaumont and Oliver Kamm have to say in full. Your version is a disorderly expansion of the existing section. Wikispan (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)