Talk:Media Lens/Archive 4

The Times, Oliver Kamm and the ICMP

Is Oliver Kamm really acceptable as a source? Keith-264 (talk) 08:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Is citing Oliver Kamm's use of a comparison with Barmy Irving really any more than a scurrilous innuendo?Keith-264 (talk) 08:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The evidence of the International Commission for Missing Persons is legitimately cited by Oliver Kamm. Is ML's use of the term 'smear' much of a response to Kamm's use of the ICMP's evidence? Is their supposed rejection of 'absolute truth' in reality permission for people to make up whatever they like? Irving makes use of whatever he can fabricate to convince the gullible. By the rules of Wikipedia, OK is a reliable source, and more generally (to paraphrase George Orwell), just because something appears in The Times does not mean it is wrong. (Orwell actually referred to The Daily Telegraph.) Philip Cross (talk) 09:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

If Kamm is a reliable source so are ML, Chomsky and Herrmann and the sources that they cite. Are you not falling into the trap of a one-sided appeal to authority, such as Barmy Irving was excoriated for in that court case? I also suggest that you are being disingenuous about ML's rejection of a somewhat Pharonic definition of truth which sees it coming from authority and which cannot be questioned or rejected. ML have never refused to acknowledge the validity of contrary opinion EXCEPT on the question of the nazi genocides.Keith-264 (talk) 10:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the Wikipedia articles on Identifying reliable sources and Verifiability, you will find that The Times is thought a more reliable source than Znet, or almost all sites for which Herman (for example) has written. You will find that WP has no time for the argument of ML, Herman and others about the 'corporate media' as far as the reliability of sources is concerned - except for those places (like this article) where their argument can be outlined. You might not like it, but what are normally thought of as fringe positions (do a Google search about Herman on Cambodia/Pol Pot and Srebrenica concentrating on mainstream sites) cannot be given undue weight on Wikipedia. That is not my argument, rather it is Wikipedia policy, as I have indicated on many occasions. Philip Cross (talk) 10:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

"ML have never refused to acknowledge the validity of contrary opinion EXCEPT on the question of the nazi genocides." Many people cited in the article dispute the first half of your assertion, and I quoted ML's position on the Holocaust. Philip Cross (talk) 11:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I have been looking at the wiki policies and again fins that you seem to me to be cherry-picking. "Many people cited in the article...." yes but what about the people not cited? It seems to me that you are getting too one-eyed again. Keith-264 (talk) 12:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I responded to David Cromwell's most recent comments about missing sources in the last section, see my comments from 18:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC) above. Unsurprisingly, my points have been ignored on the message board, and Cromwell merely reposted his comments from the end of September about a week ago (as though I had added nothing here) after noticing a criticism from another user on my talk page. DC & DE, it would seem, can only respond with insults. Philip Cross (talk) 14:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC).

Cromwell? Where??Keith-264 (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

For a short time only. Philip Cross (talk) 15:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought you meant on Wiki.Keith-264 (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

As it keeps being raised, the Wikipedia policies on citing Twitter are outlined in at least two places. On the Verifiability page as related to Self-published sources (note the direct reference at the foot of this brief section) and Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#Twitter (overlap in the points made). Philip Cross (talk) 08:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

What if Oliver Kamm can be shown to be an unreliable source on the Balkans? Phildav76 (talk) 22:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

A very speculative question. It would need to be a reliable source rather than from the fringe. Herman et al certainly count as extremely fringe sources, whereas the ICMP (Oliver Kamm's source) is widely accepted. Philip Cross (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC).

It is worth remembering that the ICMP may have identified 6000+ bodies via DNA, but they haven't proved how, when and where they were killed as that is not within their remit. As for being an unreliable source, he states on his blog in August 2008 that "It's worth recalling that Milosevic was opposed not only to independece [sic] for Kosovo: he would not countenance autonomy either." This though is not true as the Contact Group's statement from 23rd Feb 1999 shows. Point 3 states that negotiations had "led to a consensus on substantial autonomy for Kosovo" between the parties. Phildav76 (talk) 23:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You will find the "how they died" issue has been resolved and the conclusion runs against the claims of Herman and his allies. Philip Cross (talk) 23:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Where has it been resolved? Have conclusive autopsies been performed on them all? And what about my main point you have not responded to? Phildav76 (talk) 23:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Changing the opening, awards and admirers section

There is some shocking writing in the intro section, including the rather clunky phrase "mainstream media personnel". It also reads like a hagiography. It is NPOV to be honest about Medialens, we shouldn't be afraid of that. It's simply not the full story to say it's admired by several journalists whilst not making clear that many, many, many other journalists have a diametrically opposite view. Oliver Kamm's statement about ML "It stands with genocide deniers" should be in the intro, since he is one of ML's most trenchant critics and this is one of his most serious statements about ML. There is also G Monbiot's latest letter to ML here, which is worth reading and incorporating into the main article.

The Awards and Admirers section is a joke, again where did this horrible sentence come from "Media Lens has sometimes been complimented by the mainstream media"? It also sometimes hasn't been complimented! Where is the Criticism of ML section?

I didn't want to start an edit war, so in good faith I came to the talk page to discuss changes. Mrfixter (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the "shocking writing", or at least what you have pointed out. I agree with that the number of journalists who take issue with Media Lens is far greater that the handful who comment positively. For this viewpoint to made in the article needs a reliable source, otherwise it is a POV and there is no basis in the Wikipedia policies for it to remain unchallenged, or ultimately removed. 'Criticism sections' are frowned upon, which is why I reworked the contents a while ago. "Media Lens has sometimes been complimented by the mainstream media" comes after passages in which its critics have been cited, and it must be obvious that its admirers are few in number. Monbiot's recent 'open letter' is self published, and as such is unfortunately inadmissible. The rules about self-published websites by the subjects of an article is a little more flexible, although I have undoubtedly used some little licence in this area.

As far as I concerned, feel free to edit to the article. I quite agree with you about the relevance of Oliver Kamm's comments about ML, and have restored them to the introduction. Beware that the ML editors, and their followers on the message board, monitor this article. Philip Cross (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Examples of the types of bias frequently found on the ML page

ad hominem Dismissing an argument by attacking the person who offers it rather than by refuting its reasoning.

appeal to authority To justify support for a position by citing an esteemed or well-known figure who supports it. An appeal to authority does not address the merit of the position. An appeal to authority can be valid if 1) the authority is an acknowledged expert and 2) there is general consensus on the issue. Otherwise it may be a logical fallacy.

appeal to popularity Citing majority sentiment or popular opinion as the reason for supporting a claim. It assumes that any position favored by the larger crowd must be true or worthy.

begging the question Asserting a conclusion that is assumed in the reasoning. The reason given to support the conclusion restates the conclusion.

either-or Assuming only 2 alternatives when, in reality, there are more than 2. It implies that 1 of 2 outcomes is inevitable - either x or y.

faulty analogy Drawing an invalid comparison between things for the purpose of either supporting or refuting some position. A faulty analogy suggests that because two things are alike in some respect, they must be alike in other respects.

hasty generalization Inferring a general proposition about something based on too small a sample or an unrepresentative sample.

red herring Introducing an irrelevant point or topic to divert attention from the issue at hand. It is a tactic for confusing the point under debate.

search for perfect solution Asserting that a solution is not worth adopting because it does not fix the problem completely.

slippery slope To suggest that a step or action, once taken, will lead inevitably to similar steps or actions with presumably undesirable consequences. The fallacy is invoked to justify not taking whatever initial step or action, lest it lead us down the "slippery slope."

straw man Distorting or exaggerating an opponent's argument so that it might be more easily attacked.

two wrongs make a right Defending or justifying our wrong position or conduct by pointing to a similar wrong done by someone else.

I suggest that citing Kamm falls under all these categories.Keith-264 (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

To take some.of your points.

1. An "appeal to authority" - sorry, but this is necessary to avoid original research, but as ML seems to agree with Edward S. Herman, a university emeritus professor, on very many things, it is possible to be inconsistent, or dare I say, hypocritical.

2. About "either-or" or "search for [a] perfect solution", I think the points applies to Media Lens' output rather more than this Wikipedia article. I know you will count this as ad hominem too.

3. A "faulty analogy", presumably a reference to Oliver Kamm's comparison of Herman and Peterson's position on Srebrenica with Holocaust denial. As I agree with Marko Attila Hoare, Kamm and George Monbiot about Herman's writings on this issue, I can only say that this is a point of view with which I disagree. More importantly, as Hoare is a specialist on the Balkans,,and Kamm and Monbiot are prominent commentators it is legitimate to cite them within WP rules. Admittedly, I may be guilty of synthesis in the paragraphs on Emma Brockes interview with Noam Chomsky.

4. An "appeal to popularity Citing majority sentiment or popular opinion as the reason for supporting a claim". You know very well that fringe opinions cannot be given "undue weight" on Wikipedia.

"I suggest that citing Kamm falls under all these categories". Oliver Kamm is mentioned three times, only the last occasion is more than brief. Philip Cross (talk) 09:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Keith-264. I'm not sure that copying and pasting a comment you made on the ML board counts as a very useful contribution to the editing of this article under discussion. Mrfixter (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou, Mrfixter. Keith-264's response to George Monbiot's open letter on the MLMB is recycled here as a comment on the Oliver Kamm citations. Philip Cross (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with the descriptions? I found them quite apposite.Keith-264 (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as far as I can decipher from what you wrote it seems like simple grandstanding. Let's write the best article we can and keep on assuming good faith. I'm glad that we can discuss things on this talk page. Mrfixter (talk) 11:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Preventing the persistent malicious editing of this page by Philip Cross to produce a unbiased article

The person who repeatedly edits this page in a biased manner is Philip Cross. His twitter account is here. https://twitter.com/philipcross63 This account exposes his bias agains medialens and his inability to edit this article to a neutral standard.

https://twitter.com/mePadraigReidy/status/263633883042545664 is a tweet which Philip Cross retweeted. This is tweet from an anti-medialens journalist in dispute with ML stating "They're on to me". By retweeting and endorsing this tweet this shows the bias of Mr Cross. https://twitter.com/DAaronovitch/status/262492309994758144 is a tweet which Philip Cross retweeted. The tweet was from an anti-medialens journalist in dispute with ML who in response to another anti-medialens journalist who wrote "My constructive challenge to medialens" has the comment appended "The very essence of futility." The retweet is an endorsement of that statement and shows once again the bias of Mr Cross and his inability to write or edit a NEUTRAL article.

Here is someone investingating Mr Cross. http://neilclark66.blogspot.co.uk/2008/11/wally-of-week-philip-cross.html

Of course these are NOT related to what should be the material in this page other than to show that the person who edits this page systematically is systemically biased and unable to produce a neutral page. The fact the overwhelming bulk of this page is material attacking medialens and repeating insults just shows the purpose of Mr Cross in editing this page.

I therefore request that Mr Cross be prevented from editing this page as he is unable to write neutrally.

I also request that this page is rewritten to a NEUTRAL point of view. Not PRO medialens. Not ANTI medialens. NEUTRAL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.248.208 (talk) 17:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I would take this up with an administrator if I were you, but "Malicious" has a very familiar ring to it. I suggest you double check the edit history to discover who removed your POV template. It wasn't me. Changed the heading to something grammatical. Philip Cross (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

IP: 80.6.248.208, just tweeted a link to this section to Padraig Reidy ... and Oliver Kamm. 18:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello anonymous IP. Philip Cross was too polite to say that I in fact removed the POV tag for the very simple reason that you had not outlined any specific problems with the article on the talk page. Your continuing use of the tag AND now personal attacks on Philip Cross is beginning to look like disruption. I want to assume good faith but a CheckUser may be in order here. Mrfixter (talk) 10:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

And as a little PS, Neil Clark aka Citylightsgirl? Wikipedia trembles. Mrfixter (talk) 11:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The page

now resembles the results of a mid-70s leftist group after a splintering induced by Five.Keith-264 (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Your point being, as distinct from your earlier comments. What does "a splintering induced by Five" mean? Philip Cross (talk) 10:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Michel Chossudovsky

Minor point, but worth making. The conspiracy theorist label applied to Chossudovsk is backed up by the protection level newly given to the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia article (no alteration until Chritmas Day). Someone keeps citing Chossudovsky authored material which has been now been identified as unsourced or poorly sourced content. Quite right. Philip Cross (talk) 15:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I raise this because the issue of citing Rupert Read and (ad infinitum) Oliver Kamm has been raised, and the claim in this article about Chossudovsky as a conspiracy theorist is dependent on them. Philip Cross (talk) 15:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)