Talk:Oliver Kamm/Archive 1

External link

The external link does not actually feature the subjects telephone number, but that of the front desk of the large firm he works for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.218.208 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

What a ridiculous comment. The link publishes subject's business phone no. and email address and actually calls for people to stalk him. If you can't see that that's violating privacy then at least try not to display your stupidity here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gezza (talk • contribs) 08:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC) [user blocked in June 2006]

Sounds like the kind of aggressive response worthy of Kamm himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.204.221 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[Posts above restored for archive only (incivility by blocked user, reply by anon). A. 03:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)]

....[edit abuse] [1] I've edited out the previous comment for the same reason he edited out the one before. This is not Usenet and abuse shouldn't be here. At the same time I've drastically shortened the material on the Chomsky/Brockes interview. This was way too much detail as it was before. It didn't even mention Kamm 'til the second paragraph. The material ought to go under 'Brockes' or 'Chomsky' or 'critisms of Chomsky' instead but not in a biographical article. --Delworth 21:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this one. There is an edit war going on on another page on Wikipedia about the Kampf site. The issue is whether it posts Kamm's business email and phone number and urges stalking him. I see it's already come up here. If it's true that the site posts Kamm's non-blog and non-journalism contact details then that's wrong and it shouldn't be linked to. I'm making enquiries on this so that I can put a stop to the edit war on the other pages -- but it looks authentic and I think it is true. If it isn't it probably was when the spoof was running and that makes it still wrong. If I'm wrong then I'll put the link straight back. Also there's the spoof emailer. People far more famous than blogger/journalists get these. It's a minor thing but it sounds nasty -- don't think it should really be given life. --Delworth 12:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the caution, but Kamm's non-blog and non-journalism contact details are not on Oliver Kampf's blog anymore - so I don't really see what the problem is now. Something about Kamm's blog persona clearly attracts spoofers - this is a fact, not an opinion, and surely as relevant as the idea "he seems to be a non-believer" gleaned from an offhand remark in one essay. I do agree with you that from the sound of it, the second spoofer seems meanspirited. --Jpm446 15:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That's fair and appreciate the spirit of it. I absolutely don't want to get into edit wars and there's no cause for it anyway. But I'm still a little worried. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the name 'spoofer' for the second case as we don't know what the content was apart from what Kamm said. I think it sounds mean rather than a spoof -- especially if the impersonator (better term, probably) was messing Prof. Chomsky about and claiming to be Kamm. It's probably illegal too. That leaves the Kampf site -- and I think you're building too much on that one site. I'm also confused by what you say about it. The non-blog non-journo contact details are certainly there and I think they must be authentic or must have been authentic when the site was active. I think that's bad whoever does it and whoever the target is. As I say I'm making enquiries on this at the moment. If the site is harmless then I'll certainly put it back (though probably as external link rather than in the article, as it's not important on it's own.) I take your point about the 'offhand remark' about non-belief though! You're right and I'll change it back.--Delworth 15:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC) [Gezza sockpuppet blocked in June 2006]

Sorry - my bad, it is still up there. However, the e-mail address is defunct, and Kamm no longer works there. Moreover, the number doesn't seem to be the bank's number. My personal opinion is that parodies and spoofs ought to be included, but I don't want to get into a wiki-edit war either. So perhaps we should recuse ourselves and let someone else decide. --Jpm446 16:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I found out about Kamm last summer. How'd you get into him? --Jpm446 17:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC) [blocked in July 2006]

I restored the reference to the sock-puppets because isn't it relevant that Kamm is editing his own wiki-page? It seems a violation of wiki-etiquette. The idea of neutrality seems to be that an entry shouldn't be someone's own self-manicured personal web-page or resume. --Jpm446 22:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

How do you know for certain that Mr. Kamm has been editing this article? --Johnbull 23:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Labour Party

This isn't a serious matter of contention. Oliver Kamm has a long history with the party and makes frequent reference to that fact in his blog. Paul has now seen fit to question that he is even a "long-standing supporter". I took all of two minutes to find evidence of this: "as a Labour sympathiser over many years...." [2] --TJive 22:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

From a review of his book: "Oliver Kamm reaches broadly similar conclusions from his strongly Labour background." [3] --TJive 22:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

All this is irrelevant. You wrote that Kamm was a "long-time member of the Labour Party". You also threatened to ban me for reverting this addition. As it happens, the claim is factually false, and my reversion perfectly justified. Sir Paul 22:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I reworded the phrase, so your comment is not presently conducive. If I find a source which explicitly mentions it, which I eventually will, it is going right back in. In the meantime, I would like to know your own rationale on what is a rather banal point; it is completely unproductive, especially in light of reverting well-sourced material otherwise. --TJive 22:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The reworded phrase is still misleading. Look, Kamm is currently about 43 years old. He claims to have not belonged to the Labour Party for 17 of his adult years. Saying that Kamm has "a long background with the Labour Party" is simply disingenuous. The background is "long" only in the sense that he was a member a long time ago. This is particularly important because you have added this line while simultaneously removing other pertinent material that was illuminating on the issue of Kamm's actual (as opposed to professed) political commitments. Sir Paul 22:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

What is your source for that assertion? It might help out, more than any of your comments have. --TJive 22:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

My source is Kamm himself. See here. Sir Paul 22:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't think any further sourcing is going to be required. That is pretty much consistent with everything I have ever read from him: he worked with the party from his earlier years, even voted for it during the Foot period, eventually was alienated by its antics in the 1980s, but has been broadly supportive of it since, particularly of Blair and New Labour. The passage, "the Labour Party (which I support as the only plausible vehicle for left-wing politics in this country, but will remain outside)", sufficiently demonstrates what I have been attempting to assert. --TJive 23:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that no further references are required: the evidence I supplied conclusively establishes my point. Someone who deliberately lets his party card lapse and remains unaffiliated to it for 17 of his 25 adult years cannot be said to have a "long background" with the organization in question. Sir Paul 23:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This issue isn't even effectively pedantic. He was a member and campaigner for a decade and has been supportive of them practically his whole life, including some of their worst years, and even voted (and publicly admits his votes) for candidates in his area. What is your point? Should it simply say he is a "long-time supporter"? The proof is overwhelming, and yet you were just contesting that. --TJive 23:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This is getting past the point of marginal returns. My point, since you ask, is that "long-time supporter"--which you changed after "long-time member" became no longer defensible--doesn't square with Kamm’s record, both as a member and as a voter. He was (and I'm going to say this for the last time) a member of the Labour Party for only 8 of his 25 adult years. And the fact that, as you write in your latest addition, he voted Labour only until somewhere in the 1980s actually proves my point: Kamm was born in 1963, thus becoming eligible to vote only in 1981. If the only times he voted labour were in 1983 and in 1987, that means that he has, comparatively speaking, almost never voted for the party that you want to associate him with. Sir Paul 23:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Kamm has clearly been supportive of Labour before he was even eligible to vote and past the point where he left the party. The only elections that I see mentioned are 1983 and 2005, so you have only your personal evaluation of his ideology and argument from ignorance. --TJive 23:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

In fact, arguing from ignorance is what you are openly doing precisely when you comment on Kamm’s voting record while acknowledging that you lack the relevant evidence to back your speculation. It is your responsibility as the person who is trying to prove a connection between Kamm and the Labour Party to supply evidence that he still supported the organization after having resigned from it at the age of 25. As I documented, you have recently made some additions that were factually inaccurate and poorly researched. I ask you to think twice before continuing to defend a claim which, by your own admission, you lack the evidence to support. Sir Paul 00:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I have provided evidence, both here in talk and in the body of the article. Whether you choose to personally accept that evidence is of no consequence to me. Nor are your own characterizations of Kamm's politics. --TJive 00:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine. My recent edits reflect the evidence you supplied. Sir Paul 01:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Paul's changes

Edits like these are unacceptable. You are turning a biographical entry into a political argument over the merits of left-wing support for the Iraq war. That a political commentator criticizes him for this is notable, but it is not neutral to qualify his political beliefs and actions based your own interpretation of the merits. --TJive 01:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I second that. That edit states as fact that one cannot support the Iraq war and be left-wing, an assertion which is definitely a point of view rather than neutral. —Johnbull 02:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The edit never states such a fact. It rather notes that a conjunction of factors create an expectation that the article must reflect. A person who supports both the Iraq invasion and the Bush candidacy is not expected to be left-wing in any meaningful sense of the term. Sir Paul 04:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

a conjunction of factors create an expectation is a euphemism for a POV. This "expectation" exists in your mind alone, and has no place in the article. Isarig 05:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Please re-read what I wrote carefully. I am under the impression that you haven't actually understood my point. Sir Paul 05:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

While I think Sir Paul may have gone a little too far occasionally, he has made an enormous improvement to the quality of the article over the last few days. It is also clear that he has listened to what others have said. Johnbull's allegation is absurd: nowhere in that edit does it say that one cannot support the Iraq war and be left-wing, but it does acknowledge that most left-wingers are opposed to the war. The reference to Peter Wilby's New Satesman article should definitely remain. On the other hand TJive is so intolerant that he has been reverting Sir Paul 's changes within minutes and then had him blocked, ignoring the fact that he himself is eligible to be blocked under the same criteria. For the record, I don't think either should be blocked, but they both should take time to consider the other's view. --NSH001 11:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where you appeared from, but you apparently don't understand policy in this regard, nor do you have an adequate knowledge of the history of this page. --TJive 11:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, I read WP:3RR most carefully before writing the above, and I have examined every edit. In fact this article has been on my watch list almost since I joined Wikipedia. I had been thinking of editing it myself, but Sir Paul has done a much better job than I would have done. If anything, I think you are a stronger candidate for blocking than Sir Paul. --NSH001 13:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Conservative party

Kamm voted for the Conservative Party in 2005. Perhaps this is relevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.132.104 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

This fact is already noted in the article. Isarig 14:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

edited a sentence

I just have changed the rather bizarre sentence, 'Kamm identifies with the neoconservative position on the Iraq War', to 'Kamm supported the 2003 Invasion of Iraq.'

'The neoconservative position on the iraq war' is a ridiculously unclear phrase. Avaya1 15:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Atzmon

The fact that he is Jewish is irrelevant - if it doesn't warrant inclusion in Gilad Atzmon's own WP article , I hardly see the relevancy here. Isarig 17:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it wouldn't if the sentence wasn't about the supposed anti-semitism of Atzmon. In that context his Jewishness is rather important to note, wouldn't you say? Felix-felix 18:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't say. Jews are obviously capable of voicing anti-Semitic sentiments, just like Americans can voice anti-American sentiments. See for example David Cole, as an even more extreme example. Kamm is critical of Atzmon for believing that the anti-Semitic Protocols of the Elder of Zion is an accurate representation of the realities of the world, and that has nothing to do with Atzmon's Jewishness, which does not appear to play a big part in his identity. Isarig 20:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't buy that for a minute-if someone is accused of being an anti-negro racist, wouldn't you think that that person was black might be relevant? The whole ridiculous idea of 'self-hating jews' was invented to cover this. I think that this deail is entirely relevant,not least because of Kamm's misprepresentation of Atzmon, the full quote from the Atzmon article reads; "American Jewry makes any debate on whether the 'Protocols of the elder of Zion' are an authentic document or rather a forgery irrelevant. American Jews (in fact Zionists) do control the world.. So far they are doing pretty well for themselves at least. Whether the Americans enjoy the deterioration of their state's affairs will no doubt be revealed soon." His jewishness is of course relevant, and to mention this requires the inclusion of one word. Felix-felix 10:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Also interesting that you thought that his being a jew was irrelevant, but his being a musician was not. How come? Felix-felix 10:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Atzmon is notable as a jazz musician, and his bio is full of details about his musical career. Conevrsely, his Wp artivcel says nothing about his being Jewish, and it is clear it palys no part in his identity. Isarig 15:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

His page mentions the fact that he's Jewish, I think that whether it plays a part in his identity is subjective, and frankly moot, that it's relevant when Kamm accusses him of antisemitism is obvious. Although Atzmon is probably the best horn player in the UK if not Europe is indeed notable about him, my point being that it is irrelevant to (wild) accusations of antisemitism. Felix-felix 15:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You added that mention to his page, after I noted it was not mentioned there. He is not a practicing Jew, and his ethnicity is irrelevant to the charge Kamm makes. You may feel that Kamm's accusations are "wild" - but kindly keep your personal POV out of the article. Isarig 16:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I have not added anything POV to this article-in fact all I have done is to revert your repeated deletions of a relevant word/fact. I did indeed add the taboo jewish word to the Atzmon article, not that it really needed it as his Israeli nationality is displayed prominently in the opening para and he has a Hebrew name. How on earth can his ethnicity be irrelevant to Kamm accusing him of being an anti-jewish racist? Why do you think the article is worsened by the inclusion of this one word? Felix-felix 16:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

And how is the accurate word "Jewish" a "POV-pushing factoid"? Or do you think that it's incorrect?Felix-felix 16:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You've already explained the POV - supposedly Atzmon can't possibly be antisemitic (and thus Kamm is misrepresenting him) becuase he's Jewish. That's your personal POV (and a baseless one, at that), which has no place in the article. Isarig 17:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not POV, because it's demonstrably factually true-he is Jewish. This fact may lead the reader to doubt the charge of anti-semitism that Kamm levels at him, or possibly not, if one believes that it's likely that Atzmon is racist against his own people. I would have thought that the reader should have a chance to decide for themselves. I presume that this is what you're so keen to avoid. Or am I wrong? Felix-felix 17:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes you're wrong. Atzmon doesn't even describe himself as Jewish. As Isarig says, your POVs don't belong in article. --ElenaZam 17:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This is pretty comical-how is saying that Atzmon is jewish either POV or irrelevant, if the context is Kamm (who had clearly never even heard of him) ridiculously accusing him of being anti-semitic? Felix-felix 16:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If someone says a notorious antisemitic forgery is both authentic as well as accurately describing the world, it's reasonable to charge him with being anitsemitic. This is true if the person is making the claim is a Czarist forger, or a Jewish jazz musician. Please stop this game. Isarig 17:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

But he doesn't does he? He says that the issue is irrelevant as American Jews (meaning US govt Israel supporters) rule the world. If someone is accused of racism against a particular race of people, then it is surely pertinent to note that the person is of the same race is is accused of hating. This may have the efect of making people pause and wonder if the accusation is (as it is in this case) utter rubbish. If it is not, then the facts will speak for themselves. And where does he say that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is authentic? Felix-felix 13:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

As pointed out earlier, many peole accuse Chomsky, for example, of being anti-American, wthout calling attention to the fact that he's American. Similarily, Cindy Sheehan is often described as Anti-American, without anyone feeling the need to point out that she is American. There is nothing unusual, or even uncommon, about a certain member of a group - be it a racial, ethnic or politicla group- criticsing that group and being accused of being anti-that-group, without anyone needing to call out their affiliation with that group. You are welcome o your personal POV that there is something weird about an anti-Semitic Jew, but kindly keep that POV out of the article. Isarig 01:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You keep using that example-but it's a bad one, for the simple fact that no-one thinks that people who are called 'anti-american' (an leaving aside the multiple inconsistencies in that term) are RACIST against North americans, Chomsky and Sheehan included. Infact Chomsky is a good example-he isn't called antisemitic-the favoured derogatory term for anti-zionist jews is self-hating jew-a term invented to circumvent the obvious ridiculousness of calling a jew anti-semitic. Felix-felix 08:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You have no way of knowing what all the people who accuse Chomsky of being anti-American think, and it is beside the point, in a any case. Jews are not a race, and while some antisemites do claim they are (and abse their antisemitism on supposed racial grounds), many others do not. Kamm has not accused Atzmon of racial hatered of Jews, but of antisemitism, which is somethign else, and quite comparable to anti-Americanism. And just for your ediifcation, many people do in fact accuse Chomsky of being an anti-Semite, in addition to being anti-American. Isarig 18:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you seriously trying to claim that antisemitism isn't racism? How do you define it then? You might want to look at the antisemitism article, which defines it as Antisemitism (alternatively spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is hostility toward or prejudice against Jews as a religious, racial, or ethnic group. In this light Atzmon's ethnic and racial group, being Ashkenazi, would be of obvious importance-highlighting another of Kamm's journalistic blunders.Felix-felix 10:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I can only repeat what I wrote, and suggest you re-read it, carefully this time: Jews are not a race (and neither are Ashkenazis), and while some antisemites do claim they are (and base their antisemitism on supposed racial grounds), many others do not. Kamm has not accused Atzmon of racial hatered of Jews, but of antisemitism, which is something else, and quite comparable to anti-Americanism. You think the Chomsky example works well, so let's look at it, in light of the above definition. When people accuse Chomsky of being anti-American, they are not suggesting he is racist and opposed to the American race (which does not exist). They are suggesting he is displaying hostility towards Americans as an ethnic or cultural group. And they do not see fit to mention in this context that he is himself American, because that is an irrelevant factoid. Now, replace Chomsky with Atzmon, replace American with Jewish and you have Kamm's criticism of Atzmon Isarig 16:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I understood your point perfectly the first time, the problem is that it's incorrect. Leaving aside your very strange definition of antisemitism, which is not only different to mine, but also to the wikipedia definition-your notion of anti-americanism is pretty strange too. When people accuse chomsky of being anti-american, they are referring to his opposition to certain aspects of government policy, not his predudice against american people, which would be ridiculous, as he is a north american.If they were, then pointing out that he is a north american would be perfectly relevant.

I'll point you again to the relevant wikipedia articles with helpful definitions; antisemitism "is hostility toward or prejudice against Jews as a religious, racial, or ethnic group" anti-americanism "is opposition or hostility toward the government, culture, or people of the United States" Whilst the ethno-religious identity of world Jewry is unclear, denying racial identity in jewish populations is ridiculous; Jew for example states "Jews ... are followers of Judaism or, more generally, members of the Jewish people (also known as the Jewish nation, or the Children of Israel), an ethno-religious group descended from the ancient Israelites and from converts who joined their religion." and ashkenazi jews are a more explictly racial group "Ashkenazi Jews, also known as Ashkenazic Jews or Ashkenazim..., are descended from the medieval Jewish communities of the Rhineland. The term can also be used to describe Jews of Scandinavian descent.

So a better analogy might be with anti-black racism. As you have pointed out, being black (say) wouldn't necessarily stop someone from being an anti-black racist-but it would tend to make the accusation of anti-black racism rather less likely. This seems crucially relevant to Kamm's ignorant accusations regarding Atzmon, who he had clearly never even heard of when he wrote that piece.It's not POV, as it's documented fact. So I think it should go in. Felix-felix 10:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

My definition of antisemitism (and anti-Americanism) is exactly that of Wikipedia - but unlike you, I don't cherry-pick certain parts of the definition that support my point, nor do I pretend to know what people using that accusation mean. To repeat:antisemitism "is hostility toward or prejudice against Jews as a religious, racial, or ethnic group" - hostility towards Jews as an . ethnic group is excatly what Kamm is accusing Atzmon of, based (among other things) on Atzmon's belief that American Jews control the world in a manner similar to that described in the Protocols. Atzmon's Jewishness is irrelevant to this accusation. Contrary to your assertions, the racial identity of Jews is not only unclear - it is non-existatnt: There are Caucasian Jews and Black Jews. Their ethnic identity, OTOH, is crystal clear: they are a Nation. The excerpts you quote from the WP article put the lie to your claims: "Jews ... are followers of Judaism or, more generally, members of the Jewish people (also known as the Jewish nation, or the Children of Israel), an ethno-religious group descended from the ancient Israelites and from converts who joined their religion." Isarig 15:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, if Kamm is accusing Atzmon of ethnic (or in other words, racial) hatred of jews-the fact that he is jewish must be relevant, if only to render the accusation more extraordinary, as would be the case for a black person being accused of membership of the KKK.

As for the wikipedia article quotes, you seem to be making a distinction between the terms ethnic and racial, racial identity is the chief determinant of ethnicity. Chambers dictionary defines ethnic as "seen from the point of view of race, rather than nationality" for example. I'm aware of racial diversity amongst jewish converts, and also racial distinctions amongst ethnic jews, sephardim and ashkenazim (like atzmon), antisemitism in Europe has historically been racial hatred of Ashkenazi. However, I suspect this is all wasted on you, as I think that You're really only trying to make Kamm's mistake look less embarrassing by deleting the obvious flaw in his argument, that as an Israeli, Jerusalem born Askenazi jew, Atzmon's supposed anti-semitism simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny.Felix-felix 16:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You are simply (but entirely) confused in your thinking and conflation of terms. Ethnic is not the same as racial, and racial identity has very little to do with most ethnic identities. I suggest you get a good book that expalins these different concepts to you, and return once the confusion in your mind is gone. Not that this is relevant in any way to our discussion, but you are completly wrong about the nature of antisemitism in Europe. I suggest you look up History of the Jews in Spain and History of the Jews in Portugal to get a better understanding. European antisemitism dates back to before the middle ages, was primarily religious, not racially based, and directed at Sepharadi Jews as well as Askenazi Jews. As a final side issue, whethere or not Kamm is mistaken is not up to you, me or anyone else on WP to point out- the criteria for WP edits is verifiability, not truth. Kamm accused Atzmon of antisemitism, and your persistent attmept to "show he is wrong" constitute original research - please stop it Isarig 19:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Original research? No, that's my opinion, and I am voicing it only here on the discussion page. If I were you, I'd try rereading WP:original research, and for that matter WP:POV, as you seem very confused about them. Your evasion and dissembling about the racial/ethnic nature of antisemitism seem willful, in contrast-the inclusion of Atzmon's origin and ethnic identity as well as the nature of his activism are all more relevant to the accusation of anti-semitism than the fact that he's a musician (which is notable in itself). Atzmon is probably most famous as an anti-zionist activist, it's certainly the reason that Kamm attacked him-Kamm had clearly never heard of him before. Felix-felix 09:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"Atzmon is probably most famous as an anti-zionist activist" - no, he is most famous as an anti-Semite. Just about everyone outside the SWP thinks that he is an anti-Semite. Someone who implies that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are true and calls for more Holocaust deniers is unquestionably an anti-Semite. I don't want to echo the hostile tone of your latest reply - you may want to remind yourself of WP:AGF - but don't you have anything better to do with your time on Wikipedia than inserting POV edits defending this guy on someone else's Wikipedia entry? --Truthprofessor 03:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

No, he is most famous as an anti-zionist activist. This is relevant for the article, because, as pointed out above-Kamm clearly knew nothing about Atzmon when he wrote about him-including the fact that he's JEWISH. Kamm's shoddy journalistic smears are his own and belong here. And where exactly does Atzmon imply that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are true? And how is restoring a delete of a relevant fact POV? Felix-felix 17:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

when Atzmon writes '"[W]e must begin to take the accusation that the Jewish people are trying to control the world very seriously..." he is saying, not implying, that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are true. The fact that he is Jewish is irrelevant, other than to push your POV that someone who is Jewish can't be an antisemite. Isarig 18:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

That's clearly a riff on popular anti-jewish prejudice-how is that saying the the protocols are true? He says, and implies, nothing of the sort. His jewishness is clearly relevant concerning accusations of anti-jewish ethnic prejudice-unless you think that anti-semitism also includes criticism of Zionism or Israeli government policy... Felix-felix 13:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Atzmon amended the quote that Isarig provides. He now writes, in On Anti-Semitism: ". . .it is Zionist interests that America is serving. American Jewry makes any debate on whether the 'Protocols of the elder of Zion' are an authentic document or rather a forgery irrelevant. American Jews (in fact Zionists) do control the world.." That seems to me a clear implication that the Protocols describe reality. In his article The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Verse 2), he asks "How is it that the great American nation, the world's leading superpower, has become dominated by a narrow lobby from a miniature foreign state? Do the American and the Israelis really share the same interests? And if they do can someone enlighten us as to what those interests are? Are the American people aware of the fact that their becoming a direct target of Islamic terror is of prior interest to Israel? On reflection, it must be terrifying that such a small lobby from a tiny state is so eager to push the rest of the world into endless confrontation. Do we really need all this?". And another article, in which he denounces several anti-Zionist Jews, is titled The Protocols of the Elders Of London. I have been an anti-Zionist activist for more than thirty years, and I have no hesitation in rejecting these comments as antisemitic. The distinction is clear, and I can't understand why Felix-felix is asserting the opposite and denying the undeniable. RolandR 00:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

POV pushing factoid

Can someone enlighten me as to what one of these is? Is it what in the olden days we used to call a fact? Are these now bad? Felix-felix 10:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

They are bad when they are irrelevant, and included only to push a certain POV, as has been explained to you in detail. Isarig 16:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant, or inconvenient? And how does inserting a relevant fact 'push' a POV? Felix-felix 16:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant. You have already explained, multiple times, your purpose in inserting that irrelvant factoid: you believe Kamm is wrong, and you believe he can be proven wrong because supposedly Jews can't be antisemities. You are welcome to both of those personal beliefs, but keep that POV out of the article. Isarig 19:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I strongly believe that it is relevant that Atzmon is jewish - he defines himself as such, and would be defined as such by anyone who sees jewishness as ethnicity (which, incidentally, i agree with Isarig is not the same as 'race') - because this puts a very different spin on the allegation that he is anti-semitic. I strongly believe it is relevant that he is israeli and that he is anti-zionist. these 3 facts (factoids?) are all in Atzmon's own WP, and in most media mentions of him - again, all key to understanding the anti-semitism allegation. Enough with the revert war now please. BobFromBrockley 14:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Atzmon does not define himself as Jewish, and the word appears in his WP article only after Felix-felix added it there, as part of his POV-pushing edit war. The allegation that he is antisemitic was made becuase of things he said, and if the intent is to discredit that allegation (because supposedly Jews can't be antisemitic) - as you & Felix seem to be doing - that is original research which is not allowed. Chomsky is also Jewish - why is the Kamm criticism of him not qualified with "Jewish anti-Israeli activist Chomsky"? Isarig 16:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine, that's a vote for inclusion and consensus. Felix-felix 16:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

2 people do not a consensus make, and WP is not run by "voting". Isarig 16:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It is relevant, two editors agree, and WP is run by consensus. Felix-felix 17:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

2 people do not a consensus make. Isarig 17:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Whereas one Isarig does? I think not. Felix-felix 09:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not the one making a claim that my position is the consensus. Isarig 21:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Opening lines of Atzmon's biog on his page: "Raised as a secular Israeli Jew in Jerusalem,"[4]. Opening of SWP's defence of Atzmon from anti-semitism charge: "We would like to state the following: Gilad Atzmon is an Israeli born Jew who served in the Israeli Defence Force and who now lives in “self-exile” in Britain."[5].

On the other hand, in an indymedia interview, Atzmon says "When it comes to me, my racial identity isn't something I would like to share with the world. I have never spoken as a Jew or in the name of any Jewish people." (BUT he does not in the interview say he is NOT a Jew.[6]) In another more recent interview, though, he DOES say he does not consider himself a Jew [7]

My proposal would be that refence is made to the fact that he was raised as a secular Jew in the state of Israel. That avoids a description he would object to. However, to remove altogether any mention of his Jewishness would mean that the heat in the debate would be less explicable. I'm going to go ahead and make that change, hoping that this is the end of the revert war, otherwise I guess we need to get other editors involved. BobFromBrockley 13:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It is my understanding that Atzmon's writings are outrageously anti-Semitic. However, this is an article about Kamm, I think this is getting bogged down in proxy details about Atzmon and the Socialist worker party. All three parties I consider to be slugging in the gutter. It would be my recommendation that the additional line "In particular he cites..." be removed as unneccessary. Leaving it at the point where Kamm considers the Socialist worker party anti-Semitic. --Zleitzen 20:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The current version (by Truthprofessor) is an accpetabel compriomise as far as I am concerned. Isarig 21:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I prefered BobFromBrockley's edit, but I think we can reach a compromise here. Felix-felix 09:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe there was almost consensus when I went off-line 10 days ago, and now we're back to the tit-for-tat fight. Especially as Atzmon this is pretty marginal to the article. It seems to me clear that Atzmon's Jewish background is relevant to a desciption of him as anti-semitic. It seems to me very understandable that when someone refuses to be called Jewish there is a case for objecting to that description. "Former Israeli" (Truthprofessor compromise) or "raised as a secular Jew" (my compromise) are perfectly good solutions to the problem aren't they? I'm going to change it now. BobFromBrockley 13:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me.Felix-felix 14:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility, disruptive editing, and stalking-like behavior from Isarig. What do you think? Abu ali 20:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Felix-Felix should not be taken seriously. He has inserted outright lies into Johann Hari's entry (claiming he went to Harrow School!), admits he inserted nonsensical statements into the entry "out of frustration", and insts it is not anti-Semitic to say this: "[W]e must begin to take the accusation that the Jewish people are trying to control the world very seriously...American Jewry makes any debate on whether the 'Protocols of the elder of Zion' are an authentic document or rather a forgery irrelevant. American Jews (in fact Zionists) do control the world."

Just ignore him, and if he carries on trying to edit, report him to the wiki authorities. he is the reason the Johann Hari page has been frozen from edits for months now. 86.129.145.38 16:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, talk page edits like this speak for themselves, methinks! Felix-felix 16:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Clark v Kamm etc

I will be editing this page over the next few days and on a regular basis from now on as it omits many salient details about Kamm and his journalism.

The section on Kamm's dispute with Clark is inaccurate. I will be posting a link to the details regarding how the dispute ended from Neil Clark's website. It is not accurate to say the case 'failed': it did not go to court due to Kamm's refusal to it allow it to be heard in the County Court.

Any further reinsertion of the previous inaccurate version of the dispute will be deleted. citylightsgirl Citylightsgirl [16:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)]

No one can claim ownership of any page Citylightsgirl, as you are doing. As you well know, Clark promised revelations about Kamm on his blog, but either bottled out or the court case stopped him. The details Citylightsgirl refers to are on the Neil Clark talk page in her last edit. There are other abuses of Kamm which are happily omitted. Philip Cross 16:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I have edited the section regarding Clark v Kamm legal dispute and will continue to do so long as the subject of this page, using the pseudonyms of 'elena zamm' and 'philip cross' persists in his attempt to write a one-sided and factually inaccurate version of the dispute. citylightsgirlCitylightsgirl [19:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)]

Administrators haven't reported yet so I'm finally taking out -- in line with policy at top of page -- unsupported and false accusations that would probably raise legal issues.--ElenaZam 17:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I have updated this page to take account on documented revelations re Kamm which have recently been published on Neil Clark's website. Please do not remove as they are documented and any removal will amount to vandalism. I have also added a reference to Kamm's quote on James Callaghan's contribution which is extremely relevant on the paragraph discussing whether or not Kamm can jusitifably claim to be on 'the left'.

I have also edited the paragraph regarding the Kamm/Clark legal case as it was very subjective, not documented and only put the personal opinions of Oliver Kamm. citylightsgirlCitylightsgirl [18:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)]

Neil Clark's blog is not a reliable source. Please do not add material sourced only to blogs. Also, please refrain from adding original research - you may feel that Kamm comment on socialism is incompatible with his other comments - but unless some 3rd party mentioned this in a reliable source, it is unacceptable here. Isarig 06:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

'Neil Clark's blog is not a reliable source' -says who? Oliver Kamm?

Clark produced documentary evidence of Kamm lying.He published email correspondence. This should not be removed. Neither should Kamm's DIRECT QUOTE on socialism.

Why are Kamm's blog entries acceptable as a 'relaible source' but not other people's! You really are laughable.

I have removed the section regarding the Clark v Kamm dispute as it is just undocumented puff, which I strongly suspected was written by Kamm himself. citylightsgirlCitylightsgirl [15:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)]

Please review WP:CIVILand WP:NPA before making offensive comments liek the one above. As to your question - it is Wikipedia which says blogs are not reliable sources. Kamm's blog is a RS only for presenting Kamm's views on his blog, and the same goes for Clark's - but Clark's blog is not a RS on Kamm, and vice versa. Isarig 21:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Surely it's a primary source on the Kamm vs Clark dispute? Therefore totally admissable under WP guidelines. FelixFelix ^talk 22:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not, and neither is Kamm's blog. Clarks blog can only be used as a source with regards to Clark's blog postign, in an article about clark. Only 3rd party, reliable sources can be used for details regarding the legal dispute. Isarig 22:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Citylightsgirl breaks lots of policies and only ever posts about Neil Clark and Oliver Kamm. These violations include Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and Wikipedia:Autobiography ("Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged). I would like the administrators to look at this. --ElenaZam 18:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a good idea to split into more sections. But Brockes affair is really a footnote to Chomsky criticism on this page, and the contrary sources cited were blogs and so not reliable sources. I've taken them out and added reference to Diana Johnstone article. There is already reference to publications in the article under the Politics section so have reverted that. Maybe a longer section on this but not just one assertion and one citation? --ElenaZam 19:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed once again Kamm's one-sided propaganda about his legal dispute with Neil Clark and will do so every time it appears. It is anot a fair and accurate version of events.

Kamm cannot accurately be described as a 'columnist' he is an occasional writer of comment pieces of the Times. I've also added a link to his quotation about James Callaghan's 'greatest single achievement'. This is extremely relevenat to the debate about Kamm's political views. Please do not remove, if so, I will simply reinstate. citylightsgirlCitylightsgirl [20:15-20:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)]

Juxtaposing cherry picked quotes which you persoanlly think are contradictory, alongside self described positions by Kamm, with editorializing commentary such as 'Yet...' is Original research. Please don't do it. Isarig 21:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Supplying sourced quotes to elucidate Kamm's political position is in no way OR. I have reinserted the said quote, in a slightly less confrontational manner. FelixFelix ^talk 13:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It's the same thing, Felix-felix. It's not OR but it is POV. Putting the 'Yet' or 'However' before a cherry-picked quote is POV saying that Kamm is not left-wing despite saying he is left-wing. That's what's wrong with it so I've reverted. Nothing wrong with having the quote in a discussion of the politics but that's not why Citylightsgirl put it in. --ElenaZam 20:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, not really-it's a matter of pin-pointing where his politics lie-there are a few people who self identify as 'left-wing' without describing themselves as socialists-Nick Cohen springs to mind ("socialism is dead"). The purpose of the article is to inform the interested reader about Kamm, and in this section, about his politics. Kamm presumably isn't ashamed about the statement, he says it boldly enough, and it is a sourced quotation (and is no more 'cherry picked' than any others). Speculation about other editors motives is tempting, but ultimately futile-much better to concentrate on the article-which is improved (perhaps inadvertently) by the inclusion of the quote. FelixFelix ^talk 21:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It actually is OR, and let me elucidate on what ElenaZam was saying. If a critic of Kamm were to say "Kamm says he's left wing, but he applauded Callaghan for ending socialism, so he's not really left wing" - that would be one thing. Depending on the notabilty of the critic, and the source in which the criticism appeared, we might include that in the article. We have, in fact, at least one example of criticism along such lines already in the article - Wilby comment that because Kamm supported the war in Iraq he can't be considered left-wing (along with Kamm's response). However, if no 3rd party critic made that claim, and it is a WP editor (be it User:Felix-felix or Citylightsgirl or anyone else) who is pointing out what he/she perceives as a contradiction between Kamm's self-description and his public statements - that is clearly OR. As WP:ATT says: "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, that would be an example of an unpublished synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and it constitutes original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article". (and as a side note to Felix: If you don't want an edit war, stop edit warring.) Isarig 21:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting obfuscation Issarig, but pretty ridiculuous-neither citylightsgirl nor myself are citing a critic, we are citing a primary source (Kamm) to elucidate his political beliefs, as I outlined above. His support for the war may be seen by some as evidence of him not being 'left wing', but the war had 'left' and 'right' wing supporters. His attitudes toward socialism, which is an entirely different thing to war opposition, is what this sentence is dealing with, and as I said above there are plenty of people who self describe as 'leftwing' who would be dismayed to be described as socialists. To try and wikilawyer this straightforward point into OR (!) does none of us any good. FelixFelix ^talk 08:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right, Isarig. It's OR, just like Citygirlights deciding that the Guardian bio linmked to must be wrong. I've reverted and also added the newsworthy section on Clark's failed legal claim. --ElenaZam 12:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd be very interested in your explanation of how a primary source quotation in the appropriate section can be OR, Elenazam. Therefore I've reinserted the Callahan quote. Perhaps we could try a RfC on the issue?FelixFelix ^talk 13:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've already given you the explanation, above, from [[WP:ATT[[. Reread it, and tell me which part you don't understand, so I'll be able to elaborate on the parts that elude you. It is quite odd for a bio to list the things the subject does NOT identify as. I'm pretty sure Kamm does not identify as a Communist, or a Nazi, either - shall we ad that to his bio, as well? Isarig 17:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

And your 'explanation' was entirely irrelevant. You quoted an irrelevant part of WP:ATT; "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, that would be an example of an unpublished synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and it constitutes original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article". Which is very interesting, but entirely irrelevant to the quotation of a primary source in a relevant section. And, ignoring for a second the lack of "so-and -so said A, so-and-so said B", where is the "therefore c" part? There is, by no stretch of the imagination, OR there-but as I said before, I'm prepared to RfC, if you are. If Kamm had written about not being a communist or nazi, and it was relevant, then I would be sanguine about you putting that in, Issarig. FelixFelix ^talk 18:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for explaining the part that you don't understand. Let me explain to you what A, B and C are in this context. "A" is Kamm's self-description of himslef as left-wing, on either a certain entry on his blog, or another source. 'B' is Kamm's description of Callaghan as someone who should be applauded for destroying socialism, taken form a different entry on Kamm's Blog. "C" is the position that "Kamm is not really on the left, because he is not a socialist". You are taking A from one source, juxatposing it against B from another source, in order to advance the position C, which you believe. This is exatly what the section I quoted from WP:ATT was designed to prevent. Feel free to start an RfC on this - as it is very cut and dry. Isarig 20:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

And where, precisely have I said, or even implied "C"? I have elucidated the fact that he doesn't identify as a socialist (socialism being a core principle of Labour before the Blair years)from a primary source. Keep digging. FelixFelix ^talk 21:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The implication was in the editorializing comment "However...", which has now been reomved. As it stands now, it is simply an odd mention of wghat Kamm is NOT - which is an odd thing to have mentioned on a bio. We don't say he's not a Naiz, either, so why are we saying he's not a Socialist (which, in itself, is an OR conclusion you are drawing from his praise of someone who "destroyed socialism")? Isarig 21:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Citylightsgirl, you keep vandalising sourced material crying that it's unfair and libellous and inaccurate and one-sided and whatever. And you never say what is inaccurate with it. That's because you can't. Clark's disastrous bid to cover up his misrepresented sources is a newsworthy thing and you trying to cover it up is not going to work. BTW the breaches of policy that you make are put down on the talk page of your entry and mean we don't have to accept your good faith. (I've also asked you to sign properly and you refuse. That's not a serious breach of policy compared to your sock puppets etc but it's still rude.) --ElenaZam 20:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

What is going on here? Is the Oliver Kamm fan club managing this Wiki article? Maybe Kamm is doing it himself. Either way, this article does not reflect much that is available on a journalist who attracts considerable criticism, none of which is reflected in this entry. No real discussion of his book. No indication of the reaction it recieved. Frankly, I'm a little annoyed User:Grubbytoy 03:03, 7 March 2007

Please review policy Assume good faith before making comments like this. There's nothing to stop you doing that provided they're recognized sources. I already said you should have a section doing it. You made an OR claim that you didn't back up and gave a publication detail that was already in.--ElenaZam 12:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Grubbytoy, the Oliver Kamm fan club has been managing this article. Kamm is not a 'newspaper columnist'. That's sheer puffery. The Times has a list of its columnists which you can see on the comment web pages and Kamm is not one of them. He is an occasional writer of opinion pieces for them. The coverage of the legal dispute with Neil Clark gives only Kamm's version of events and so I have deleted it. citylightsgirlCitylightsgirl [16:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)]

The same point applies to you. Think about Wikipedia policies before making comments like this. You also need to be aware of Wikipedia:No original research. If you disagree with a description given in a cited recognized source like the one given in the article, that's Original Research and needs to be kept out of Wikipedia articles. You need to find a reliable source that makes your point before you can bring it in here. Your vandalism has already been reverted rightly. If you disagree with the article then you need to point to recognized sources that show up mistakes in it. The fact that you vandalize instead of doing this is revealing. (And sign your comments properly pls with four tildes like it says at the top of the page. I've asked three times already) --ElenaZam 21:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, some pretty elastic definitions of WP:OR and WP:VANDALISM going on here. FelixFelix ^talk 21:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks citylightsgirl. Though I though that the Neil Clark entry needed balancing, rather than deletion. That is what I've been doing, attempting to build some perspective into this piece. Kamms book is mentioned once, by title only. Given the wide ranging opinion found in online reviews about his book, I thought it would be informative to at least link to one of those reviews. The most challenging review I could find, admittedly negative, was referrenced in my addition to the piece. I think an appropriate response would be to counter my research with, perhaps, a review with a more positive tone. After all, we only do what we can do with the time we have and we all have different perspectives. Isn't that the point of this whole approach? To allow knowledge to be shared in a diffuse manner, to limit partisan control of information? To delete all reference to the criticism that Kamm draws over his publication and his blog is to deny the reader of this page perspective. Only someone eager to manage our perception of Oliver Kamm would benefit from such interference. I have re-read the directions you have cited. I used a published source as an example of criticism of Kamm's views. 12:21 8 march, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grubbytoy (talk • contribs) 08:24-09:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Grubbytoy, I agree with you about commenting on the book and criticism, so please don't speculate on the good faith of editors again. I've said this already. I didnt think this was done tho by a single reference that was already in the main article, a statement that you didn't support about criticism and citing a single review as if this proved your point. But we don't disagree on the principle so let's both do it. I think a section on the argument of the book and the critical reaction would improve the article. Don't forget tho that Neil Clark's review has been found to have discredited claims in it using misrepresented sources and this should be said if referring to it. On the Neil Clark section which I've restored after it was vandalized, you miss the point. The point of Wikipedia is to be factual not to meet an editor's idea of balance. The section is factual as can be seen by the fact that Citylightsgirl has completely failed to point to any error in it. For some reason he just wants to suppress the information that Neil Clark made a disastrous legal claim that got thrown out as an abuse of process, so I've put it back and also amended his OR in the first sentence.--ElenaZam 13:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. Thanks. Grubbytoy 18:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. It's a good idea and that section would help the article.--ElenaZam 21:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If the point of WP is to be factual, how come all the deletion of relevant factual content supported by primary source material? FelixFelix ^talk 14:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem was the synthesis not the source.--ElenaZam 21:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I offered no synthesis at all-any inference was yours. I shall replace it. FelixFelix ^talk 22:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Kamm and Socialism, OR or Not?

"Don't forget tho that Neil Clark's review has been found to have discredited claims in it using misrepresented sources and this should be said if referring to it." Says who, Ms Zam? Oliver Kamm? The paragraph on the dispute with Clark is pure propaganda and Kamm puffery, which is why I deleted it and will continue to do so whenever it reappears. There is absolutely no mention in the para of the reason Clark brought a legal action against Kamm, namely the fact that malicious anonymous emails were being sent to Clark's commissioning editors, cced to Kamm with a view to jeopardising Clark's career. Clark has explained this all on his blog. But of course, no mention of it here. This whole page needs an administrator's eye as it's being used an alternative website for Oliver Kamm. citylightsgirlCitylightsgirl [15:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)]

ps and for the n-th time, Kamm cannot accurately be descibed as a 'Times columnist'. Matthew Parris is a Times columnist. David Aaronovitch is. Kamm is not. He is a contributor of occasional opinion pieces. Sheer puffery again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Citylightsgirl (talk • contribs) 15:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You've just violated 3RR with your recent edit.Please self-revert it or you will be reproted an blocked. Isarig 15:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Citylightsgirl you haven't taken Isarig's point. You've broken the three-reverts rule and apparently think Wikipedia policies don't apply to you. They do. I've reverted your deletions aqs you seem unwilling to abide by the polciies of this site. I'm interested to see you admit there's no factual error in the account of Neil Clark's attempt to use the law to suppress info about his misrepresentation of sources and that your beef is something else entirely. If you want to dispute the Guardian's description of Kamm as limnked to then you need to find a reliable source that you will back you up instead of imposing your own view. And please sign properly. --ElenaZam 21:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Why was the sourced quote about Kamm's view on socialism deleted? citylightsgirlCitylightsgirl [15:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)]

Because it involved OR as explained. --ElenaZam 21:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's clearly not OR, as you yourself conceded a short while ago, Elenazam. The sentence is relevant and should be included. Simply repeating that it's OR without offering any evidence that it is, isn't really good enough. Why don't you want it included? FelixFelix ^talk 22:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It clearly is OR, as I have explained in detail I'll be happy to go over the salient points again, if you still don't understand any part of it. Isarig 03:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I certainly don't understand your explanation of how the WP:OR guidelines apply to that sentence, but there again, I don't think that you do either, because you've singularly failed to show that it applies. FelixFelix ^talk 07:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The edit option has been removed from this site. This is serious vandalism and a sign of Oliver Kamm's determination to have this page run as his alternative website. I will be raising this matter on the administrator's noticeboard. citylightsgirlCitylightsgirl 09:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well done Citylightsgirl, that's the best laugh I've had today. There is no edit option because an administrator has protected the article due to edit warring. This is not a sign of Oliver Kamm's determination to do anything, it's just what happens if there are abuses like your breaking of the 3RV rule and refusing to accept Wikipedia policies apply to you. --ElenaZam 10:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't bang on too much about 3R violations, Elenazam, as you've recently done so yourself. FelixFelix ^talk 16:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

As have you. Perhaps you didn't notice, but the reason this page was protected was [8] your own violation of 3RR, on the heels of Citylightsgirl's. Isarig 16:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Notice I did. Not the result you were after, obviously. FelixFelix ^talk 16:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The result I was after was to get the constant edit warring by you to stop. That was achieved, and you should be thankful that it was achieved in a way that enables you to keep editing. Isarig 17:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Pretty keen to keep Mr Kamm's comment on the destruction of socialism out of the public domain arent' you Ms Zam? I wonder why???!!!! And to only have Oliver Kamm's side of his legal dispute with Neil Clark!!!

ps while you're here, perhaps you can explain why you think Oliver Kamm can be classified as a 'Times columnist'. The Times don't seem to think he is, because he's not included in their list! citylightsgirlCitylightsgirl 10:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

A neutral observer writes...

I'm not involved in this dispute and don't know much about the background but someone did come to my talk page to discuss a related issue and I wonder if I can get the discussion back on to the issues. These seem to be essentially three:

1. Is it accurate to describe Oliver Kamm as a "columnist" on The Times when his pieces appear irregularly?
2. Is it original research to say that describing Oliver Kamm as a socialist is inaccurate?
3. Is it acceptable under WP:BLP to mention the legal dispute between Oliver Kamm and Neil Clark? Should this be answered in the affirmative, how can the paragraph be phrased so as to include all points of view fairly?

It would be good to get agreement on these things. The first two seem reasonably easy to solve. Sam Blacketer 19:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sam - I welcome your intervention and offer to help. I agree that the first 2 are easier to solve, and actually have no opinion on the 3rd, so let's start with them. On the 'columnist issue': First I will note that he is not described as a 'Times columnist'. This seems to be a misunderstanding. He is described as a columnist, and it is noted that he contributes opinion pieced to the Times. Looking at Columnist on WP, I see no requirement that someone do this on a regular basis in order to be worthy of the title. Neither do most dictioanry definitions require regularity - See for example Webster. Kamm describes himself as one, and is also described as a columnist by several 3rd party sources - such as Prospect magazine [9], Frontpage Magazine [10], Jazz Times [11] and many others. I think this issue is pretty cut and dry. On the socialism issue: As it was introduced into the article , with the editorializng commentry "However.." or "Yet.." used to juxtapose his self descibed politcs as left-wing aginst his comment on an opponent of socialism, it is clearly OR, as I've described above. If we remove the editorializing comment, we are left with an odd statement which contains a bit of disputable OR (a deduction that someone who speaks favorably of an opponent of socialism cannot be a soicalist himself), but more importantly - is describing what the subject is not - and as such, has no place in the bio. Surely Kamm is also also not a Marxist, or Fascist, or Nazi, or Zen Buddhist - are we going to list all those in the article as well? that's nonsense. The only reason this comment was inserted into the article is apparently to discredit Kamm as some sort of hypocrite or liar - by editors who find his self-description as "lef-wing" to be inconsistent with some of his views. If there is a relaible source who quotes a 3rd party critics making that criticism we can include it (as we have already done with regards to his stance on Iraq) - but we can't have WP editors make that criticism themselves. Isarig 20:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks too for your constructive questions Sam. On the columnist issue, as Isarig says Oliver Kamm is described as a newspaper columnist in the article and this comes directly from the Guardian site that is given as a source. But as a matter of fact we had this discussion on another page and I did a check on the Times database. There were around 25 articles in the name of Oliver Kamm published in that newspaper last year so far as I remember. One a fortnight is regular. So the description "newspaper columnist" is right for both reasons. On the second point the direct quote ought to be in the article but not in the way it's being presented. It's OR to give it as an editorial comment on whether Kamm is right to say he's left-wing or not. It's better put in the section that refers to his support for Labour in the 1980's. On the third issue, this is a newsworthy issue and should be mentioned but the point is surely not to "give all points of view" as Wikipedia is not about POV but facts. We have to stick to established facts and these are not in dispute. Kamm says Clark misrepresented his claimed sources to The Daily Telegraph when he confused two different organizations and didn't deny that he'd sone this when Kamm invited him to do so if appropriate. Clark picked a small claims court without authority to try the case and the court struck out the claim. Clark doesn't deny any of this and Citylightsgirl doesn't deny any of it either but for some reason just wants the info suppressed. (While you're reading this, I'd like to point out that Citylightsgirl and user Yehudiwho seem to be the same person and Citygirlights has lied several times about this).--ElenaZam 21:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no strong position on either the first or the third points raised, so I'll deal with those first.(1) Kamm is an occasional op-ed writer for the Times, and was described as a columnist.This is a term disputed by a regular editor here, although the term used wasn't 'regular columnist'. Perhaps the term 'op-ed writer' for The Times would be more acceptable? (3) This didn't strike me as a WP:BLP vio, but I'm unfamiliar with the details of the case, perhaps citylightsgirl could come up with a plan for the section which she finds acceptable?

As for the inclusion of the sentence "Yet Kamm cannot be described as a socialist, for he wrote that former Prime Minister James Callaghan's "greatest single achievement" was to "destroy socialism as a serious proposition in British politics" [12]" I still find the claim that this is OR (whether or not because of the word "How" or "Yet"!) remarkable. The section deals with Kamm's history of supporting the labour party, which he left in the late 1980's, and was thus a member when Labour was an energetically socialist party, in a meaningful sense; ie with an actual commitment (on paper at least) to common ownership of the means of production. He descibes himself as left wing, on the basis of a number of liberal beliefs ("economic redistribution, progressive taxation and a welfare state") which is fair enough, but nowhere is mentioned his views on socialism, a core belief of the party that he has "a long background" with. As I've pointed out before, others regard themselves as being 'left-wing' without being socialist, as I'm sure Kamm does, based on his writing, but without the inclusion of this sentence, the interested reader won't know this relevant fact. The sentence neither states, nor implies whether Kamm is left or right wing, certainly no more than any of the other sentences in the section. Isarig's musings on this remain frankly bizarre-the relevance of Kamm's relationship to socialism (rather than whether he is a "Marxist, or Fascist, or Nazi, or Zen Buddhist") is obvious if the discussion relates to his membership of a socialist party. Had he been in the RCP, Nazi party or the Shaolin Temple, other facts might have been relevant-but he was not. And elucidating this from primary source material is what WP is all about-there is no need to wait for a third party 'critic' to note what he's said before we include it, and to suggest otherwise is untenable. FelixFelix ^talk 22:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You have a very fundemental misunderstanding of WP. "elucidating <something> from primary source material " is exactly what WP:NOR prohibits. Contrary to your fundematal misunderstanding of this policy, WP:ATT says "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source." It is as simple as that. Isarig 22:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

To clarify: If you feel Kamm's opinions on Socialism are important and relevant to the article , you may use a primary source (e.g: Kamm's blog entries) and quote such opinions. But to interpret a comment he made about 3rd party as meaning he is not socialist requires secondary sources. Isarig 22:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This is hardly necessary, it's so obvious, but anyway-to quote WP:NOR "What is not original research? Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source. It should be possible for any reader without specialist knowledge to understand the deductions." FelixFelix ^talk 22:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You are not making any mathematical calcualtions, nor logical deductions. You are making the disputable leap of faith that someone who made a positive comment about someone else for supposedly destructing Socialism cannot be a socialist. That is not straightforward logical deduction. It is a plausible conclusion, but not the only possible one, and there could be counter cases.Isarig 22:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Such as? FelixFelix ^talk 17:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

One possibility is that while being a socialist, he does not want Socialism involved in partisan politics, so he can praise someone who 'destroy[ed] Socialism as a serious proposition in British politics'. there are many others. The point is - this is not a straightforward deduction, and thus requires a secondary source. Isarig 18:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

An extremely bizarre alternative; using that kind of logic, almost any simple observations on primary sources would have to be excluded-I think you're just wiki-lawyering, Isarig. In any case, the qualifier "Kamm does not appear to identify as a socialist" would render that objection invalid in any case. FelixFelix ^talk 21:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, WP:ATT requires that almost any observation based on primary sourced be excluded. The exceptions are limited pretty much to simple math done on numbers from a single source, per the examples listed there. I find nothing bizarre about my example. "Kamm does not appear to identify as a socialist" - perhaps, but on the same grounds, he does not appear to identify as a Nazi, A Fascist, or a Zen Buddhist - are we going to list those, too? Why the insistence on this, in contravention of WP:BLP guidelines? Isarig

Well, to paraphrase Mandy Rice Davies, you wouldn't find yourself bizarre, would you? The relevance of socialism to Kamm's political entry is spelt out above.And there's no WP:BLP vio-you seem determined to block the inclusion of this sentence-why is that? FelixFelix ^talk 09:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not at all opposed to including a statement by Kamm that says he's not a socialist (which is probably true), or a 3rd party that says this of him. I am opposed to WP editors making personal observations, which are POV-motivated. Isarig 15:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You should assume good faith, as you never tire of reminding other editors, Isarig. The sentence was qualified, as noted above. FelixFelix ^talk 15:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for locking this entry. I have been following the editing war being waged here and it's overdue for a truce. And I admit I have contributed to it, not least because of the bias that I saw in the entry when I first read it. Wikipedia is not the forum for this kind of debate. In the most recent edit of the article, the primary reason for John Wills rejecting Kamm's (et al) complaint against the Guardian retraction, is omitted. This quote has been removed from a previous edit of the article : "nor in the long complaint from David Aaronovitch and others is there a direct quote from Chomsky that supports an opposite view". Yet, in the article Kamm is quoted as saying his complaint remains "unconsidered" byt Willis. That's imbalanced to me. From reading Willis' report it is clear that he dismisses Kamm's complaint because his 4,500 word explanation lacks a quote from Chomsky that verifies the claims Kamm makes about Chomsky's views. Yet from the Kamm article as it stands, we are left to believe Kamms complaint was dismissed out of hand. I think that really does give a false impression. User:Grubbytoy 01:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I follow your argument. Quote from Kamm is necessary to give an account of view, but the point is surely balanced by saying that Willis rejected his/Aaronovich/Wheen complaint (as you say). Perhaps include a direct quote from Willis that "my opinion is that Ian Mayes was right to come to his view on the evidence sent to him directly by the complainants"? Also include seperate section as you suggest for argument of book and the critical reactions to it would improve article.On other point, Felix-felix suggests "op-ed contributor" which is American version of "newspaper columnist" so it comes to the same thing but sounds out of place. The main reason for saying "newspaper columnist" is because that's what the external reliable source says and amending that is OR. --ElenaZam 11:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that's pretty fair, but 'columnist' does have the connotation of the journo having their own regular column (although the description never said 'regular columnist') and I thought that 'op-ed writer' might be more acceptable to the editor who objected to the previous description. If it describes what he does and everyone's happy, why not? FelixFelix ^talk 18:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)