From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

[edit] NPOV

I have tagged this section for a NPOV violation. The term "Bush-appologists" clearly demonstrates a bias by the writer of the article. Please do what is necessary to clean this up.

i have remove NPOV as i have edit and corrected the piece to included his views plus evidence to back up the statment.--Crt101 03:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Censor/Censure

I used to enjoy reading Gwynne Dyer's column in the Montreal Gazette and seeing him interviewed on the CBC. I also ran in to him a few times shopping at the then Steinbergs grocery in Westmount, Quebec. I have been assuming that he retired years ago, but I recently saw a book by him at a bookstore, and the blurb on the dust cover said that he was banned from being printed in the Holinger and Canwest newspaper chains. Does anyone know anything about this? (I didn't have enough cash on me to buy the book). He always seemed pretty neutral and matter of fact on Israel, for instance in his television documentary years ago, but Canwest has in the past had a very strict policy of controlling commentary about Israel. Is this part of the reason, or was there some malfeasance on Dyer's part? Seminumerical 14:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: the phrase "attempts to have his column censured from the public record". The comment by Seminumerical, above, seems germane to a pet peeve of mine: the confusion of "censure", which means (roughly) "disapprove", and "censor", which means "prevent from expressing". I'm sure Dyer has been heavily "censured", but one cannot be "censured from the public record". Has he actually been censored -- as Seminumerical (above) seems to be asking? Clarification, please. Wordie 22:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I am the writer of the last two paragraphs of the article. What I wrote was "apologists for the Bush government", meaning those who view any critique of U.S. foreign policy as anti-American. Surely you have been reading the papers lately. Change it to whatever you like though, it does indeed show my bias against anyone who continues to support this foolish and wasteful war in Iraq. There are times in history when "remaining neutral" is cowardly. Dyer now lives in London, England, where he writes a column on international affairs which is published in newspapers around the globe. If malfeasance is having an unpopular opinion, I imagine he is quilty as charged. Read him and make up your own mind.

i dont think being a fan of him, gives you the right to remove any critism of his work.--Crt101 03:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

How is inventing a fictional "movement" justified exactly? There no such thing as the "Iraq-Nam movement". A movement is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as "a body of persons with a common object", as in the 'civil rights movement' or the 'feminist movement'. Note that the definition does not include "common viewpoint", something entirely different. A 'movement' is then a group with an objective, which organizes itself in such a way as to carry out said objective. By inventing a fictional 'movement', of which Dyer is a supposed "leading figure", the writer creates a straw man, whose purpose is to discredit anyone who makes comparisons between the war in Vietnam and the present war in Iraq. Thus, anyone who compares Vietnam with the war in Iraq is part of a ahadowy "movement" whose goals must be "anti-American."

Similarly, I don't see how printing, out of context I might add, the most controversial quote you can find from an author to prove a supposed "anti-Americanism" can in any way be called objective criticism. It is also just a tad disingenuous to link to Dyer via Al-Jazeera don't ya think, when it is widely known that any association with the Arab news agency is enough to thoroughly discredit a writer in America's present political climate (despite the fact that freedom of the press is one of the pillars of democracy). This link was certainly purposeful (or very lazy), as a simple google search would have found all of Dyer's writings available, unabridged, on his web site: www.gynnedyer.net. Call it smearing, call it 'swift-boating', but don't call it criticism. These tactics are getting really old. Crt101, if you were the writer of the afore-mentioned B.S., perhaps you need to re-acquaint yourself with the meaning of the word 'bigot', whom you profess to despise. bigot - "an obstinant and intolerant believer in a religion, political theory etc." (Oxford English Dictionary, 1991)(my emphasis in italics)

A movement is a group of people who follow the same idea, since before the start of the iraq war, their have been a group of people who have decided the best way for it to end is if america losses. By connect iraw and nam, which was a civil war they claim they are doing the world a flavour, I have to ask what sort of people are they, who follow the trend are easily placed in the follows group.

saddam lovers (he only murderd 2-3 million people) anti jewish (saddam the man who stuck it to the jews) anti american (hate bush, love america ha ha) arab nationals (love the arab, they are mis-understood)

wow lets talk about the word bigot, as i took your advice and looked it up, it actually means.

A person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

So people who believer in religon are bigots, wow if you going to call people a bigot, it would be better if you decided to look in the mirror first.

Drew de Souza says: I destest the concept of being angry over a comment made via the internet, but whomever wrote the above 3 paragrahps is actually just being immature, let alone totally wrong (his/her definition and the following statement are not parallel). Please do not discuss the dictonary definitions of a word (as there are hundreded of dictionaries), unless necessary (censor/censure) but instead source information that has been asked to be sourced, and work to make the article full. if the man is criticized, then put in the article. that is all. i will look for information, and add it if possible. 142.214.60.130 14:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC) Drew

[edit] Cleanup

The article needs wikification. Anchoress 08:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I have removed NPOV section tag, as that problem seems to be sorted. Can clean-up tag go yet? BobFromBrockley 11:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I didn't add the NPOV tag, but there is still a citation needed, so do you think it should go? Maybe you should ask the person who added it. The article still needs wikification, the reason I added the cleanup tag, so that should stay. Anchoress 11:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Can someone explain wikification? How can we improve the article to get rid of the tag?GarethChantler 29 December 2006

Wikification means formatting the text in line with WP standards. A lot of what was needed when I placed the cleanup tag has been done, but the article still needs a reference for one of its more contentious statements, and the references need wikifying. Anchoress 03:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I've done some referencing, and added the photo/profile box. Are there some further steps that need to be taken before the cleanup tag can be removed?GarethChantler 30 December 2006