Talk:MediaLens

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This Page needs a lot of work, it reads poorly and is vague User:ZLeitzen 2:00 15 Feb 2006 (UTC)

The following material looks like humour made up by the original contributor. Where should it go? -- Karl Naylor 12:21, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Several well known media commentators have blessed it with their endorsement.

\x{2018}Outstanding.\x{2019} - Marshall McLuhan.

\x{2018}Get stuffed.\x{2019} -Nick Cohen.

\x{2018}I believe it\x{2019}s a website of some sort.\x{2019} -John Pilger.

\x{2018}Er, yes, erm, well, indeed.\x{2019} -Boris Johnson.

\x{2018}A site with very [much] to recommend it.\x{2019} - Howard Zinn.

\x{2018}Their subscribers write a lot of emails.\x{2019} -Richard Sambrook.

\x{2018}I consider Medialens to have two possible meanings. The first\x{2026}.\x{2019} -Lord Brian Hutton.

\x{2018}It\x{2019}s a truism.\x{2019} -Noam Chomsky.

I rather like this, not very encyclopaedic, could we put it in?Felix-felix 14:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV Stuff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Critisisms of Media Lens

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] "Weasel words"

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

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