Talk:Neil Clark (journalist)

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.)

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

Contents 1 Lack citations 2 Unreferenced statements and other breaches of policy 3 Disputed edits and description of Clark's politics 4 Problems of finding external sources 5 Citylightsgirl's five points and other user's responses 6 Raised on Administrators' Noticeboard 7 Oxford tutorial college 8 Persistent problem with vandalism 9 Raised issue on the BLP Noticeboard 10 Notability 11 Book 12 Latest Edits 13 Disputes (point-by-point) 13.1 (1) Protection of the article 13.2 (2) Abuse of Process Statement 13.3 (3) Source for the Flying Ace Book 13.4 (4) Other Newspapers 13.5 (5) "Highly Contested" Statistics 13.6 (6) Oxford Tutorial College status 13.7 (7) Iranian Nuclear Weapons 13.8 (8) Regarding Vandalism 14 Publisher 15 Problems about content

[edit] Lack citations

This page has no citations. I've done my best to find them but I failed almost totally. Some of these quotes don't exist anywhere on-line apart from this article. I've taken these out but whoever put them in should revert if they can give proper references. I've also taken out POV on Balkans and Iraq ("war against Yugoslavia" eg is POV).--ElenaZam 19:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Edited again. Been a bit hard maybe on unverifiable content. First writer very welcome to put info back if references cited but I can't find them. Also took out comment about Clark being "reasonably described" as conservative socialist. I think that's POV.--ElenaZam 17:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unreferenced statements and other breaches of policy

Wiki is not a web directory, it's an encyclopedia. It is relevant info to point out that Kamm's claims have not been denied by Mr Clark and it's vandalism to delete that reference, so I've reverted. This comment is for the benfit of the new contributor to wiki.--ElenaZam 21:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Also removed unreferenced statements about subject's teaching and views. removed non-wikified link. removed duplicated refs to papers written for.--ElenaZam 21:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

ElenaZam's claims that Kamm's claims have not been denied by Clark are untrue, so I removed them. Clark bought a legal action precisely because he denied the claims. I have also once again included the very relevant detail that Clark's action was dismissed because the plaintiff did not give his consent for the case to be heard in the County Court. Otherwise, readers are likely to infer that case did come to court and the judge dismissed the claim on its merits. Unless Clark brings an action in the High Court, we will never know what the verdict would have been, so it is wrong to infer that Clark's legal action would have been unsuccessful, or indeed was unsuccessful. I have removed Elena Zam's comments about Clark's teaching as he has explained on his blog that he no longer teaches on the A Level programme at Oxford Tutorial College. Clark's views on railway nationalisation were referenced, so it was vandalism to remove them.

Ahh but Neil Clark didn't deny Kamm's claims. I think you know this because you have a detailed knowledge of Neil Clark's life and thoughts even including things he's never mentioned on his blog. You even claim to know what was in Neil Clark's mind when he brought his legal case. Interesting you can be so certain of things that haven't been said in public.... The sentence you deleted was "Kamm said that Clark had inaccurately cited source material in a review and that Clark had not denied this even when invited to do this if appropriate" and as this is a fact I've reverted and warn you not to vandalize it. You've then made a statement without a source about Clark's legal collapse. So far as I know the only source is Oliver Kamm, linked in article. If that's your source then you should say that Neil Clark's action was an abuse of the legal process and a waste of court time otherwise you'll be guilty of "introducing an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source." If it's not your source then you must cite one or leave the subject alone untill you find one. You've broken several Wikipedia policies in one go but that's the most serious. Beacuse Neil Clark didn't deny Kamm's claims then or since Kamm wrote the post linked to in the entry, you're responsible for original research in a Wikipedia entry and that violates Wikipedia policy of Wikipedia:No original research. You've also violated policy of Wikipedia:Verifiability because there's no public statement of your claim. Before you can put in a Wiki entry that Neil Clark denies Kamm's claims, Clark has to say so in public on his site and then you must cite it -- You've also failed to sign your entries and are posting under multiple identities. I've also reverted on your unsourced claims about Clark's views on railways -- there is NO citation there, go see, and that's against Wikipedia policy too. Your claims about Clark's teaching are not verified by the link you give and are supported by the one I've given, so out they go. Your attempted external link has to be wikified. It doesn't become wikified just by writing "EXTERNAL LINK". If you need help on this drop me a line.But drop the aggressive tone and claims about libel & vandalism first pls. Also don't just revert and delete. If you do then you'll knowingly be violating Wikipedia policies and I'll report it.--ElenaZam 17:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw the note that this page isn't linked to other articles so I went to the Oliver Kamm page to link this one. Guess what. You've added the unreferenced account of the Clark libel case under another name. It is the same person, yopu can tell by the same words and exactly the same useless computer knowledge. But a different name "Citylightsgirl." This is out of order and is covered by Wikipedia policy on Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. "Multiple accounts may have legitimate uses, but you must refrain from using them in any way prohibited to sock puppets, and from using one account to support the position of another, the standard definition of sock puppetry." IMHO this is major abuse. I've been generous but it's not hard to guess who you are behind the multiple usernames. I'm going to post on your talk page an account of this abuse.--ElenaZam 14:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with ElenaZam's arguments on this page. It's an obvious case of sock puppetry and in any case the anonymous user has presented absolutely no evidence for his (and we can all guess his name) claims about the legal case.-- Truthprofessor 03:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed edits and description of Clark's politics

‘Please do not bite the newcomer’ says wikipedia. Wow, I wasn’t just bitten, I was mauled! Sock puppet indeed! I am not ‘Yehudiwho’. Or, ‘truth professor’ am I Neil Clark. My only interest is for a factual and honest biography of Clark to be presented. Can you, Elena, hand on heart, say the same?

Elena, I would like to know why:

1. You deleted the following:

The statement that Clark teaches International Relations at Oxford Tutorial College. It’s referenced here: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21006666-7583,00.html

2. Why do you only believe Oliver Kamm’s account of the dispute he had with Neil Clark is worthy of inclusion.? Neil Clark has accused Kamm of attempting to jeopardise his career as a journalist on account of the review he wrote for The Daily Telegraph (link below) on Kamm’s book ‘Anti-Totalitarianism’. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2005/12/31/bomur01.xml Clark explained his decision to sue Kamm here: http://neilclark66.blogspot.com/2006/11/very-tawdry-affair.html Again, why did you not include Clark's version of events in your edit?

3. Why was the link to Clark’s blog omitted? It should be hyper-linked to the word blogger in the text.: http://www.neilclark66.blogspot.com/

4. Neil Clark‘s support of railway nationalisation is also well documented and referenced. http://neilclark66.blogspot.com/2006/06/blueprint-for-socialism.html http://neilclark66.blogspot.com/2006/05/time-to-renationalise-railways.html http://neilclark66.blogspot.com/2006/11/odd-one-out.html Why was it deleted?

I suspect your agenda is not present a factual and impartial account of Clark’s beliefs and journalism but to publish a misleading picture. Is your aim to smear Clark and promote the cause of Oliver Kamm, the man with whom Clark clashed so acrimoniously last year? You have a chance to prove my suspicions wrong, by agreeing with me that the above changes should be made to Clark’s biography. An editing war is going to be very tiresome and I hope we can resolve this one amicably.

A further question, this time for 'Philip Cross':

Why did you make the statement that Clark is a ‘Stalinist sxxt’ when editing? I have scoured Clark's blog and his writings on the internet and can find no record of him supporting Stalin or Stalinism. If Philip Cross can produce evidence of Clark’s support of Stalinism, and can link to it, by all means keep it in. But if he can’t, it should be deleted. CitylightsgirlCitylightsgirl 21:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Neil Clark clearly sympathizes with the former regimes in Eastern Europe, and thus the reference to him being a 'stalinist' is justifiable. I should not have used the other word, but the edit summaries cannot be removed unless you know otherwise. Philip Cross 09:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Philip, you have failed to produce any evidence that Neil Clark is a 'Stalinist'. To say that he 'clearly sympathises with the former regimes in Eastern Europe' is not enough. I've searched Clark's blog and his writings on the internet and I cannot find any examples of him expressing 'sympathy' to former Eastern European regimes which could accurately be described as Stalinist. The reform-minded Hungarian communist government of Janos Kadar, which to my knowledge is the only communist government in eastern europe which Clark has expressed a qualified defence of, cannot accurately be described as 'Stalinist' (Kadar was an opponent of Stalin and was imprisoned by the staunchly Stalinist leader of Hungary, Matyas Rakosi).

Clark made it clear how he would have liked the Cold War to end in The Guardian in 2005.

“Thirty years ago many European progressives believed that the cold war would eventually end with the western European social democracies becoming more socialist, and the eastern socialist states becoming less authoritarian. We would all, they argued, meet in the middle in the best of all possible worlds - part Kreisky's Austria, part Kadar's Hungary.” http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1409564,00.html

I don't think you will find any 'Stalinists' who would describe 'part Kreisky's Austria and part Kadar's Hungary' as 'the best of all possible worlds'.

Unless you can provide evidence of Clark's support of Stalin, or of his support for regimes which most people would classify as 'Stalinist',then the comment should be removed. CitylightsgirlCitylightsgirl

Neil Clark is making an assumption about other people's views thirty years ago, not stating that they are or were his own. By the way, concerning the Kadar regime. Would it be the government which replaced that of Imre Nagy after the Soviet and East German tanks rolled in to Budapest in 1956? It would. You will be aware of the association of the term 'tankie' (albeit in connection with Prague after 1968) as applying to 'hardliners' (usually considered Stalinists) in the old CPGB or the CPB today. The term 'Stalinist' has survived long after 1953. Alright, you are thinking of an article by Clark's wife which he quoted on his blog at the time of the anniversary of '56 last October, but he did not dissent from it. Philip Cross 19:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Philip: The onus is on you to come up with a source in which Clark expresses support for Stalin or Stalinism, which is what you've patently failed to do. It's not good enough to say that 'Stalinism' is whatever the old CPGB says it is. Are they your authority for everything? fyi, I cannot find a single reference where Clark is on record as supporting the the violent suppression of the Hungarian uprising. It is true that he has written sympathetically about Kadar's so-called 'goulash communism' in the 70s and 80s, but not the way the uprising was put down in 1956/7. Here's a link to Clark writing about the Stalin show trials. It is clear what he thinks of them. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21006666-7583,00.html

And here's a recent article in which he nominates Tony Benn as Britain's greatest living political hero. Again, is this what a 'Stalinist' would do? http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=1&subID=1020

On reading Clark's writings, I think it is accurate to describe him as a democratic socialist who has expressed some sympathy with the more liberal form of communism which developed in Hungary in the 1970s and 80s. To my knowledge he has not expressed any support for Stalin's policies in the Soviet Union or any exisiting regimes which are popularly regarded as 'Stalinist', for example North Korea. To label him a 'Stalinist' is therefore simply inaccurate and should be deleted. citylightsgirlCitylightsgirl

You say you are not Yehudiwho and you complain about being mauled. That's strange. because you haven't posted on the Neil Clark page before, Citylightsgirl. You've only posted before on the Oliver Kamm page, five times in four minutes on Dec 30th. You've made no other edits to Wikipedia until now when you pop up complaining about being bitten and taking offence at being told about policies on sock puppets. Why would you object at comments made about another user?

So pls let's drop this act. The comments I made and Truthprofessor made too were not biting the newcomer but pointing out an obvious case of sockpuppetry. You and Yehudiwho have the same message and the same posting pattern one day apart. You also have the same (non) skills with a computer. Look at your edits on this page for example and compare them with a normal Wikipedia page. Nobody else on Wikipedia leaves a mess like that. It's obvious you're the same person. I am suspect from looking at the history of this page that you've edited it before under yet another user identity. I've pointed your attention to Wikipedia policy on Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and also think you should read policy on Wikipedia:Autobiography. See particularly "Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. If you create such an article, it might be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself." Also "It is difficult to write neutrally about yourself. Therefore, it is considered proper on Wikipedia to let others do the writing."

You ask some questions though and shoudl have answers.

1.The statement that Clark teached International Relations is now verified by that article but the article was published four days after I edited the reference you put writing as Yehudiwho. It was reasonable of me to ask for a reference and amazing that you knew this fact about Clark even before it was published (how could you have known that?). Now it's published it's reasonable to have it in the article. But thinking about it there probably shouldn't be a reference to Oxford Tutorial College anyway, it's not notable and there'll never be a Wikipedia article about it. Users might think it's part of Oxford University instead of being a Cram school so I propsoe either to delete the name or add a few words saying what it is.

2. I didn't put the reference to Oliver Kamm's post in, I just reverted to it when you had made a mess of the article. But as it's a factual statement about what he said and that you hadn't denied it I thought it was OK. The Clark blog post has nothing to do with that statement anyway because he doesn't deny citing his sources wrongly. I don't feel strongly about that. But you still can't put what you've said on this page. Making vague allegations about someone else's intentions about you instead of sticking to a verifiable fact obviously won't get past Wikipedia policy at the top of this page about controversial material that is unsourced or poorly sourced. Your comment ought to come out without argument.

3. There was no link to your blog you just plonked the words down and left them there. I was annoyed at your behaviour and so took it out again but offerred to put it back in if you contacted me and dropped the aggressive language against me. You haven't so I didn't. But I will put it back again as it's relevant link.

4. The trains comment was deleted because there was no link to it in the last version you edited, I've said this. As you feel strongly about it I will put it back in with the right reference that you left out.

Your comment about my edits is in breach of yet another fundamental principle of Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. Your threat of an edit war is not constructive and if you behave like that I'll post a report about you on Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets and ask for a ruling. I'll do that anyway if you try to edit this article or any other again in any of the multiple identities you have taken on. If I'm wrong on this then you won't have any worries about it but I don't think I am wrong. If you just create another identity it will be very easy to tell.--ElenaZam 11:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

To Philip Cross and Elena Zamm: You seem to have absolutely NO interest in putting together a factual biography of Neil Clark and I am reporting both of you (if indeed you are two separate people) for malicious editing. fyi, I am not Neil Clark, only someone who wants to see his biography edited fairly and objectively. I have deleted the word 'controversial' as being subjective- in whose eyes is Clark controversial? The neo-conservatives and warmongers who supported the war against Iraq, which has left 650,000 people dead? Ditto the ludicrous statement about 'mass murderers like Slobodan Milosevic' (Milosevic went to his grave innocent of any charges of mass murder) and reference to Clark's 'many detractors'. Who are his 'many detractors'? Oliver Kamm, Stephen Pollard, the Henry Jackson Society, Elena Zamm and Philip Cross? Your really are pathetic. I have also deleted the unsourced statement of Clark being against immigration and gay rights. He has written against an 'open door immigration policy', not against immigration as such. And he has never to my knowledge written against gay rights. If you have any evidence, then why didn't you link? Or are you such a superior being Mr Cross that you don't have to back up any of your claims with links? I wonder what lies about Clark you will come up with next? That Clark is a convicted criminal? That he doesn't pay his taxes? Your attempts to smear him are Pathetic. Malice should play no part in editing wikipedia entries. citylightsgirlCitylightsgirl

I forgot to include the link to Clark teaching International Relations, so have re-inserted. I have deleted all the stuff about the legal dispute with Kamm. It seems clear that you are not interested in publishing an objective version of the dispute, only Oliver Kamm's side. There is no agreement whatsoever between Clark and Kamm, they have two different versions, so why did you only print Kamm's? Again, malice towards Clark seems to be what is motivating you. In any case, Clark's very varied journalism is about rather more than a dispute with Oliver Kamm. citylightsgirlCitylightsgirl If you insist on the dispute being mentioned then I am happy to discuss with Elena Zamm a consensual wording to cover accurately both Clark's and Kamm's positions. But not if all you are interested in doing is propagandising against Clark.

I have also reinserted the statment about Clark's support for renationalisation of the railways, with a link. Can I also make a request to all prospective future editors of this page that no further statements regarding Clark's 'views' are published without a proper link? Anything that's posted without a link, I'll simply delete. You can't just write 'Clark is against gay rights and immigration' , as Philip Cross did without providing evidence. It is against wikipedia policy and I will be reporting Philip Cross for this. As an editor he should really know better.

One last thing: 'Philip Cross and Elena Zam': I have also been looking at your edits elsewhere on wikipedia. It's highly revealing. Both of you are keen editors of the biography of guess who- yup, Oliver Kamm! And, surprise, surprise, your edits are favourable to Kamm! It's as I thought, you have no interest in editing an objective biography of Clark, only propagandising on behalf of someone who still feels bitter over Clark's book review. Shame on you and please, please, don't sully this page with your malice ever again.

Readers: it gets even better. 'Elena Zam' , 'The Truth Professor' AND 'Philip Cross also show an interest not just in editing Oliver Kamm's wikipedia biography, but also his mother's!!!!!! You really couldn't make this up! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthea_Bell&action=history

citylightsgirlCitylightsgirl

Citylightsgirl, are you the 'Green Goddess' who has posted on the blog of Stephen Pollard? We are seeing the same kind of threats as appeared on Pollard's blog, and the same objections to the use of handles while doing precisely the same thing yourself. This is blatant hypocrisy on your part. Since it is all important for you, "Philip Cross" is on my birth certificate. I do not know who 'ElenaZam', 'Admiral Cheddar' or 'George Courtenay' are, let alone use those names as my sockpuppets.

I have not said that you are Neil Clark, but I had hinted that you might be Zsuzsanna Clark, his spouse, which would explain the intimate knowledge of Clark related sources before they appear, which ElenaZam has already queried. "[P]lease, please, don't sully this page with your malice ever again" you write, with no sense of self-irony.

By the way, Clark's antipathy to gay rights is obvious in the Soros New Statesman profile,[1] the attack on Jenkins in the Daily Telegraph, the antiwar.com article (the last two now cited in the article) and elsewhere, but since 'tone' as such cannot be quoted without subsidiary material I have altered the article. Philip Cross 18:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

'"Philip Cross" is on my birth certificate'. Interestingly enough, there is no trace of a 'Philip Cross' who fits your profile anywhere on the internet. All we know about you is that spend time editing Neil Clark's page- to try and show him in a bad light; Oliver Kamm's page to paint him in a favourable light; and Oliver Kamm's mother's page- to paint her in a favourable light. I think people reading this discussion can come to their own conclusions as to your agenda.

I have once agan deleted the word 'controversial' from Clark's bio. This is highly subjective. Clark is a democratic socialist who supports a mixed economy and is opposed to wars. In what way is that controversial? I've also deleted the material re 'defending mass murderers'- he doesn't. He defended Milosevic because he doesn't believe he was a mass murderer. I've reinserted the line regarding Clark's support for railway nationalisation -why did you delete it? I can guess why- you don't want anything up there that you think would portray Clark in a positive light and highlight his commitment to democratic socialism. I've also removed, again, the stuff about the legal dispute with Oliver Kamm. It's incredibly malicious and biased towards Kamm. Clark hasn't just accused Kamm of being a neo-conservative. He's accused Kamm of a deliberate campaign to smear him and jeopardise his career as a journalist. As I said yesterday, I'll be reporting you, Elena Zam and Truth Professor for malicious editing. The game's well and truly up. citylightsgirlCitylightsgirl

I've also edited your lines about Clark objecting to same-sex marriages, by including the full quote. You have interpreted what he says- let's have the full sentence so people can see what point he was trying to make.

Citylightsgirl, is it significant that you no longer deny being Yehudiwho whose words and formating are the same as yours? It's important because you at first denied this. That's a more important question than how you got your detailed knowledge of Clark related sources and know things that aren't published about Neil Clark. You cannot make accusations like you have on on this Talk page and not be in breach of the Wikipedia policy stated on this page about controversial material that is unsourced or poorly sourced especially if potentially libelous. Wiki policy is that they must come straight out.I've said I'll add the link to your views on railways so pls don't make a big thing of it.--ElenaZam 20:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Zsuzsanna, objecting to people's form of address while using a variety of pseudonyms yourself is a bit of a cheek. The dispute with Kamm, sorry that should be the failed attempt to sue Kamm, is probably the most significant thing about Clark to-date given the precedent which would have set if it had been resolved in court. Since Clark ended up with egg on his face, it is no wonder that you want the whole thing removed from the Wikipedia article. Philip Cross 21:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Oliver, objecting to people's form of address while using a variety of psuedonyms yourself is a bit of a cheek. fyi I'm not Zsuzsanna Clark, nor for that matter yehudiwho. But I think readers of this thread will have a pretty good idea of who you might be. Perhaps you (pl)would like to explain why your only interest in wikipedia is editing Clark's page- maliciously- Kamm's page -favourably and Kamm's mother's page.? I will be reporting all three of you,( if indeed you are three people) for malicious editing. "The dispute with Kamm, sorry that should be the failed attempt to sue Kamm, is probably the most significant thing about Clark to-date". Now who could possibly say a thing like that? A man sarcastically described as 'ever modest'in The Guardian last week? Kamm thinks he's the centre of the universe and everything he says or does is of enormous importance and your comment could have come straight from his lips. And so too would the line about Clark 'having egg on his face'. He didn't. The case didn't 'fail', because it didn't come to court and it didn't come to court because Kamm did not give his consent to it being heard in the County Court. citylightsgirlCitylightsgirl

I am not Oliver Kamm. I do not share his politics, nor would Kamm use a cliched phrase like "egg on his face" as I do above. Anyone who looks through my contributions list would not come away with the idea that we are the same person, as I work on the foreign policy articles rather infrequently.

Rationally one could conclude that my occasional work on articles relating to European authors would lead me to the article on Anthea Bell (no more than two edits). Citylightsgirl, if you wanted to irritate me you would tease me over my numerous edits to the article on Jade Goody (getting on for twenty, I think), so your attempts at malice somewhat miss the target. (There I go again!) Really I do not know why I am explaning all this, proportionately your edits to this page and the article are much greater than anyone elses, with only a handful of edits to the .... Oliver Kamm article for variety.

Incidentally, you have not denied being the 'Green Goddess' on the Pollard blog, so we will assume that you are. Philip Cross 22:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Citylightsgirl, this isn't a personal website and you may find comments inconvenient but you can't delete them without cause. Oxford Tutorial College should be explained if the name of the college is in the article. Your account of your legal claim is against policy of Wikipedia:No original research. You've made false and completely unjustified allegations against other editors and also broken Wikipedia policy on controversial material that's potentially libelous. You've clearly lied when saying you are not Yehudiwho whose formating "skills" and words are the same as yours. If you want to edit constructively then plese leave relevant material on this page and allow it to be worked in. You obviously don't know who Anthea Bell is or why anyone interested in women literary figures would be interested in her. The favourable profile of her isn't by any editor of your entry either.--ElenaZam 18:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have just looked atClark's blog where an extensive article on this edit war appears. Apparently 'Citylightsgirl' is on an "heroic" battle to set the record straight. Ha! Philip Cross 18:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problems of finding external sources

I followed that link and see that Mr Clark is aksing other people to edit this article in a way he prefers. It's not a personal website. I've removed the reference to "used to teach International Relations " as that's of no significance, kept the reference to the school and described it as a cram school. The previous edit saying that Clark's critics accuse him of defending Milosevic missed the point. Mr Clark says anyway he defends Milosevic, so that's not the point made by his critics. The criticism is that Mr Clark defends mass murderers like Milosevic. That should be in the article. The last edit was also original research on the libel claim. The account provided doesn't say the claim was not heard but that it was struck out with Mr Clark losing his fee. So I've said this instead of "rejected" which was the description used before. Also the same article is the cite for Mr Clark not denying he gave inaccurate sources.--ElenaZam 15:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have added a cite to the original review of Kamm's book which started the dispute, since it previously appeared to have come from nowhere as far as the article was concerned. We have no viewpoint from Clark to cite, only attacks on Kamm and claims about mysterious emails which allege conspiratorial behaviour. If by googling the full names of Kamm and Clark (in quotation marks) someone can find Clark's account to balance Kamm's they should add it, but I have failed to do so. Philip Cross 22:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[Abusive and libellous material deleted....] I have deleted your extremely malicious editing and will do so every time it appears. Clark defends Milosevic because Milosevic was not a mass murderer, to say that Clark defends mass murderous is libellous and a blatant violation of wikipedia policy. You have the audacity of accusing others of 'defending mass murderers' when you defend the two biggest mass murderers alive in the world today, Messrs Bush and Blair. How many innocent people have died in the wars they started? [Abusive and libellous material deleted...] You are not interested in a serious edit, only propagandising for yourself. One last point, Oxford Tutorial College is not 'a cram'. That's obvious if you look at the website. You will set that it offers a wide range of courses. Your obsession with saying it's 'a cram' shows what a pathetic, twisted and bitter individual you are. You will do anything to try and denigrate Clark but you've been well and truly rumbled.

citylightsgirlCitylightsgirl And just in case you've forgotten your reading glasses, here's a reminder of wikiepdia policy:

"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.

To say that someone defends mass murderers is EXTREMELY libelous.

(I've also corrected spelling mistake made by previous editor. It's pursued, not persued). city;ightsgirlCitylightsgirl

Citylightsgirl, pls stop accusing editors of being Oliver Kamm when you dispute an edit. FYI like Philip I use my real name here (but short form, but I don't see why I'm telling you this). For someone who complains libel so much you're always making accusations that you have no evidence for and can't back up. Also pls note BTW all the subjects you've deleted from the article were introduced by other editors, not me (tho of course you accuse other editors of all being one person anyway.) I am offended by your habit of deleting edits without explanation and adding original reseach so I revert and look for other evidence than your otiginal research. I reverted the cram school reference because there isn't an entry in Wikipedia on that school and it needs explanation. The entry on cram school names Cherwell College Oxford as a crammer. I Googled for 30 seconds and found that Cherwell College is a member of the same group of 17 colleges that Oxford Tutorial College belongs to, called CIFE. So on Wikipedia definition not mine Oxford Tutorial College is counted as a cram school. On the libel case you've deleted without explanation. The subject should be included because its important as Philip said, and you can't soften it by breaking Wikipedia policy to Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words. So explain pls. Without using the words "libelous" or "malicious" explain what is incorrect about the edit of mine you've deleted without explanation. If you can't do that then your edit shoud go out and mine go back.

You've been extremely rude to other editors and you've done three things that are listed as evidence that we needn't accept your good faith. You've deleted material without explanation that had links and sources, and you've even said you'll keep on doing it. You've used sock puppets (where is Yehudiwho? why doesn't s/he edit anymore?) and you've clearly lied again and again when you've been asked about this as the administrators will be able to see. So please answer my question asap because you may not be around on this site after the complaints are posted on the relevent pages.--ElenaZam 13:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citylightsgirl's five points and other user's responses

Let's leave aside for one moment further insults and accusations of sock puppetry. I am not 'yehudiwho' and as to where he/she is, only he/she knows. What's clear is that you are extremely ill-disposed towards Neil Clark. All we know about you is that the only two other sites you've been editing are Oliver Kamm's (favourably) and his mother's (again favourably) and that you were the first person to edit Clark's page.

In answer to your points: 1. Oxford Tutorial College may be a member of CIFE like Cherwell College, but it offers far more than Cherwell does in terms of courses and programmes, for instance the 'oasp' programme. I've been looking again at its website and in no way can it accurately be described as a 'cram'. see below:

http://www.oasp.ac.uk/

"The Oxford Advanced Studies Program consists of a summer course for High School students, which takes place at Magdalen College, one of the colleges of Oxford University, and a semester abroad for High School seniors or graduates, based at our King Edward Street premises, with a wide variety of academic subjects available. The semester abroad courses are also suitable for college students who are looking for an international dimension to their studies.

Courses at the college normally involve an element of one-to-one teaching and in many cases are exclusively taught by this method. This allows for a great deal of flexibility, enabling students to pursue their own academic interests and to work at their own pace." (THIS CAN HARDLY BE CALLED CRAMMING!!)

There is a link to the Oxford Tutorial college on the current edit. That is surely enough. People can click on it and make their own minds up as to the academic level of the college, they don't need your inaccurate and misleading description of it as a 'cram'.

2.The claim that Clark 'defends mass murderers like Slobodan Milosvic' is factually incorrect and libellous. You are right to say that Clark has defended Slobodan Milosevic, but as he's made clear,he does so because Milosevic was NOT a mass murderer. Factually the statement that Milosevic is a 'mass murderer' is incorrect: it has never been proved that Milosevic was a mass murderer in a court of law, and Milosevic died an innocent man with no verdict being passed at his trial at The Hague. In the four years of his trial,as Clark points out, no evidence was produced to link Milosevic to mass murders, such as the the Srebrenica massacre. A factually correct version of Clark's views on Milosevic and the criticism of those views could read: 'Neil Clark has defended the former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, who stood trial for war crimes and crimes aginst humanity at the The Hague, believing him to have been innocent and a 'prisoner of conscience' (link to Clark's New Statesman article), whose 'worst crime ' was to have carried on being a socialist. Clark's defence of Milosevic has been criticised by David Aaronovitch.... (one point here: can you produce proof that Aaronovitch has criticised Clark on this? I'm sure he wouldn't agree with Clark's view on Milosevic, but to say he has criticised Clark, we need proof. ) One further point on this: Clark supports the death penalty for murder. That doesn't quite tally with someone who 'defends mass murderers, does it?

3. Re the Clark v Kamm legal dispute, your edits up to now have been malicious and have failed to accurately portray Clark's position and to explain why he decided to sue Kamm.

4. Why do you object to mentioning (with a link)Clark's support for railway renationalisation? It's impossible to escape the conclusion that you don't want to acknowledge it because you think it will show Clark in a good light.(that would never do!) Your agenda seems to be to portray Clark as 'right-wing', to reduce support on the left for him.

5. If criticism of Neil Clark's stance on Slobodan Milosevic is to be included, then so too should support for Clark's views and writings. For instance President Mbeki of South Africa, favourably quoting Clark in an address to the ANC. http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/anctoday/2005/at07.htm Clark does have his supporters (although looking at your edits no one would think so). citylightsgirlCitylightsgirl

1. You are not referring to editorial work by myself, so I will pass, or more accurately you are referring to research on the web by ElenaZam.

2. The New Staesman article heading describes Clark as "a lone voice" suggesting that he is isolated on this. Milosevic was indicted on 50 counts rather than the "unclear" reasons Clark claims. Quite why Clark puts "political prisoners" in scare quotes in regard to Amnesty campaigns is a mystery. The following is from a Weekly Worker[2] article, hardly a neo-conservative source:

"To take one, admittedly bizarre, example, we have only to look at an article entitled 'Milosevic, prisoner of conscience', by Neil Clark (New Statesman February 11 [2002][3]). At first reading it seems as if it might be some deeply ironic, provocative spoof, but no. Mr Clark, who describes his "ecstasy" at finding a copy of Tony Benn’s Arguments for socialism prominently displayed in a Belgrade bookshop in 1998 (years after Milosevic’s fomenting of blood-soaked wars in Croatia and Bosnia) tells us that Milosevic’s "worst crime was to carry on being a socialist" who "never once made a racist speech", but who, when "confronted by the incessant violence of western-trained separatist groups, had little option but to use military means to try to prevent the break-up of his country". For Clark, the really "scandalous" thing is the infringement of Milosevic’s human rights.

"Clark’s position may seem extreme, but in essence it is actually little different from what we heard so often during the Kosova war from those bone-headed philistines who crudely abused Trotsky’s theoretical legacy by maintaining that Yugoslavia under Milosevic was in some sense a workers’ state (albeit a 'deformed' one) and that it was therefore the sworn duty of all communists and socialists to take the side of Milosevic in his heroic struggle against imperialism. Nonsense it was then; nonsense it remains".

I should add, before Citylightsgirl does, that the author of this piece does not consider the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia to be valid.

3. I have failed to find Clark's self-defence on the court case, and above invited any user to add a link to them. Since you are more knowledgable about Neil Clark related sources, it might be expected you would have added them where I failed, but no, you have not.

4. I am pretty certain it was not me who has removed this passage. On the question of marginalising Clark on the left, his comments regarding the conservative columnist Peter Hitchens here only add to his reputation as a maverick. After discussing Hitchens similar views on the death penalty, he writes: "He is of course-( as he is on virtually ever topic except the NHS)- absolutely right". Interest declared: I should add that I have clashed with Hitchens on Wikipedia in the past. I should add that he posts as "Peter Hitchens signed in as Clockback" on Wikipedia.

5. I'm not sure the Guardian article cited by Thabo Mbeki shows Clark in a good light, as it assumes that the output figures produced under the communist regimes were accurate; even if the unemployment figures are sustainable, I will not apply here the spurious Thatcherite argument which would cast doubt on them. Yes, I am aware they fiddled (unemployment) figures too. Philip Cross 13:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's my responses to your five points, Citylightsgirl, but first the only person here who has been insulting is you. I've commented on your behaviour which I'll do again at the end. You've accused me of being a "pathetic, twisted and bitter individual." Your comment that the only other sites I've edited have been Oliver Kamm and Anthea Bell is yet another fib. The first edit I made was on a famous woman writer and someone who is interested in woman literary figures would be interested in Anthea Bell. I haven't said anything "favourable" about Ms Bell, I corrected a book title and marked it as minor edit. The only edits I've made to the Kamm page have not been about Kamm but someone else. I wasn't the first person to edit this entry about Clark, that was someone who like you knew things about Neil Clark that can't be found anywhere (his date of birth, no editor of the entry for Stephen Pollard knows even what year he was born in). I don't know why I'm explaining this but it does show what your comments are like and show that you keep lying and lying.

1. The reason why I suggested there should be an explanation of Oxford Tutorial College (and it wasn't me who made the edit) was that there is no Wiki entry on that school and shouldn't be and a user might assume it was a college in Oxford Univ. That's why it's either too much or too little to have the name and a link. I found a reference to the school on a site whose members definitely include a cram school named by Wikipedia. The entry on Oxford Tutorial College says: "Oxford Tutorial College is a well­-established independent sixth-­form college specialising in preparing candidates for university entry." The Wiki-pedia definition of a cram school says: "Cram schools (also known as crammers) are specialized schools that train their students to meet particular goals, most commonly to pass the entrance examinations of high schools or universities." Cram school is the Wikipedia definition for this type of school so even if you think it's a misleading term it's still the right one for this school.

2.I edited the Clark/Milosevic reference because it was stupid to say that critics accuse Clark of defending Milosevic when Clark admits this anyway. The point of the critics is that Clark defends a man who is regarded by for example the Supreme Court of Serbia (see entry on Slobodan Milošević as a murderer. You seem to want no critcism at all of Clark for views that as Philip says are very isolated ones regarded as "bizarre" by lots of people.

3. I asked you to give factual evidence of why my edit about your libel case was wrong and all you've done is yet again lose your temper and make insults. As you know Clark material so well then you can link to the article where Clark denies having cited wrongly his source material which was what Kamm alleged. But the link I found does show that Clark cited wrongly that source material on his blog and for you to delete that sourced and linked reference without explanation was vandalism.

4. It wasn't Philip who removed that reference, it was me because there was no supporting link to it. Go and check and you'll see I'm right. I've already said I'll put one in as you gave one so I don't see your complaint.

5. No objection to including it along with the criticism of Clark that you keep vandalizing.

Getting back to your insults though. You've made abusive comment to several editors and made accusations that are false and you can't support. You've introduced original research in breach of Wikipedia:No original research. You've lied yet again about the obvious fact that you and Yehudiwho are the same person using the same words and with the same computer "skills" (do you want me to ask Wiki administrators to judge this?). You've vandalized this entry by deleting edits that have links and references and said you'll keep doing it. So you do all the things that Wikipedia policy on Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith that mean we don't have to accept your good faith. "Actions inconsistent with good faith include vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying."

So you have breached all of these policies.Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith, Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Autobiography.Incidentally you haven't answered Philip's question about whether yet another of your identities is "Green Goddess."

I will edit this entry with all this information.--ElenaZam 16:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like there's consensus so I'll get to work editing the article. Before Citylightsgirl rushes in to make the point I must say that I made a small mistake. I edited the Kamm entry not about Kamm but someone else except for one thing. When Citylightsgirl added a comment on Kamm's finance job he added a link with no reference to Kamm in it -- Citylightsgirl also showed his brilliant computer "skills" at the same time. I cleared up the mess Citylightsgirl had left behind and replaced his link with one that showed the same info but which did name Kamm. So the edit was by Citylightsgirl not me and I just made it sensible. I guess Citylightsgirl must have forgotten that he was supposed to be Yehudiwho when he was editing Neil Clark page and can't get out of it now.--ElenaZam 13:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

ELENA: I had just typed in a five point answer to your last post, but couldn't post it as you were already on the page. There is no consensus yet I am afraid. You failed to answer the point I raised about Oxford Tutorial College's other courses: on account of these it cannot accurately be described as a cram and if you reinsert cram, I will delete, ditto any claim that Clark 'defends mass murderers'. It is not only untrue but libellous. Any rewritten paragraph you insert on the Clark v Kamm dispute should be balanced and objective. I enclose links in which Clark puts his view of the dispute. These should be included. http://neilclark66.blogspot.com/2006/11/very-tawdry-affair.html http://neilclark66.blogspot.com/2006/02/liars-place.html http://neilclark66.blogspot.com/2006/02/neo-cons-favourite-islamofascist-part.html http://neilclark66.blogspot.com/2006/02/neo-cons-and-free-speech-what-joke.html citylightsgirlCitylightsgirl

Please point to the passage in these posts where you deny citing source material inaccurately, then we can include it alongside Kamm's claim. If you delete instead of explaining the factual basis of your objections then you'll be vandalizing again, and vandalism, sock puppetry and lying are all offences.--ElenaZam 13:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Elena, I will not be holding any further discussions with you. It is clear that the only interest you have is to spread lies and libels about Neil Clark and that you are motivated only by malice. I have removed all the lies you put up, and will continue to do so as soon as they appear. Oxford Tutorial College is NOT a cram. Crams do not offer programs like the ones I outlined yesterday. Your obsesion with saying that it is only highlights the extent of your obsession to put Clark down. Clark does not 'defend mass murderers' And once again, you only saw fit to cover OLiver Kamm's view of the legal dispute with Clark.

As to your identity, and why you might feel so bitter towards Neil Clark, I think anyone following your wikpedia trail can have a pretty good guess.

Please do not sully this site with your malice any more.

citylightsgirlCitylightsgirl

[edit] Raised on Administrators' Noticeboard

I've raised this issue on the administrators' noticeboard as it seems to warrant outside examination. Sam Blacketer 14:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

As administrators seem to have left this one I've finally taken out obvious falsehoods that have legal implications by Citylightsgirl. Administrators should note that Citylightsgirl is an obvious sockpuppet for user Yehudiwho, regularly insults other editors, makes completely false claims and only ever edits two articles. He has also lied several times about his sockpuppet activity. I've also restored the information that Citylightsgirl has vandalized in the main article. The policies Citylightsgirl has broken also include Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith and Wikipedia:Autobiography. He also should start signing properly!--ElenaZam 19:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Elena,

It is clear that the only interest you have is to edit this page maliciously. I have removed all the misinformation you put up, and will continue to do so as soon as they appear. Again, you only saw fit to cover OLiver Kamm's view of the legal dispute with Clark.

As to your identity, and why you might feel so vindictive towards Neil Clark, I think anyone following your wikpedia trail (editing favourably the page of OLiver Kamm and his mother) can have a pretty good guess.

Please do not sully this site with your malice any more. This page should not now be edited by anyone until administrators hae made their ruling.

citylightsgirlCitylightsgirl

You don't own this page Citylightsgirl and you can't dictate what goes on it. This is a cyclopedia not a personal page. BTW I'm the 4th editor you've accused of being the man who defeated you in the libel courts and the world isn't the conspiracy you think. (And I am sure Phillip Cross is not the same person as the others you insult and he isn't me.) Reminder, you have broken policies of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. You don't even deny any more that you're a sock puppet for Yehudiwho and you haven't bothered to explain why you edited a reference to Neil Clark with information several days before that info had been published. I remind you of the policy about Wikipedia:Autobiography which you've also broken. Because you have used malicious sock puppets, lied about it many times and vandalized material that means according to Wikipedia that we don't have to accept your good faith. Also please sign properly when you want to make a comment.--ElenaZam 21:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oxford tutorial college

Citylightsgirl, having read the above I'm not clear why you removed my explanation that Oxford Tutorial College is a private school, unconnected with Oxford University? I thought this was a helpful clarification, particularly for non-Brits.LeContexte 19:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It is helpful and I've put it back. It's even what the college says on its site.--ElenaZam 21:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

thank you LeContexte 22:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

All malicious editing of this site will be removed as soon as it appears. citylightsgirlCitylightsgirl

It would be helpful if you could point to factual errors instead of vandalizing material you find inconvenient. LeContexte asked a question and you rudely went and deleted what he'd put. You like using words like malicious and libellous but never point to errors in the articles. As you are a proven sockpuppet and have been caught lying about this, there's no need under Wiki policy to assume your good faith, so I'd like an explanation of how come you know things about Neil Clark that aren't published, and why you object to including info about him that is published. Reminder, you have broken policies of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith as well as Wikipedia:Autobiography and don't even both to deny that you've edited under a variety of sock puppets. Also please sign your comments properly.--ElenaZam 12:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted all subjective interpretations of Neil Clark's views and kept a purely factual basis of his journalism and writing, until the administrator has had chance to have a look at this page. citylightsgirlCitylightsgirl

[edit] Persistent problem with vandalism

No you haven't, you've deleted facts that you want to keep covered up like LeContexte's factual point about the school and my factual point about the disastrous failed legal bid which has reliable sources and is newsworthy. As you are a proven sock puppet who knows things about Clark that aren't published I can work out why you want to vandalize this article.[Sign your comments properly pls]--ElenaZam 21:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

--- PERSISTENT PROBLEM WITH MALICIOUS EDITING------------------------

This site is subject to persistent malicious editing. 'elena zam' only edits two other sites: Oliver Kamm's and OLiver Kamm's mother, Anthea Bell. Go figure, as they say. 'elena zam' and 'le context' are sock puppets: Oliver Kamm's mother is a French translator so it obvious where that name came from! Oliver Kamm is a very vindictive man who can't forgive Clark for criticisng his book. How pathetic that he or his close associates are indulging in malicious editing of Clark's wikipedia entry over fifteen months on! citylightsgirlCitylightsgirl

You've now reverted four times within 24 hours so you're in breach of yet another Wikipedia policy as well as all the others I've listed. But that's a minor trouble for you, Citylightsgirl. You probably don't realize that your username is no protection of your anonymity. You've just put up a laughable claim -- this is the fifth editor you've accused of being your nemesis, and solely because he chooses a french name! --that you would be unable to defend if challenged on it if someone went to the trouble of making you try. I'll leave this up for now but claims like this should get taken down very quickly from Wikipedia and it's in your interests too. I call you a sock puppet because that's proved and Wikipedia adminsitrators will see it when they get round to checking. You are user Yehudiwho and you don't even bother to deny it any more. You've lied about this and committed vandalism to cover up the fact that Neil Clark got caught misrepresenting sources and tried to use legal means to cover this up with disastrous results. That's a newsworthy stroy so I've reverted. BTW I've asked you how come you know things about Neil Clark before they're published anywhere. Is there any reason you won't answer? Please sign properly as I've asked you four times already.--ElenaZam 13:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You are the sock puppet 'ms zam'(or can I call you 'le context'?) and you are also breaking wikipedia rules by maliciously editing a page you clearly have a personal interest in. Perhaps you can let readers know why the only sites you edit are Clark's (maliciously), Oliver Kamm's (far from maliciously) and Oliver Kamm's mother (again far from maliciously). Or is it just a remarkable coincidence that it's those three sites you're interested in!! The newsworthy story here is of a writer being so bitter over a critical review of his book that he and/or his close associates spend Christmas Day night, plus almost every other day, trying to sabotage his reviewer's wikipedia page! It's totally pathetic and if I were you I'd go quietly,as you're never going to win on this one. This page should be left alone until the administrator has had a chance to have a look at what's been going on. citylightsgirlCitylightsgirl

You've broken the 3RR rule and must abide by it as other editors do. Please point to the Wikipedia policy I am supposed to be breaking beacuse I don't know it. Your allegations aginst the good faith of me and other editors don't matter as much as the libel that you're committing rather foolishly against someone you name. It's in your interests to realize you shouldn't do this because you are not anonymous in the way you think. You have lied so often BTW (you don't even bother to deny you're a sock puppet of Yehidiwho and have lied about this again and again) that I don't have surprise that you lie again about my edits. I don't need to tell you this but I have many edits are about women in literature which is why I'm interested in Anthea Bell. The idea that every one who edits your comments is the same person and he is Kamm is crazy and libellous. Once more, you don't own this page and you don't have the right to suppress info about Neil Clark's disatrous legal claim. Please now answer my question about how you know things about Neil Clark that aren't published. SIGN PROPERLY. --ElenaZam 21:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the comments that obviously create legal liability for Wikipedia and for the editor.--ElenaZam 10:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Raised issue on the BLP Noticeboard

I have posted a request for assistance on the BLP Noticeboard here [4]. This does not seem to be able to be resolved by anyone except a neutral third party (one not involved with the subject matter in any way, good or bad). Vendetta 21:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

This looks like a vanity article. Is there any indication that the subject is a notable journalist? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding notability, that seems to be a grey area. It is not a subject that I was familiar with before stumbling onto the page. A search for his name on Google returns quite a few entries, though only four on the first page are relating to this particular person. The first (#1) is his personal blog, the second (#6) thefirstpost.uk publication, the third (#9) is Stephen Pollard's website, and the fourth (#10) is a blog for Oliver Kamm regarding their lawsuit. I suppose I would call that "in-context notability"; it might be a local/regional journalism type notability or within this group of people who disagree on various subjects.

The main concern that I have over this page is the material contained about Wikipedia itself referenced in Mr. Clark's blog, linked by Phillip above [5]. In it, Mr. Clark criticizes any negative remarks he finds on this page, and puts forth praise for one editor that is deleting any negative information here. It also has a note encouraging others to do the same. From my understanding, a person encouraging Wikipedia editors to slant his own biography page (one way or another) is a very bad thing, correct? *Vendetta* _{(user talk contrb)} 01:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's best if subjects don't edit their own bios or encourage others to do so, because it leads to all kinds of conflicts of interest. We should be on the lookout for it here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This article needs serious help it seems. Thanks,--Tom 12:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I have asked Citylightsgirl several times why he seems to know material about Neil Clark that is not published anywhere and has included info about Clark before it has been published.--ElenaZam 20:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Book

I can't find a source to support: "In 1992, he wrote the biography of the Scottish point-to-point horse Flying Ace." I've removed it in the meantime. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I found a link to a page that might support this, but the link given did not go directly to the information shown in the search. I'm still digging through the top-site given and attempting to find exactly where it says this. If I do find a source for this, I will cite it with the information in the article. The (redirecting) link is www2.umist.ac.uk/sport/SPORTS%20HISTORY/Bibliographies/Annual/abwp93.html, and the link to the Google search I used to get to this site is here [6], where it is the 5th one down. I'll keep trying to find it somewhere on that site in the meantime. *Vendetta* _{(user talk contrb)} 02:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: I seem to have found where this is referenced (the source of the source, at least). A listing of "'Flying Ace' (Racehorse) 1527 Clark, N., Flying Ace: The Story of a Racing Legend (Ayr: Fresh, 1992), 117pp." is given within the bibliography "British Sport - a Bibliography to 2000: Biographical Studies of Britsh Sportsmen, Women and Animals" by Richard Wil Cox. (Sports Reference Library) (Hardcover). I found this at Amazon, link is [7] here. However, I am unsure if this counts as a source that can be cited, or if this is a "secondary source" instead. At least now we know where it appeared. Do you know what we should do as far as including the information in the article? *Vendetta* _{(user talk contrb)} 03:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latest Edits

I have deleted the highly subjective comment that the statistics on Eastern Europe which President Mbeki commented are 'highly contested'. Clark's view on Iranian nuclear weapons needs to be put in context, which is what I have done. To say he wishes Iran to have nuclear weapons is misleading as it gives no account of the reason Clark holds this view. The claim that Clark's court action was an 'abuse of process' is unsourced. The claim has been made by Oliver Kamm before but is a highly subjective one and is not backed by an impartial third party source. citylightsgirlCitylightsgirl

Abuse of process is a technical legal term not a subjective term. If the claim was struck out because Clark chose the wrong court then that is the reason, so the question comes down to whether the claim was struck out As Citylightsgirl has access to Clark-related sources, he can probably say.--ElenaZam 20:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Do not restore the book without a source, please, showing the full name, date of publication, and publisher. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of the discussion here is to determine what we can source and verify in the article (things to keep in) and what we can not (things to leave out). If a particular fact or wording is under dispute, such as the nuclear weapon and court case statements, please discuss the issue here first before making changes to the article. An example of this is the biography mentioned above. In particular, citylightsgirl and ElenaZam, please discuss what you think needs to be changed and why before you change the article. It is much easier to first reach a consensus here than to dig through ten or twelve edits at a time, trying to figure out what was disagreed with, and why, and whether it needs to be restored. Continual edits and reverts on a disputed topic without discussion first will only paint the editor as a vandal instead of someone trying to maintain neutrality, and for the good of the article, we should all stay focused. *Vendetta* _{(user talk contrb)} 00:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputes (point-by-point)

Note - I've rearranged our discussions below into categories for a point-by-point review of the statements causing disagreement. Hopefully this can help with organization. *Vendetta* _{(user talk contrb)} 20:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (1) Protection of the article

I have protected this entry due to excessive edit warring and BLP issues. I hope the editors here can quickly find a way to resolve their differences and reach consensus on the Talk page. Please remember this article falls under the WP:BLP policy and extra care must be taken to rely on the best possible sources, and exclude any unsourced or poorly sourced information. Thanks, Crum375 04:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• This article should not be protected. Malicious and libellous material has been left on this page and then protected. 'extra care must be taken to rely on the best possible sources, and exlcude any unsourced or poorly sourced information'. Really? _{((Moved statement concerning abuse of process issue to the heading below for readability *Vendetta*))} 'crum' it is obvious you are merely a sock puppet for oliver kamm. I see you also protected Oliver Kamm's website when peole made sourced changes you didn't like. citylightsgirlCitylightsgirl 15:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Rather than a "motive", I believe the editor was attempting to avoid something I had mentioned earlier - changes being made prior to or regardless of discussion between contributors. Hopefully without the distraction of editors being able to make their own changes to the article, we can reach a consensus. *Vendetta* _{(user talk contrb)} 20:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (2) Abuse of Process Statement

There is no source at all for the claim that Clark's court case was struck out as an abuse of process. This is only the view of Oliver Kamm ,but it is unsourced. It should be removed straight away. Citylightsgirl 15:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• I have removed the unsourced statement about the case being struck down as an abuse of process. Any other potential derogatory BLP related issue that any side sees here? Crum375 15:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• I understood from ElenaZam's comments above that inclusion of the abuse of process statement was because it was the proper legal term for what happened: the claim of libel was taken to County Court, and was struck down, hence the collapse of the case. This does not require any subjective explanation if we can not agree upon one, but the term "abuse of process" may be the most correct (as a legal term, it is not subjective, that's just what it is called). I have read arguments given by citylightsgirl on the Oliver Kamm talk page, and I suggest that we use a statement including the abuse of process as a legal term, while explaining that it was considered this because no consent was given by Mr. Kamm to hear the case, which would have been required in County Court. *Vendetta* _{(user talk contrb)} 20:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Vendetta, while I don't want to get involved in editing on these related pages, I just want to remind you that our WP:NOR and WP:BLP rules require some third party to use terminology that can be viewed as negative about a subject. Thus, even if in your opinion the term "abuse of process" is absolutely correct and applicable, you would need to find a published reliable source that uses that term in relation to this specific case, and cite it. Crum375 20:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    • You are indeed correct; I was not aware of that particular policy. Thank you for letting me know. This is probably just me, but I can't seem to understand the sources given for the same statements over on the Oliver Kamm page, therefore I don't feel comfortable using them (unless someone else can assure me that they are correctly cited). We will need to be on the lookout for a good source for the legal term being used by a third-party before re-inclusion. However, I still believe that we can place a brief explanation of the 'no consent given' situation without pushing POV either way. *Vendetta* _{(user talk contrb)} 21:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (3) Source for the Flying Ace Book

Yes,, Here is a source for Neil Clark's Flying Ace book. http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Flying-Ace-by-Neil-Clark_W0QQitemZ290070258395QQihZ019QQcategoryZ64741QQcmdZViewItem Citylightsgirl 15:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• As mentioned above in regards to the sources I found (and below by SlimVirgin), this is also not a valid source for the publication. I had links to the closest sources I could find, but these are still not primary, verifiable sources. The book should not be attributed to Mr. Clark until we have a valid source. In fact, the information I found after extensive searching shows that Mr. Clark did not write the book in question, but that his writing was included within a book by another author, instead. Regardless, we need to find a good source (we can check other articles for examples on sourcing books) that shows this very clearly. *Vendetta* _{(user talk contrb)} 20:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (4) Other Newspapers

Why were the other sourced links to other newspapers Clark has written for been removed? He writes for a very wide range of publications, not just the ones mentioned. The links were all there. Again, all that seems to be the motivation of the editors is to disparage Clark. Citylightsgirl 15:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please assume good faith instead of looking at all edits as "motivation to disparage Clark". It appears that the links to other publications were given, but not sourced, and this may be necessary if Mr. Clark has contributed (especially to well-known publications). Are we able to provide sources that clearly show he has appeared in these newspapers? *Vendetta* _{(user talk contrb)} 20:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (5) "Highly Contested" Statistics

The comment about 'highly contested statistics' should also be removed, in the sentence about President Mbeki. Who says the statistics are 'highly contested'? Oliver Kamm? It's a highly subjective comment, which again is only included to try and show Clark in a negative light. Citylightsgirl 15:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• I removed the 'highly contested' statement from the article as I could not see it sourced and I consider it a negative statement, removable per WP:BLP. Any other clear cut unsourced or poorly sourced contentious statements here? Let me know and I'll take them out. I would also highly encourage all editors here to try to work out a compromise, with emphasis on good sourcing and a neutral presentation, since this article will not remain protected permanently. I must emphasize however that per WP:BLP any unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material must always be removed. Crum375 16:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that if the "highly contested" phrase should be used, it should be shown (with sources) who contested those statistics. We need to find a verifiable source showing that someone or some group contested the statistics before it would be acceptable to include. *Vendetta* _{(user talk contrb)} 20:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (6) Oxford Tutorial College status

Oxford Tutorial College offers other courses to the ones the malicious editor mentions, and if the A Level and GCSE courses are mentioned so too should the other courses, for example the Advanced Studies Program. Clark does not teach A Levels or GCSEs as he made clear on his blog, but the inference from the current edit is that he does. If we can't include the other courses, then there should be no mention of any courses at all, just to the name of the college and a link to the website. Elena Zam's sole aim to to disparage Clark, why she would want to do that I think we can all guess (the only other sites she has edited are Oliver Kamm's and Oliver Kamm's mother's!!!- Go figure as they say! Citylightsgirl 15:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Citylightsgirl, can you say how you know what Clark teaches? Also, can you tell us who published the book and what the publication date and ISBN are, please? It isn't possible to see any details from the e-bay picture. I can't even make out who the author is. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe the only thing we need to do here is to make sure a neutral statement informs readers that the school is not part of the more well-known Oxford College. From previous discussion, it appears that ElenaZam was only trying to make this clear to the reader, since it is likely that anyone reading it would not know this (for example, I myself did not). It is not necessary to list what the school teaches or specializes in if it can not be agreed upon or presented in a neutral manner. I suggest that we use a simple (not affiliated with Oxford College) type of statement and that's it. *Vendetta* _{(user talk contrb)} 20:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the point is to make clear that it's not a higher-education college. It's normal in the UK to explain that something is a sixth form college, as opposed to a college offering degrees. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (7) Iranian Nuclear Weapons

'and he thinks they would deter a US attack' should be added to the sentence about Clark's line on Iranian nuclear weapons. This gives a more accurate and balanced view of his position. Citylightsgirl 18:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that a possible reason for his viewpoint would contribute to the overall article. However, this must be sourced. Any time you write out "why" another person thinks the way they do, you must be careful and maintain NPOV. In my opinion, this statement is similar to the "highly contested" statement - it either needs to be carefully sourced, or left out entirely to let the reader draw his or her own conclusions from Mr. Clark's own words. If a reader is interested in his viewpoint, the reader will most likely gather more information from his blog, etc. and some of that may not be appropriate to include here while maintaining NPOV. *Vendetta* _{(user talk contrb)} 20:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (8) Regarding Vandalism

This site has been the subject of malicious editing for several weeks now. My aim is not to vandalise, but to protect Clark's reputation from the repitition of libels and lies. There must be a mutually agreed edit. citylightsgirlCitylightsgirl 15:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please keep in mind that editing an article with the motive of removing lies is still, by nature, a motive. I would also ask that you try and forget any ideas that other editors here have their own particular motives. If articles here at Wikipedia never contained negative information about their subject, they would be biased indeed. If an editor here - no matter who it is - finds a verified, sourced piece of "negative" information about Mr. Clark, it should be included right alongside the "positive" information. Properly sourced information can not, by definition, be a lie. We should all have but one motive - to make this article as good and as neutral as possible with the sourced information that we have. *Vendetta* _{(user talk contrb)} 20:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

DISCUSSION OF ABOVE POINTS, WITH SOURCES ADDED "Properly sourced information can not, by definition be a lie. We should all have but one motive- to make this article as good and neutral as possible with the sourced information that we have." (Vendettax) I would certainly concur with that, and I sincerely hope 'elena zamm' will too.

1. I have found the ISBN number for Neil Clark's book on 'Flying Ace'. It's 1897770006. Here's the link to the source:http://www.alibris.com/search/detail.cfm?S=R&bid=8271069570&cm_mmc=shopcompare-_-base-_-isbn-_-na

Who was the publisher? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

2. I have also found primary sources of Clark's writing for 'New Statesman', 'The First Post', and 'Observer Sport Monthly'. http://www.newstatesman.com/200211250039 http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=2&subID=1516 http://observer.guardian.co.uk/osm/story/0,,1981870,00.html

It doesn't matter. We don't list every single publication someone has written for. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

3. Re:'Oxford Tutorial College' Clark has written on his blog that although Oxford Tutorial College does offer 'A' Level courses, he has not taught on A Level programmes for a long time. http://neilclark66.blogspot.com/2006/12/kamm-book-review-saga-one-year-on.html

The fairest description, in my view, would be merely to state that 'Clark teaches International Relations at Oxford Tutorial College', with a link to the college's website. Then readers can make their own minds up about what sort of college it is. I don't think anyone will think that the college is part of Oxford University, if that's what 'Elena Zam' is fearing. The name 'tutorial' in the college clearly states that the college is a 'tutorial college', and not a constituent college of Oxford University.

No, it's important to say what kind of college it is, because readers outside the UK won't know what a "tutorial" college is. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

4. The statement that Clark opposes "same sex marriages, an open-door immigration policy and free abortion on demand is not, in my view an accurate precis of the argument he put forward in the article. What Clark actually said was "I support and continue to support the notions of a national health service, free school meals, and state pensions. But I have never understood why a belief in the mixed economy, where transport, the utilities, and the coal mines are publicly owned and run for the benefit of the whole community also entials assenting to same-sex marriages, an open-door immigration policy, and free abortion on demand". In other words, Clark was not saying he objects to those three things, but that he does not consider them as essential beliefs for someone on the left. The wording in Clark's wikipedia page should reflect this. If someone can find a primary source where Clark says he opposes same sex marriages, an open-door immigration policy and free abortion on demand, then of course, that's a different matter. But it is not fair to twist his words in this instance.

citylightsgirlCitylightsgirl

I question why we have to list his beliefs in the first place. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

If we are going to include Clark's beliefs (and I think in an article about a journalist and writer we ought to), then they should be a representative sample of Clark's beliefs, not just those which Clark's detractors think show him in a bad light. I think Clark's calls for a left-right anti-war alliance should certainly be included, as should his opposition to neo-conservatism/ neo-conservatives, as they are both consistent themes in his work. As I mentioned last time, I think the statement that Clark opposes "same sex marriages, an open-door immigration policy and free abortion on demand" should be removed, as it is not an accurate precis of the argument he put forward in his article. Can Crum 375 have a look at this? I'll report back re the publisher of Clark's book as soon as I can find the info. citylightsgirlCitylightsgirl

It would be better if you could report back on the question SlimVirgin asked you and that you've ignored. How do you know what Neil Clark teaches? You also ignored the question by PhilipCross, "Citylightsgirl, are you the 'Green Goddess' who has posted on the blog of Stephen Pollard? We are seeing the same kind of threats as appeared on Pollard's blog."--ElenaZam 18:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Reading the source, it certainly seems to imply that this is his position, but in any case, I don't consider these political views, shared by a significant percentage of the population, as 'defamatory' or even 'negative', and the reader is invited to read his own words by clicking on the linked reference. I can see possibly quoting him here, if that becomes an issue, once the article is unprotected. At this point, however, I would only remove anything that is unsourced and negative. I encourage you all to decide on a compromise version of the entry ASAP. Thanks, Crum375 13:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

As there are no details of the alleged book by Clark to be found anywhere even by its author I recommend that reference is deleted along with the rest of the entry due to non-notability of its subject.--ElenaZam 18:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I would allow an AfD template to be inserted, but the WP notability bar is set fairly low. If the newspaper articles are real, he would probably be more notable than many others who are accepted here. Nevertheless, if you'd like to pursue that route, go ahead. Crum375 19:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I would be against deleting the article; Clark's relatively high profile jusitifies it. The reference to abortion and same-sex marriages is valid, as Clark's antipathy to liberal orthodoxy is an interesting feature of his outlook. The implied criticism of "unlimited immigration" is significant too because it is a common attitude among people to the left of the British Labour Party. Clark's support for the death penalty would look like a mere eccentricity, rather than a first suggestion that Clark's place on the left-right spectrum is somewhat ambiguous, if they were not present in the article. I realise that the article is not intended to be against Clark, and that my comments could be read in this way. Philip Cross 20:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

If the bar is that low then I agree with Philip. The categories on this entry should be reviewed though.--ElenaZam 11:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Publisher

The publisher of Clark's book is 'Fresh Ayr', the ISBN number is 189777006. http://www.alibris.com/search/detail.cfm?S=R&bid=8271069570&cm_mmc=shopcompare-_-base-_-isbn-_-na

Having spent months maliciously editing Clark's page, 'Elena Zamm' now wants the page deleted! If you can't trash something and alter it to your liking, destroy it, seems to be 'her' tactic. Perhaps 'Elena Zamm' could explain to us why Clark is less notable and worthy of inclusion than Oliver Kamm. Clark's work appears in many more newspapers and magazines than Kamm and I'd hazard a guess that more people have heard of him than have heard of Kamm. If everyone agrees to adhere to wikipedia policies, then there is no problem with this page. I hope we can reach agreement, but I fear that Elena Zamm won't accept any edit which is not a complete hatchet job on Clark. The fact that the only two other sites she has edited are Oliver Kamm and Kamm's mother (both favourably) means she is not the best person to be involved here. She's motivated by malice and malice is not what editing wikipedia pages should be about. citylightsgirlCitylightsgirl

Was the book self-published? There's a review of another book here, which is signed "Neil Clark, Fresh Ayr Books." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Neil Clark's book 'Flying Ace' is available on ebay, for anyone who doubts its existence. http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Flying-Ace-by-Neil-Clark_W0QQitemZ290070258395QQcategoryZ64741QQrdZ1QQssPageNameZWD1VQQcmdZViewItem citylightsgirlCitylightsgirl

That wasn't SlimVirgin's question, he asked whether it was self-published. It looks like it is. He also asked how you know what Neil Clark teaches. Philip asked you whether you were the "GreenGoddess" who posted comments on Stephen Pollard's blog. Is there some reason you ignore these questions? BTW I suggested deleting the entry because a book that not even the author can find and a failed legal claim aren't notable and Neil Clark mounted a blog campaign to have the entry altered and this is obviously a breach of Wikipedia policy. But I agree with Philip that the entry should be kept. Your insults are a breach of WP:NPA and must stop. (As the administrators have found you using a sock puppet PunctualPeter and you have been given a final warning for vandalism you're not credible on adhering to Wikipedia policies BTW.)--ElenaZam 11:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW it is impossible to read the name of the author on the photo on ebay and there is no reference to the author apart from this. It is impossible to find any details of the publisher Fresh Ayr Books either. It doesn't have a web site.--ElenaZam 11:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

To be blunt, demanding that citylightsgirl answer "personal" questions is completely off subject. We are focusing here on the article and how to improve it, not focusing on the editors who are contributing to it and why. Those remarks (and badgering) would also be a breach of WP:NPA and detract from the purpose of this discussion. It would be in the best interest of the project if all personal attacks would stop. Back on topic: I am also having trouble finding information on the publisher "Fresh Ayr Books". Then again, I don't have access to "paper" sources, possibly this publisher is just not online for whatever reason. Or maybe we'll have to keep looking for the publisher. Either way, we still seem to have more information on the book than when we started, and that's a good thing. *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 18:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree we're focussing on the article but it's not personal to ask whether a book is self-published, it's important as to whether it's notable enough to be included. Citylightsgirl is very knowledgeable about sources on Neil Clark and may be able to give the answer. Ditto the question about how Citylightsgirl knows what Neil Clark teaches. The third question shouldn't be repeated if Citylightsgirl doesn't want to deal with it. However WP:AGF "does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include constant vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying" and there has been a problem with how to deal with this entry. The book does appear to be self-published as Neil Clark is named as being of Fresh Ayr publishers on the link from SlimVirgin. The only sites that refer to the book are commercial and it isn't clear from photos that Neil Clark is named as author there either. So we lack information about Fresh Ayr and a reliable source for the author and there's doubt about whether it is a proper commercial book. That's all we know.--ElenaZam 11:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problems about content

This article still lacks sources. In the second sentence about publication "a number of newspapers and journals in the UK and overseas, including" -- there are no sources for this statement. The link to Oxford Tutorial College says nothing about Clark teaching International Relations.

The section "Personal life and career" is two sentences and they are not about about career. The second sentence of that section referring to Clark's wife says she is a freelance writer but gives no source apart from a Guardian article from 2002 which says she's writing a book. I cannot find any reference to this book anywhere and I think it doesn't exist.

In section heading "Positions" ("Views"?) the sentence about Mbeki isn't about positions -- I thought the claim was these were "statistics".

The section on the failed lawsuit says the claim was "attempted" but the source just says "threatened". It should be amended (and then becomes v weak section as a "threat" isn't notable) or expanded to include reference to fate of the claim.

The categories should be changed. Just for start, "Times people" -- according to a blog entry linked to higher on this page here Clark says The Times refuses to publish him.

The racing book isn't cited but it and the publisher can't be sourced so it should be kept out.--ElenaZam 17:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

ElenaZam, Zsuzsanna Clark's Guardian article on the wonders of Hungary's Pioneer Movement repeats the claim that she is writing a memoir. Works, albeit usually in a more academic vein, are sometimes announced years before they actually appear, and much as it pains me, I think we shall have to take this assertion on trust. Philip Cross 18:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, Philip. We should cite the Guardian article saying she is writing a book.--ElenaZam 11:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Elena Zam unfortunately does not seem interested in helping to edit a neutral, objective article but only in compiling a very negative hatchet job on Neil Clark. But if we all adhere strictly to wikipedia guidelines in regards to editing this article, there would be no problem as vendetta and Crum have said. Regarding Clark's book, I have already provided publisher details and an ISBN number and that should surely be enough for it to be included. Elena Zam complains that the publisher 'can't be sourced', but the book was published in the early 1990s and publishers do come and go. Under Elena Zam's logic no book published by a publisher which doesn't have a website or can't be found on the internet would be included in anyone's page, which quite clearly would be absurd. The main thing is the ISBN number.

The question is whether the book was self-published. Clark seems to have signed a review as Neil Clark, Fresh Ayr Books. Do you know whether it was self-published? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Re Clark's legal dispute with Kamm, the wording is factually correct as it stands, Clark did attempt to sue Kamm, but no primary source has ever been produced to back up Kamm's assertion that the case was struck out as an "abuse of process", so that phrase should not be included. I hope we can all drop the name-calling as vendetta has said and work together to compile a factually correct, neutral and well-sourced edit. citylightsgirlCitylightsgirl

It must indeed be well-sourced. That means you can't add material based on your personal knowledge. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)