Talk:John Pilger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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]
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to actors and filmmakers on Wikipedia.
Flag
Portal
 John Pilger is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Anonymous Responds Frankly, I think the argument that Pilger is not anti-American, just vehemently opposed to US foreign policy and much of its domestic policy is specious. To a large degree, policy is an expression of identity. And when you have such hostility to the US that you construe the toppling of the Taliban as an effort to get UNOCAL a pipeline across Afghanistan that meets the criteria for being anti-American.

Response to Anonymous Above If John Pilger is anti-American in the broadest sense due to his criticisms of American foreign policy, then so be it. But really: what is the big deal exactly? Why is being anti-American equated with being anti-God almost? Why no bones made of people who are anti-Sweden or anti-Iceland? Why is it an abominable horror for someone to criticise America? And why should that person then be subjected to accusations they are anti-American as if being anti-American is the worst possible crime?

Recent Edits by Anonymous

Hi 203.13.126.19 I would like to know why you believe your recent edits do not contradict wikipedias [NPOV] policy. If someone has accused Pilger of excluding facts and tainting the truth such accusations should have authoritative sources. I think your edits also do not avoid using [weasel terms]. The best thing to do here is to get a quote from someone making such an accusation, if you could find one that would be great.

I would also recommend you to sign up to wikipedia and get a user name it will make communicating easier. O'Dubhghaill 01:39, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the suggestion that Pilger is "anti-American." Pilger is against much of America's foreign and domestic policy. He is not "anti-American." There is a big difference obvious to any sentient being.

“The articles attracted opprobrium in the United Kingdom media, which accused Pilger of "blaming the victims".” — I'm going to remove this sentence unless someone actually chucks in an example or two. It's far too vague and unsourced at the moment. --Redit 23:33, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

How about some personal details like where he grew up, his school days, etc? Can anyone contribute these?

"And says that unless there was "an extraordinary coincidence" then the United States government was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks, standing down their planes so al Quaida could attack New York." -- Source please. --Redit 04:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I have removed much of the POV anti-Pilger tone from this article. In parts, it was reading like a right-wing propaganda piece. In particular, I have removed the false claim that Pilger has said that Cuban communism is a 'model for the world'. Pilger actually said that the Cuban health care system is a model for the world, which as the person who made the edits surely knows, is not the same thing (although since when did the facts ever get in the way of a good smear?). In fact, if I remember rightly, it was Johann Hari who originally twisted this quote in an article, so to be fair perhaps the contributor got the idea from him.

With regard to the claims that Pilger says 9/11 was an inside job, this is slightly closer to the truth than the Cuba claims but stll misleading. Pilger has never said the U.S government 'stood down their planes so al-Quada could attack NYC' and this quote is simply fabricated from thin air. He actually said that the US air force early-warning system for hijackings failed on the morning of 9/11 for the first time in the country's history and the fact that Dick Cheney was effectively in command of air defences that morning in the absence of Bush 'may or not be a coincidence'. While clearly implying that Dick Cheney may have somehow deliberately sabotaged efforts to respond to the hijackings, Pilger say nothing about there being a need for an 'extraordinary coincidence' for this not to be so. Further scrunity of Pilger's work suggest that he considers an 9/11 inside job (along the lines of the 'they let it happen' school of thinking) to be a possibility, but he does not assert that he believes that to certainly be the case.

The article should probably be extended to feature a wider representation of Pilger's writing on many subjects, not just recent events, but it should go without saying that the article should neither endorse Pilger's views nor express disagreement with them. As it stood, the article was not just misleading in part, it was heavily balanced towards critical views and read like a right-wing smear. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an editorial column in the Daily Telegraph.


I took out the name of Johann Hari and replaced it with Nick Cohen as Hari has now repented of his support for the war 130.209.6.40 20:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


Since an editor saw fit to support Pilger with another far left anti Western radical, Noam Chomspky, I have provided a little description of Chompsky for those who may not be aware of his malificance.Incorrect 18:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Please keep your opinions off the main article. The user can make up their own mind as to what they think about Chomsky. Ashmoo 00:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] for the journalist John Pilger from Venezuela

Appreciated Journalist John Pilger I have been able to read his I articulate published in HTTP://www.voltairenet.org/article139440.HTML titleholder “Chávez Threat”, and I have been able to analyze its appreciations on the realities that my country lives, in one from its visits to Caracas. Within its concepts, a social reality exists, political and economic on which initially they were the objectives of our President, but at the present moments and specially for a year to this date, the same ones, they have been varying substantially. Ever since the new Constitution has been approved, several located social promoters in several parts of the country, we have been announcing the tremendous participativos rights that all the Venezuelans have acquired by interval of the articles Nº 62, 70, 166, 182, 184 and 185. They are right participativos, decision-making protagónicos and that allow that the cogestionarias citizens can decide of way where must go to the attention of the government and the resources that are reversed in the 337 municipalities of Venezuela. They are many efforts, many fights that the Venezuelan town has given during many years, to see make specific this reality, but the President, it has not allowed that is approved the legal tools that they allow the citizens to exert those rights of sovereign, independent and absolute way. Journalist John Pilger must know that Law of Social Contraloría that it allows to exert I articulate constitutionalist Nº 62, has not been approved by the Government in seven years of use of the Constitution, must also know that Law of Citizen Participation that it allows to exert I articulate constitutionalist Nº 70, has not been approved by the Government, must also know that Law of the Federal Council of Government, sanctioned the 30 of June of the 2005, it has been vetoed by the President, additionally it must know that Law of Transference of resources to the organized communities that constitutionalist allows to exert I articulate Nº 184, not has be approved by Government and finally Journalist must to know John Pilger, that the only one I articulate constitutionalist who has been approved him his respective law, is Nº 182, that is the cogestionario organ par excellence that represents the Local Councils of Public Planning in each municipality of the country, this year the Government has changed to the essence of its content, limiting totally the autonomy of the exercise of the participation of the Venezuelan town, assuming a total control on these constitutional rights. These changes can visualize it in this dynamic presentation: HTTP://www.consejolocal.org/1/simpla.htm Journalist John Pilger, by everything what I have expressed, you can conclude that the content of his I articulate does not reflect, of objective way, the reality of Venezuela, reason why I invite to review it all our information, performances and documentations on this subject, in our page: www.consejoslocales.org also I inform to him that we are to its disposition so that can contact to us and this way to clarify any doubt to him on this individual can require. Ing. Miguel De Gregorio


spanish

Apreciado Periodista John Pilger

he podido leer su articulo publicado en http://www.voltairenet.org/article139440.html titulado 'Amenaza Chávez' y he podido analizar sus apreciaciones sobre la realidades que vive mi país, en una de sus visitas a Caracas......

Dentro de sus conceptos, existe una realidad social, política y económica sobre lo que inicialmente eran los objetivos de nuestro Presidente, pero en los actuales momentos y especialmente desde hace un año a esta fecha, las mismas, han variado sustancialmente.

Desde que se ha aprobado la nueva Constitución, varios promotores sociales ubicados en varias partes del país, hemos estado pregonando los tremendos derechos participativos que todos los venezolanos han adquiridos por intermedio de los artículos Nº 62, 70, 166, 182, 184 y 185.

Son derechos participativos, protagónicos y decisorios que permiten que los ciudadanos puedan decidir de manera cogestionarias donde debe dirigirse la atención del gobierno y los recursos que se inviertan en los 337 municipios de Venezuela.

Son muchos esfuerzos, muchas luchas que el pueblo venezolano ha dado durante muchos años, para ver concretar esta realidad, pero el Presidente, no ha permitido que se aprueben las herramientas legales que permitan a los ciudadanos ejercer esos derechos de manera soberana, autónoma y absoluta.

Periodista John Pilger debe saber que la Ley de Contraloría Social que permite ejercer el articulo constitucional Nº 62 , no ha sido aprobada por el Gobierno en siete años de vigencia de la Constitución, debe igualmente saber que la Ley de Participación Ciudadana que permite ejercer el articulo constitucional Nº 70, no ha sido aprobada por el Gobierno, debe también saber que la Ley del Consejo Federal de Gobierno, sancionada el 30 de junio del 2005, ha sido vetada por el Presidente, adicionalmente debe saber que la Ley de Transferencia de recursos a las comunidades organizadas que permite ejercer el articulo constitucional Nº 184 , no ha sido aprobada por el Gobierno y por ultimo debe saber Periodista John Pilger, que el único articulo constitucional que se le ha aprobado su respectiva ley, es el Nº 182, o sea el órgano cogestionario por excelencia que lo representa los Consejos Locales de Planificación Pública en cada municipio del país, este año el Gobierno ha cambiado la esencia de su contenido, limitando totalmente la autonomía del ejercicio de la participación del pueblo venezolano, asumiendo un control total sobre dichos derechos constitucionales.

Estos cambios lo puede visualizar en esta presentación dinámica: http://www.consejolocal.org/1/simpla.htm

Periodista John Pilger, por todo lo que he expresado, usted puede concluir que el contenido de su articulo no refleja, de manera objetiva, la realidad de Venezuela, por lo que lo invito a revisar todas nuestras informaciones, actuaciones y documentaciones sobre este tema, en nuestra pagina:

www.consejoslocales.org

igualmente le informo que estamos a si disposición para que pueda contactarnos y de esta manera aclararle cualquier duda sobre este particular pueda requerir.

Ing. Miguel De Gregorio

[edit] Pilger's Soviet journalist quote

Re the anecdote about the Soviet journalists visiting the US:

"their spokesman [said] ‘that we were astonished to find after reading all the newspapers and watching TV, that all the opinions on all the vital issues were by and large, the same. To get that result in our country, we imprison people, we tear out their fingernails. Here, you don’t have that. What’s the secret? How do you do it?’

It's such a pithy story. It so successfully sums up Pilger's critique of the Western media's role in social control.

However, has John Pilger sourced this quote? It seems so implausible that the head of a Soviet delegation would talk about the USSR Government imprisoning people and tearing out fingernails.

The cited source says it's "probably apocryphal". Nunquam Dormio 08:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
That is an interesting question ("It seems so implausible that the head of a Soviet delegation would talk about the USSR Government imprisoning people and tearing out fingernails."). One thing one should remember is that Soviet Officials (I would regard e Soviet journalist allowed to talk to a foreigner as a 'Soviet Official') were known to be quite open and sarcastic as long as they weren't sourced, and as long as it wouldn't be quoted as official. And one can't rule out the possibility of influence of alcohol.
But it isn't sourced, so we really don't know. Personally, I just think it's something Pilger made up illustrate the issue. And it's still relevant and relatively factual, since the Soviet Union actually did imprison people and tear out finger nails. - Norwegian Bloke

Yes, true - interestingly, johnpilger.com suggests it happened: http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=267 Is this significant? Does it raise issues of when it's acceptable to use 'metaphor' or 'parable'?

I'd go out on a limb and say that it's either made up or exagareted. While Pilger may have met with a delegation of journalists, this story is very hard to substantiate. There's a great number of anecdotes about Pilger bending truth and coaching interview subjects (I'm not grinding a axe here, I'm a fan of his politics.) I once met a Mirror journalist on a press trip and, having just finished Hidden Voices asked him about the essay on that paper in the book. He'd been there when Pilger was working and called him "a fucking liar" and went on to detail a number of his distortions that had been printed. The one about the street of unemployed coal miners springs to mind. This isn't evidence and it's up to wikipedia standard, but it would be sage to add "probably apocryphal" to this Pilger story.--Chuckygobyebye 14:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

That is an interesting question ("It seems so implausible that the head of a Soviet delegation would talk about the USSR Government imprisoning people and tearing out fingernails."). One thing one should remember is that Soviet Officials (I would regard e Soviet journalist allowed to talk to a foreigner as a 'Soviet Official') were known to be quite open and sarcastic as long as they weren't sourced, and as long as it wouldn't be quoted as official. And one can't rule out the possibility of influence of alcohol.

But it isn't sourced, so we really don't know. Personally, I just think it's something Pilger made up illustrate the issue. And it's still relevant and relatively factual, since the Soviet Union actually did imprison people and tear out finger nails. - Norwegian Bloke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.109.84.193 (talk) 05:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DVD

There is a new DVD collection of his documentaries out now [1] but I am unsure where to put the details. I was thinking under the documentaries or as a separate section at the end (Emperor 17:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC))

It looks like it would belong quite naturally in the 'Works' section. There is also another DVD collection from Carlton. I will put both DVDs into the Works section. I don't know the Wikipedia template for DVDs offhand, so this may need reformatting. abdullahazzam 11:19 13/10/06

[edit] American foreign policy

"He is particularly opposed to many aspects of American foreign policy, which he regards as being driven by a largely imperialist agenda."

Although I think this is true of Pilger, I think that perhaps it should be added that he will also freely criticise greater "Western" foreign policy in general where he believes there to be an injustice. In his documentaries he will lump together "America and Britain" or "Washington, London and Geneva" for example. I think that this sentence could perhaps be amended to reflect this. Benson85 05:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

He'll criticise any "policy" which equates to suppression and slaughter - Pol Pot's for instance. It's just that he emphasises the involvement and orchestration of Western governments because that's the point he is addressing. But it's not true to suppose he only oppposes violence perpetrated by America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.164.105 (talk) 08:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

Have added a brief criticism section, as the article could benefit from one for NPOV reasons, IMO. Could use some more suitable quotes and sources, however, especially for the origins of 'Pilgerism'. Will try to find some, but regular editors will presumably have some suggestions. Snowbunni 11:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the section because there is already an explantion of the origin of 'Pilgerism', it was coined by Auberon Waugh as is already explained in the article, along with an explanation of its meaning. Waugh was an upper-class English white conservative who did not like Pilger pointing it out when Britain was commiting or supporting atrocities against dark-skinned foreigners, so frustrated at being unable to counter Pilger's arguments, he invented the term 'Pilgerism' in an attempt to ridicule and discredit him instead. Predictably its use has spread amongst right-wing bloggers in recent years. There is no way Wikipedia should treat that as serious criticism and dwell on it in the article, it's a term with a vague meaning that is simply intended to ridicule Pilger, it is nothing to do with serious criticism of his work any more than 'Moonbat' is a serious criticism of George Monbiot's journalism. The rest of it was removed because you can't use Tim Blair as a source for anything - amateur blogs are not suitable for sources on Wikipedia, and in any case the criticism that was added consisted of a right-wing ex-John Howard adviser hurling random insults about 'Pilgerism' requring 'little research or thought' - again, a series of statements intended to ridicule Pilger and put readers off the idea of taking him seriously, without one single word of serious analysis of his work. Any criticism of Pilger included in the article should be serious analytical criticism from reliable sources detailing things Pilger has got wrong, misrepresented, etc. There is a piece by an Australian author whose name escapes me detailing some factual errors in a Pilger book about Australia, that's an example of the sort of criticism that might be relevant - not ridicule, random insults, name-calling or smear attacks from right-wing partisans. And any criticism included should not have been debunked or be of dubious factual accuracy. We could fill the whole article with right-wing commentators calling Pilger names and claiming that he is "making things up" and "twisting facts" without actually demonstrating that he is doing any such thing but frankly it's not what Wikipedia is about. MarkB79 12:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I did concede that the sources were lacking. However, I'm a little uncomfortable with the argument that all criticism originating from supposedly 'right-wing' sources should be discounted on that basis alone, and Gerard Henderson is a well respected journalist. It was always my understanding that the term 'Pilgerism' originally refered to mistaken claims regarding child prostitution from a Pilger report on Thailand? I have no POV here whatsoever, but I do feel the article should at least include a short criticism section, in the interests of balance. Snowbunni 12:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that any criticism from right-wing sources should be excluded, I'm saying that childish name-calling, smear and unsubstantiated allegations of 'fabrication', 'twisting facts', or whatver else without any actual demonstration of Pilger doing it should not be included and unfortunately a very large proportion of attacks on Pilger from right-wing sources are along these lines, whether they are from amateur bloggers or noted commentators. Gerald Henderson might be a respected journalist but firstly as an ex-adviser to John Howard it is almost guarenteed he will attack Pilger in any way possible and secondly the quotes that were used were not serious criticism of Pilger's work, they were insults about 'pilgerism' requiring 'no research or thought'. I'd love to see Henderson's evidence that Pilger has never done any research (he has spent much of his life in war zones reporting from the front line, perhaps this dosen't count as 'research' for Henderson). As for 'Pilgerism' not requring any thought, it's a meaningless insult and smear that amounts to simply avoiding Pilger's actual arguments altogether and calling him thick. Regardless of how respected the journalist may be, this is playground journalism that displays a quite genuine 'lack of thought' or any serious argument for that matter (the sort of thing that plenty of respected journalists regretfully engage in all the time). As I say, we could fill up the whole article with right-wingers calling Pilger names but it would make for a poor biography. However sensible, sourced, serious analytical criticism of Pilger's work from right-wing commentators and writers is obviously not a problem, so long as it had not been debunked or is clearly inaccurate or misleading. Such criticism does exist, such as the example I mentioned (apologies, but I cannot remember the writer but he was an right-wing Australian journalist who, quite fairly, actually praised many aspects of Pilger's book but detailed a number of facutal inaccuracies and some misleading passages). There shouldn't be huge amounts of nit-picking about relatively minor factual mistakes in Pilger's work because that will create a misleading negative picture of Pilger and the article itself will end up sounding like a smear piece but some relevant, balanced and factually accurate criticism of notable aspects of Pilger's work is fine from any part of the political spectrum. Another point Pilger is sometimes criticised on is alleged incoherence in some of his arguments, although this criticism comes mainly from figures on the left, such as Francis Wheen and Johann Hari, for instance Wheen has criticised Pilger's apparent lack of support for intervention in East Timor in 1999 on the grounds that he thought the West had dubious motivations, despite the fact that he had been rightly calling for such intervention for 25 years. I don't personally regard Francis Wheen very highly but he has made some sensible, moderate criticism of Pilger's postitions on some issues, I'm not saying he is automatically correct (I certainly don't agree with much of what he says about Pilger) but it's the kind of thing that can go in the article. There are other commentators who have both praised and criticised different aspects of Pilger's work, such as Roy Hattersley and Clive James. So there is reasonable criticism out there, but it's a question of finding it. I don't know about the origin of 'Pilgerism' having something to do with errors in a report on child prostitution in Thailand - it's possible, but I've never heard of it, I suppose that might be worthy of mention if true but the meaning of the phrase is as given in the article, and was certainly coined by Auberon Waugh initially. The fact is however it is used a an insult to label and ridicule Pilger's views without having to actually argue against them, it's a lazy intellectual device, and it's normally used when Pilger is exposing some corrupt foreign policy and embarassing the British government, so it seems rather curious that it might have been intially coined in relation to a piece about child prostitution since this is hardly an area which would usually bother right-wing British commentators (unless of course they found some concrete evidence of Pilger getting his facts wrong, and were using it as a smear against all his work). If it's true then it might be worthy of some mention but only if you can find a realible source, but the article shouldn't dwell on the 'Pilgerism' smears. Actually the whole article could do with expansion. Pilger has written and reported on a huge amount of different subjects over the last 40-odd years yet most of the article talks about 9-11, George W. Bush and Tony Blair. There is little detail about his various exposés and reporting on Cambodia, Burma, Vietnam etc., much of which is the reason why is admired by many commentators who do not share his political views. You're quite correct to say the argument should have some critical views included, but as it stands the article needs expanding in a number of areas. MarkB79 14:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly impressed by your command of this topic, and the thoroughness of your response. I'll happily grant that my familiarity with Pilger's critics is less comprehensive than your own. I am, however, more than familiar with the notion of a 'Pilgerism', and can confirm (anecdotally, at least) that it is a commonly used term, especially in Australia. I do agree that this might reasonably be regarded as a 'lazy intellectual device' and mocking in nature, but the Tall poppy syndrome aside, there's arguably an element of truth in it. In any event, Pilger is regarded in Australia in slightly less deferential terms than in the UK, and this article should probably include some allusion to this. I will certainly endeavour to find some more reliable criticism, and in particular, an appropriate source for the Thai child prostitution error commonly cited as the original 'Pilgerism'. As to the quotes I originally inserted, these were actually attributable to Paddy McGuiness in The Sydney Morning Herald, not Gerald Henderson (another SMH columnist). I probably didn't make this clear enough. Unfortunately, the article in question is no longer available online, however it was cited in a comment on the Tim Smith blog, hence the (dubious) source. Finally, I agree that emphasis placed upon 9/11,Bush/Blair etc is wholly disproportionate, given Pilger's wider body of work, and that the article needs expanding generally. Hopefully, some thoughtful criticism will be included in any such expansion.Snowbunni 18:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not okay, and I have restored it. Your comments around Waugh are pretty off as well. Please do not removed referenced material like this in future as it makes the article biased. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Tell Me No Lies.jpg

Image:Tell Me No Lies.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 08:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

This article is biased and does not fit our neutrality policy (WP:NPOV), the whole article oozes adoration and there is no criticism or even hints of his actually being an extremist and fringe rather than a mainstream journalist. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Er, hang on, Pilger is not an "extremist" or "fringe" journalist, he's a highly respected journalist who has, for example, won Britain's "journalist of the year" award at least twice.
Certainly, he has strong opinions, but that does not make him an "extremist".
And BTW I think if this article is biased, it's in the anti-Pilger direction with the "Criticism" section actually leading the section about his work! And why the repetitious references to "pilgerism", is this the only criticism that can be made?
This article has become quite a mess since I last looked at it. It really needs a cleanup. Gatoclass (talk) 10:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Gatoclass. Nothing is stopping users from adding criticism, providing it's balanced and adheres to guidelines. There is, therefore, no sound reason for the tag. smb (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Not so, in its current state it is not neutral and there is a dispute because the criticism section has been removed. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The criticism section has not been removed. See here. Individual criticism was deleted as per WP:RELY. This was explained in the edit summary. (diff) Self-published pages, and blogs, are not considered reliable sources in biographies of living persons. smb (talk) 03:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
It is still NPOV and that needs tagging. Iyt is widely considered very poor form to edit war to remove an NPOV tag, such behaviour is contradictory as evidenced a dispute. Please don't remove the tag but to try to address the issues. Your claim that we can write a POBV article and rely on mythical others to NPOV it is well outside standard practices here. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
But you fail to show how this page violates policy. It contains standard biographical material (listing individual works and awards etc). You wrongly said there is no criticism section. In fact there is. You said you wanted to see more criticism. I said nobody is blocking you from adding more, providing it's balanced and well written. You can't appeal to personal considerations - John Pilger is an extremist! - slap a tag on the page and walk away because you dislike him. Your last sentence is unintelligible. smb (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the tag again, and will keep doing so unless there's a coherent reason given for including it.FelixFelix talk 16:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Coherent reasons have already been given. The article is not neutral, your edit war threrats arent going to make it neutral either. You could, instead of edit warring, work on making the article neutral. In the meantime do not accuse other editors of being incoherent, that along with your edit warring threats doesn't look at all good. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Three different editors believe you haven't provided a logical reason why the tag should stay. Saying the article is "not neutral" because it's "not neutral" isn't enough (a circular argument). Please explain in detail the POV issues you see with the page. smb (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
In that case could you reiterate your 'coherent reasons? I'll remove the tag again until this has been done.FelixFelix talk 14:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Phillip Knightley

According to John Pilger, speaking on Radio New Zealand, the original verb "to Pilger" was coined by Phillip Knightley "in a very positive sense"; and later "distorted" by Auberon Waugh. [2][3] smb (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)