Talk:Oliver Kamm
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 Archives |
| Archive 1 Apr 2006 - Mar 2007 Archive 2 March - August 2007 |
[edit] Oliver Kamm?
I think Kamm under the pseudonym "JohnBull" keeps deleting the criticisms section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.26.189 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- No, I am certainly not Oliver Kamm. Anyone can start a blog and criticise someone, that is the reason why they're generally not allowed to be used as a source. And the Chomsky criticism of Kamm you keep adding is already in the article.--Johnbull (talk) 05:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] BLP
Just a reminder that self-published sources can't be used to support material about living persons. That means Chomsky's website can't be used to criticize Kamm (though C's article published in Prospect can, so long as we use that version, not Chomsky's blog version), and similarly Kamm's blog can't be used as a source on anyone else, which I see it has been. See WP:BLP. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 05:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't get any response to this, so I removed the most problematic section, which was calling named people fascists and antisemites, yet the source was a blog. If it can be sourced to third-party publications, it should be fine to restore it. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 07:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- I see no problem with your removal of the blog-sourced material. EdJohnston (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Confusing story about Srebrenica
Can anyone revise the story about Kamm, Chomsky and Srebrenica so it makes sense? Even if you click through and read the references, it's hard to sort out. Is that entire paragraph essential to the article? If it is kept, how about replacing it with a higher-level summary that just lists the parties and the subject, and doesn't try to draw a conclusion? Just now another editor has added a {{clarify}} template to this passsage, and I sympathize with the concern. EdJohnston (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- The edit history shows that the Srebrenica section was last actively edited in September 2006: see [1]. The section used to be longer and more comprehensible, and included mention of http://www.srebrenica-report.com/. One of the authors of this report, Edward S. Herman, had co-written a book called Manufacturing Consent with Chomsky, though Chomsky's connection to the Srebrenica report is not stated on the report's web site. The drift of the work of Herman et al. was that the media had exaggerated the seriousness of Srebrenica compared to other atrocities, some where Serbs were the victims. Looks to me that explaining this material properly would take a longer section than what is there now (maybe going back to the Oliver Kamm article of July 2006). WP:WEIGHT probably wouldn't justify this amount of space, especially where the outcome is so vague. Kamm charged Chomsky with something, and then Chomsky denied that he had done the thing he was charged with. How about we dump the section? EdJohnston (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I removed the sentences about Srebrenica from the paragraph on Kamm's criticism of Chomsky. Their overall effect was incoherent. The only way to tell the story properly would require about double the length (per my analysis above) and I don't believe it would deserve the space here. If Chomsky had forthrightly defended the Serbian actions at Srebrenica, the case would be different. He never actually signed on to the Herman et al. views expressed at http://www.srebrenica-report.com, but Kamm talked as though he had. EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
