Talk:Tim Blair

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Flag
Portal
 Tim Blair 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.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Mark Lawson

User Philip Cross (talk · contribs) recently removed Mark Lawson from the list of frequently-critiqued journalists, with the edit summary "only two references to Lawson does not justify his inclusion". A quick search found 7 mentions of Lawson since December 2004: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], and [7]. There were several earlier mentions, including The Guardian's Plastic Turkey. (BTW, Has Lawson ever admitted that he was wrong about that notorious bird?) So I'm restoring Lawson to the list. CWC(talk) 04:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blair's Law

Anyone think we could include a small explanation of 'Balri's Law' here? See here at Urban Dictionary.81.220.72.184 21:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Kisdm001

Good idea. I've had a go at it. Cheers, CWC(talk) 09:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think an entry in Urban dictionary justifies entry into his wikipedia article, as per notability criteria. Recurring dreams 03:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is claiming that urbandictionary.com establishes notability (I'd say it clearly does not), only that it explains the concept. I say that "Blair's Law" (1) is not a law, (2) is a minor meme amongst conservative and libertarian bloggers and so (3) needs to be mentioned in an encyclopedic article about Tim Blair. I've put a rewritten version of the deleted section back into the article. I also restored the bit about that darned turkey being real, because I think it's important to point out that the New York Times (of all organisations) says that Blair is right (and a steady stream of fake-turkey-believing journalists are wrong).
I'll give you the turkey and the bit about "alarmists". But including Blair's Law? You've got to be kidding, don't you? Just take a look at the references you cited. They come nowhere near establishing notability. I elliot 15:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Recuring dreams seems to have a WP:POINTy agenda (see [8]) against Tim Blair, and seem intent on systematically wrecking havoc upon this article. The claim he has concensus to remove "Blairs Law" is tenuous at best. He is determined in his POV that it is not notable and no collaboration with other editors will be entered into.Prester John 16:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If you make such serious allegations, please provide more substantive evidence. In the Daily Telegraph page, I simply objected to the description of the subject in question as "high-profile." Indeed I supported its inclusion in the article (it's still there, is it not?). I made my point clear in the talk page, to which you did not choose to reply.
As for "systematically wrecking havoc," I have spent an inordinate amount of time protecting the Tim Blair article from countless attacks of vandalism (look at the article's recent history). Furthermore I have attempted to seek consensus, both on this article's talk page, and on your talk page (to which you haven't replied), while you have simply made this quite serious allegations against me. Recurring dreams 02:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Now getting back to the topic at hand (rather than personal attacks on other editors): Blair's law, and whether it should be included. Now the point has been made that it should be included as the entry on the subject must be encyclopedic: however although the subject's notability might be established, not everything related to that subject is automatically notable. I'm sure he and other bloggers have used phrases and comments regularly. But there doesn't seem to be widespread use of this phrase, at least not enough to gain notability as per wikipedia guidelines. Recurring dreams 02:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

While improving the article's format (mainly by using <ref>), I added the following paragraph about Blair's Law:
The phenonemon of far right and far left groups allying with extremist Islamists is sometimes called "Blair's Law" ("the ongoing process by which the world's multiple idiocies are becoming one giant, useless force"<ref>Post by Tim Blair (at an earlier blog), 23 May 2002</ref>) by conservative and libertarian bloggers.<ref>"Ted Rall, David Duke, Robert Fisk, Lyndon LaRouche, al-Ahram, Hitler, Noam Chomsky, Blair's Law, the Arab News, and Me", Frank Portman, Blogs of War, 15 May 2002</ref> <ref>"Why I am not Celebrating Today's News from Austria", Ben Ze'ev, Six Days blog, 21 February 2006</ref> <ref>"It's Not Just A Good Idea, It's Blair's Law", Ed Driscoll, 4 September 2006</ref> <ref>" Idiots of a Feather...", J. F. Beck, RWDB blog, 12 December 2006</ref>
I found more uses of "Blair's Law" in blog posts (and lots more in comments), but I got bored decided to stop after four. In fact, four is probably too many. How many should we use? Which do we drop? Cheers, CWC 18:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Media Watch and the anti-semites

I've just done a major edit. Among other things, I added a more balanced account of the latest attack on Blair by Media Watch. Here's a link I did not use: http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/inquiry_launched/. CWC 10:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

And now I've just edited that paragraph back into shape. Please note that
  1. MW did not use the R word (racist/racism) about timblair.net
  2. If you are worried about a claim such as "Blair has often criticised MW", the proper response is to tag it (eg., with {{cn}}), not delete it.
  3. Blair has often criticised MW. Typing "Media Watch" into the "Search by Keyword" box here got me 80 hits from his current blog; at least 20 are highly critical. (No, I did not check them all.)
  4. In an article about a blogger, we do cite and quote posts by that blogger, even "personal commentary", as long as it is relevant etc.
  5. AFAICT, all claims in that paragraph except "has often criticised [MW]", are backed by the cited news reports and blog posts.
Cheers, CWC 17:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
In response to the above, most of the responses from the Tim Blair blog should all be removed per WP:RS. I left one in to give his response, but having a blog does not give the subject of the article to have a running commentary on any issue. Furthermore, the Media Watch story did mention that the incident could violate racial vilification laws, so perhaps that should be put in instead, if you object to the use of the word "racism." Finally, again the paragraph that the subject "has often criticised [MW]" is not backed up by reliable, independant secondary sources. The news.com.au and the Australian article do count as RS, not his blog posts. Recurring dreams 08:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, timblair.net is a reliable source for what Tim Blair has written on his blog, which does include frequent criticism of Media Watch. CWC 08:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blair's Viewpoint

The description of Tim Blair as a "conservative" commentator is misleading. Paul Kelly is conservative. John Howard is conservative. Kevin Rudd is conservative. I am conservative.

Blair, however, is radical. He sees himself as a crusader against the woolly-thinking left-wing status quo. He often seeks to offend his opponents personally rather than concentrating on the argument (a point which the article alludes to with the statement that Al Gore is a frequent target). His approach is not too far removed from the radio shock jocks.

I suggest that "conservative" be replaced by "right wing", "radical right wing", or "far right wing". Rightcitizen 13:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The word "conservative" used to mean "resistant to change", but in politics it now has a rather different meaning (or, more accurately, set of meanings) involving skepticism about utopian thinking, government programs, etc. See Conservatism and Conservatism in the United States. For example, John Howard is (almost) universally regarded as conservative, despite having made radical changes such as the GST. (I would agree with those who say that "Howard is socially conservative but economically liberal".)
A few people have tried to come up with alternate terms for this political stance, but none have gained wide acceptance. (The best, IMO, is "neoliberal", but not all "conservatives" are that keen on Hayek.) So it seems this double meaning of the word conservative is the best we can do :-[.
OTOH, "far right wing" means people like this, and "radical right wing" means stuff like this, this, or this. Blair is not one of these people; in fact, he often mocks them.
So we're down to "conservative" or "right wing". I say that that the former is slightly more specific, and oppose changing it. (Which is conservative of me, isn't it...) Cheers, CWC 15:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
"Gadfly" would be more to the point. He is a mocker of the conventional pieties and power structure of the West's new_class,and an annoying pest to that herd. The "wing" is an outdated idea, perhaps more suited to letting us assess Rigthcitizen's intent in lumping Blair with neo-nazis, than to Blair.
ChrisPer 05:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Media Watch, continued

That Media Watch themselves left a vile comment up on their website is not just something Blair "alleged": we have a WP:RS (the Telegraph of 25/6/2007) saying so. So "noted" is NPOV and "alleged" is misleading.

Blair's extensive writings about climate change are aimed at (what he sees as) the alarmists and the hypocrites (often the same people), not at "those who believe in anthropogenic climate change" (a much larger group of people). As you would expect, he concentrates on the political and pop-cultural side of things, not on the science. So "climate change alarmists" is correct and the anodyne phrase is misleading.

Cheers, CWC 11:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Media Watch deny the comment left up was 'vile' or antisemitic or anything other than plain stupid. Blair most certainly alleged the comment was racist (or similar), and that allegation is not a clear-cut statement of fact. Also, the Telegraph is not a reliable source for stories about its own editors and columnists! "Noted" suggests dispassionate recording of uncontested facts, hardly the most apt description of the episode. "Alleged" is accurate and fair.
The wording re "alarmists" you keep re-inserting makes no mention of "(what he sees as)" and instead treats "alarmists" as a valid and impartial term when it is clearly neither. Either make it clear that "alarmists" is Blair's opinion, or try a neutral description of the subset of "those who believe in anthropogenic climate change" that he targets.
In an encyclopedia, anodyne is better than inflammatory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.124.25 (talk) 03:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Later comments, after several more edits to the article:
(1) I haven't seen Media Watch's denial. Could you provide a link, please? I'd like to add it to the article.
(2) Actually, the Telegraph is a WP:RS here (and that report is quite correct; I saw the racism at Media Watch myself).
(3) I think the current choice of verbs (stated/alleged/noted/...) is NPOV.
(4) Anodyne is OK, but misleading is not. Blair attacks people for alarmism and hypocrisy re global warming, not just for believing in AGW.
Cheers, CWC 16:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
"Islamofacism" is a controversial and inflammatory term. Adding "so-called" is legitimate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.124.25 (talk) 03:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. CWC 16:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)