Talk:Wilfred Burchett

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 the Arts and Entertainment work group.
Flag
Portal
 Wilfred Burchett 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.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Mr. Upland! Glad to see you're back. Looks as if Mr. Burchett is regaining noteriety. nobs 01:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from the article

[Health Warning! The text on the Australian Wilfred Burchett located outside the current square brackets is being inflicted repeatedly on Wikipedia. Apart from many errors and insinuations in the “article” (e.g.: Burchett was a stringer for the FT: his articles were not "reprinted"; Denis Warner demonstrably worked for the CIA), the lack of balance can be quantified: Burchett lived for 72 years but ca. 476, or 28% of the ca. 1,678 words in this “article” relate to the Jack Kane libel proceedings which lasted, upon appeal of the lower court ruling, from October 1974 to May 1976, less than 3% of Burchett´s life. With regard to the 28%, Red baiters are repeatedly deleting the following text or similar: (source: letter to Burchett from his lawyers as cited in his autobiography): “On 20.5.1976 the Australian Appeals Court in Melbourne ruled 1. that Burchett had been seriously defamed and that the Court acknowledged his repute as a journalist. 2. that all judges agreed there had been a serious miscarriage of justice. 3. that they would grant a retrial were it not for Kane not being able to retrieve his witnesses from overseas.” ] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.134.80.2 (talk • contribs) --Cactus.man ✍ 15:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Answer to "Cactus.man": it is revealing of Wikipedia that you class a statistical word analysis showing the massive pro-Capital, right-wing bias of the current Burchett "article" and a quotation of an Aust. Appeals Court legal ruling in favour of Burchett as a "rant".

[edit] Documentation

I have marked two evident statements of unsupported political judgment about the "reasons" for somethings with fact tags. DGG (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)