Talk:Oliver Kamm/Archive 2

message: This is my first comment on Wikipedia. I expect it will be my last. I make no comment at all on the editorial content of this article. Unfortunately, however, I see no way of making known to Wikipedia my concerns about it and two others than to place this comment. Those concerns derive from what in my view are problems about Wikipedia, but they stand independently. I hope the administrators of this site will take note both of my specific objections and of my more general reservations.
I have followed the exchanges on this site, from one editor in particular, for the last few weeks with some concern. I did write to Wikipedia’s volunteer staff to point out that the sort of unsupported and anonymous remarks posted on this site were different from the usual run of blog hyperbole which no one takes seriously and I always ignore. Eventually I heard from one volunteer who told me that my concerns could not be dealt with in private email and had to be resolved on the Talk page of the appropriate entry. He or she (unisex name) added a link to the Wikipedia entry for Disputes Resolution.
I found this response a little disturbing. I am not part of the Wikipedia “community”, because I am sceptical of an encyclopaedia in which everyone’s contribution is of equal weight. Trusting that corrections will emerge from a collaborative process is in my view intrinsically flawed. Someone ought always to have editorial control for any publication, especially in a work of reference. In the absence of such a figure, there appears to be no way of responding to Wikipedia other than by correcting the errors oneself.
As it turns out, the particular editor’s claims are such that correction is not really necessary. (Even the administrators are accused of being controlled by me, their malign Svengali.) To remove all of this stuff from Wikipedia would require formidable efforts at redaction, and I don’t ask for this. I am merely posting this comment on the talk page associated with me so that my concerns can be recorded in the right place for them.
I don’t criticise the administrators, who are clearly doing their best within the constraints of Wikipedia practice. But the primary quality of Wikipedia’s output is not accuracy but consensus. These are not the same thing, and when one party to the process is disruptive then the pressure to accommodate him or her will skew the discussion. This appears to be happening in the administrators’ understandable anxiety to have any empirical assertion backed by a third-party source. The problem is that in the case of the purported legal claim against me in 2006 the only such source is one that reports the supposed plaintiff’s intentions before the purported claim was issued. Leaving a Wikipedia article at that point gives the impression that a purported legal claim against me is an unresolved and open issue. The administrators should immediately see what is wrong with this, and understand my strong objection to its appearance in an encyclopaedic reference.
Legal language is convoluted, but the reason is to be unambiguous and not open to alternative interpretation. The purported action was in breach of the Civil Procedure Rules, and as such constituted an abuse of process. A letter detailing this was sent to the plaintiff on 24 April 2006, with a copy sent to the clerk of the Court in case the Judge wished to make a direction so that the Court’s time was not wasted further. On 3 May 2006 the presiding Judge did this. The Court Order states: “Upon consideration of the court file it is ordered that the claim is struck out.” The plaintiff has a copy of this order, as does my legal representative. To say the purported action was an abuse of process that was struck out by the Court is not just what I have said on my web site (in what I had intended to be my only comment on the affair): it is what the English legal system says, as can be checked in the Records of Proceedings. If you are not able to assimilate this information in your encyclopaedia, then you should not have any comment on the subject, let alone attempt your own synthesis. (On a less serious point, I am surprised that, with all the altercations on Gilad Atzmon and so forth in the article about me, not a single editor has noticed that the name of Clement Attlee – one of the more important figures in modern British political history - is spelt wrong. I take that as a minor illustration of the unreliability of Wikipedia.)
I apologise for the length of this comment, but it will be my only one. I would ask anyone reading this who is minded to edit this article not to get involved. It does me no favours, and I should be sorry if further exasperation were caused those who devote time and effort to policing Wikipedia. --OliverKamm 19:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please let me know ASAP if you see any specific item currently in the article that you believe is defamatory and is poorly sourced or unsourced. Thanks, Crum375 19:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nice obfuscation from Oliver Kamm. The claim that Clark's action was 'an abuse of process' is Kamm's interpretation of events and is not backed up by any primary source. It has been removed from Clark's wikipedia page because of this, and should be removed from here. citylightsgirlCitylightsgirl [10:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by subject of article

message: I have temporarily removed this section, as it appears to me to be based on blogs as sources for defamatory BLP remarks. I don't want to get involved in the actual editing, nor do I have knowledge of or opinion on the dispute. I encourage the editors here to try to iron out a consensual WP:NPOV and WP:A way of presenting those events. In the meanwhile, per BLP policy, removal of the problematic content is warranted. Crum375 13:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good move. Thanks for doing that, Crum375. As it happens, I suspect that this kerfuffle is not WP:Notable enough to deserve coverage in this article. Can anyone make a case based on Wikipedia rules for covering it? Cheers, CWC(talk) 06:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, chuck the whole lot out, potentially defamatory for all parties and not really notable. FelixFelix talk 11:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed "Neil Clark affair" section

message: Any ideas about moving forward here? FelixFelix talk 21:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, I think that article is quite acceptable as it stands. Cheers, CWC 08:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have little knowledge or POV on the general subject. From my naive position, it does look like a relevant detail has been removed. Further reading on my behalf could establish whether GA's writings  ["GA" refers to Gilad Atzmon]  are in fact antisemitic, however since a massive majority of antisemitism must arise from non-Jewish persons, (as anti-Islamic writings etc. greatly arise from non-Muslims etc.) this is a relevant indicator (to me) as to the contentiousness of the charge and such indications should not be cropped from articles once they have been informed. Discrete POV protectionism through removal of detail is plausibly apparent here. Articles should grow to enlighten POVs not be pruned to normalise them. I would suggest replacing the charge of antisemitism with the charge of being a 'self-hating jew' which concisely communicates more available detail. peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.126.185 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lets Try Again..

message: I've just done a tidy-up on the references, and was a bit puzzled by one of them. It's used at the end of the following sentence:
:In particular, he has cited the SWP's promotion of the anti-Zionist activist and jazz musician Gilad Atzmon, a Jewish former Israeli citizen whose statements (including references to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Holocaust denial) Kamm has characterised as anti-semitic.
The end-of-sentence reference includes no less than four citations:
# SWP's support for Atzmon.
# Atzmon, Gilad biography Gilad Atzmon's website.
# Atzmon, Gilad politics Gilad Atzmon's website.
# Kamm, Oliver. "The Red and the Brown", Oliver Kamm's weblog, July 23, 2004.
I think #1 should be used as a separate <ref> after "musician Gilad Atzmon,". Obviously we need #4. But why do we cite / link to Atzmon's biography and politiks page in this article? They are not substantiating anything in the article, and they can easily be found via #4 or our Gilad Atzmon article.
I therefore propose to delete #2 and #3, and split #1 off. Comments? CWC 15:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Woops, I'd forgotten about this. I've now deleted #2 and #3, and moved #1 to a new ref after "musician Gilad Atzmon," — WP:BRD in action. Cheers, CWC 11:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multi-item reference 

message: I think it's a shame that the description 'blogger' has been removed. I, and I am sure many others, first came across Kamm in the blog world, and he still writes far more blog posts than posts for the Times or elsewhere. His blog also I think gives a better idea of his political views than the somewhat more restrained Times pieces. If no-one has any objections I'll restate that in a week. 85.210.171.176 19:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blogger 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Oliver Kamm?