Talk:Oliver Kamm/Archive 1

message: The external link does not actually feature the subjects telephone number, but that of the front desk of the large firm he works for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.218.208 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What a ridiculous comment. The link publishes subject's business phone no. and email address and actually calls for people to stalk him. If you can't see that that's violating privacy then at least try not to display your stupidity here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gezza (talk • contribs) 08:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds like the kind of aggressive response worthy of Kamm himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.204.221 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  [Posts above restored for archive only (incivility by blocked user, reply by anon). A. 03:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: ....[edit abuse]   I've edited out the previous comment for the same reason he edited out the one before. This is not Usenet and abuse shouldn't be here. At the same time I've drastically shortened the material on the Chomsky/Brockes interview. This was way too much detail as it was before. It didn't even mention Kamm 'til the second paragraph. The material ought to go under 'Brockes' or 'Chomsky' or 'critisms of Chomsky' instead but not in a biographical article. --Delworth 21:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure about this one. There is an edit war going on on another page on Wikipedia about the Kampf site. The issue is whether it posts Kamm's business email and phone number and urges stalking him. I see it's already come up here. If it's true that the site posts Kamm's non-blog and non-journalism contact details then that's wrong and it shouldn't be linked to. I'm making enquiries on this so that I can put a stop to the edit war on the other pages -- but it looks authentic and I think it is true. If it isn't it probably was when the spoof was running and that makes it still wrong. If I'm wrong then I'll put the link straight back. Also there's the spoof emailer. People far more famous than blogger/journalists get these. It's a minor thing but it sounds nasty -- don't think it should really be given life. --Delworth 12:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I appreciate the caution, but Kamm's non-blog and non-journalism contact details are not on Oliver Kampf's blog anymore - so I don't really see what the problem is now. Something about Kamm's blog persona clearly attracts spoofers - this is a fact, not an opinion, and surely as relevant as the idea "he seems to be a non-believer" gleaned from an offhand remark in one essay. I do agree with you that from the sound of it, the second spoofer seems meanspirited. --Jpm446 15:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's fair and appreciate the spirit of it. I absolutely don't want to get into edit wars and there's no cause for it anyway. But I'm still a little worried. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the name 'spoofer' for the second case as we don't know what the content was apart from what Kamm said. I think it sounds mean rather than a spoof -- especially if the impersonator (better term, probably) was messing Prof. Chomsky about and claiming to be Kamm. It's probably illegal too. That leaves the Kampf site -- and I think you're building too much on that one site. I'm also confused by what you say about it. The non-blog non-journo contact details are certainly there and I think they must be authentic or must have been authentic when the site was active. I think that's bad whoever does it and whoever the target is. As I say I'm making enquiries on this at the moment. If the site is harmless then I'll certainly put it back (though probably as external link rather than in the article, as it's not important on it's own.) I take your point about the 'offhand remark' about non-belief though! You're right and I'll change it back.--Delworth 15:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry - my bad, it is still up there. However, the e-mail address is defunct, and Kamm no longer works there. Moreover, the number doesn't seem to be the bank's number. My personal opinion is that parodies and spoofs ought to be included, but I don't want to get into a wiki-edit war either. So perhaps we should recuse ourselves and let someone else decide. --Jpm446 16:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  I found out about Kamm last summer. How'd you get into him? --Jpm446 17:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  I restored the reference to the sock-puppets because isn't it relevant that Kamm is editing his own wiki-page? It seems a violation of wiki-etiquette. The idea of neutrality seems to be that an entry shouldn't be someone's own self-manicured personal web-page or resume. --Jpm446 22:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How do you know for certain that Mr. Kamm has been editing this article? --Johnbull 23:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External link

message: This isn't a serious matter of contention. Oliver Kamm has a long history with the party and makes frequent reference to that fact in his blog. Paul has now seen fit to question that he is even a "long-standing supporter". I took all of two minutes to find evidence of this: "as a Labour sympathiser over many years...."  --TJive 22:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All this is irrelevant. You wrote that Kamm was a "long-time member of the Labour Party". You also threatened to ban me for reverting this addition. As it happens, the claim is factually false, and my reversion perfectly justified. Sir Paul 22:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I reworded the phrase, so your comment is not presently conducive. If I find a source which explicitly mentions it, which I eventually will, it is going right back in. In the meantime, I would like to know your own rationale on what is a rather banal point; it is completely unproductive, especially in light of reverting well-sourced material otherwise. --TJive 22:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The reworded phrase is still misleading. Look, Kamm is currently about 43 years old. He claims to have not belonged to the Labour Party for 17 of his adult years. Saying that Kamm has "a long background with the Labour Party" is simply disingenuous. The background is "long" only in the sense that he was a member a long time ago. This is particularly important because you have added this line while simultaneously removing other pertinent material that was illuminating on the issue of Kamm's actual (as opposed to professed) political commitments. Sir Paul 22:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is your source for that assertion? It might help out, more than any of your comments have. --TJive 22:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My source is Kamm himself. See here. Sir Paul 22:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you. I don't think any further sourcing is going to be required. That is pretty much consistent with everything I have ever read from him: he worked with the party from his earlier years, even voted for it during the Foot period, eventually was alienated by its antics in the 1980s, but has been broadly supportive of it since, particularly of Blair and New Labour. The passage, "the Labour Party (which I support as the only plausible vehicle for left-wing politics in this country, but will remain outside)", sufficiently demonstrates what I have been attempting to assert. --TJive 23:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that no further references are required: the evidence I supplied conclusively establishes my point. Someone who deliberately lets his party card lapse and remains unaffiliated to it for 17 of his 25 adult years cannot be said to have a "long background" with the organization in question. Sir Paul 23:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  This issue isn't even effectively pedantic. He was a member and campaigner for a decade and has been supportive of them practically his whole life, including some of their worst years, and even voted (and publicly admits his votes) for candidates in his area. What is your point? Should it simply say he is a "long-time supporter"? The proof is overwhelming, and yet you were just contesting that. --TJive 23:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is getting past the point of marginal returns. My point, since you ask, is that "long-time supporter"--which you changed after "long-time member" became no longer defensible--doesn't square with Kamm’s record, both as a member and as a voter. He was (and I'm going to say this for the last time) a member of the Labour Party for only 8 of his 25 adult years. And the fact that, as you write in your latest addition, he voted Labour only until somewhere in the 1980s actually proves my point: Kamm was born in 1963, thus becoming eligible to vote only in 1981. If the only times he voted labour were in 1983 and in 1987, that means that he has, comparatively speaking, almost never voted for the party that you want to associate him with. Sir Paul 23:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Kamm has clearly been supportive of Labour before he was even eligible to vote and past the point where he left the party. The only elections that I see mentioned are 1983 and 2005, so you have only your personal evaluation of his ideology and argument from ignorance. --TJive 23:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: In fact, arguing from ignorance is what you are openly doing precisely when you comment on Kamm’s voting record while acknowledging that you lack the relevant evidence to back your speculation. It is your responsibility as the person who is trying to prove a connection between Kamm and the Labour Party to supply evidence that he still supported the organization after having resigned from it at the age of 25. As I documented, you have recently made some additions that were factually inaccurate and poorly researched. I ask you to think twice before continuing to defend a claim which, by your own admission, you lack the evidence to support. Sir Paul 00:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have provided evidence, both here in talk and in the body of the article. Whether you choose to personally accept that evidence is of no consequence to me. Nor are your own characterizations of Kamm's politics. --TJive 00:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fine. My recent edits reflect the evidence you supplied. Sir Paul 01:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Labour Party

message: Edits like these are unacceptable. You are turning a biographical entry into a political argument over the merits of left-wing support for the Iraq war. That a political commentator criticizes him for this is notable, but it is not neutral to qualify his political beliefs and actions based your own interpretation of the merits. --TJive 01:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that. That edit states as fact that one cannot support the Iraq war and be left-wing, an assertion which is definitely a point of view rather than neutral. —Johnbull 02:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The edit never states such a fact. It rather notes that a conjunction of factors create an expectation that the article must reflect. A person who supports both the Iraq invasion and the Bush candidacy is not expected to be left-wing in any meaningful sense of the term. Sir Paul 04:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  a conjunction of factors create an expectation is a euphemism for a POV. This "expectation" exists in your mind alone, and has no place in the article. Isarig 05:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please re-read what I wrote carefully. I am under the impression that you haven't actually understood my point. Sir Paul 05:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: While I think Sir Paul may have gone a little too far occasionally, he has made an enormous improvement to the quality of the article over the last few days. It is also clear that he has listened to what others have said. Johnbull's allegation is absurd: nowhere in that edit does it say that one cannot support the Iraq war and be left-wing, but it does acknowledge that most left-wingers are opposed to the war. The reference to Peter Wilby's New Satesman article should definitely remain. On the other hand TJive is so intolerant that he has been reverting Sir Paul 's changes within minutes and then had him blocked, ignoring the fact that he himself is eligible to be blocked under the same criteria. For the record, I don't think either should be blocked, but they both should take time to consider the other's view. --NSH001 11:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know where you appeared from, but you apparently don't understand policy in this regard, nor do you have an adequate knowledge of the history of this page. --TJive 11:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  On the contrary, I read WP:3RR most carefully before writing the above, and I have examined every edit. In fact this article has been on my watch list almost since I joined Wikipedia. I had been thinking of editing it myself, but Sir Paul has done a much better job than I would have done. If anything, I think you are a stronger candidate for blocking than Sir Paul. --NSH001 13:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Paul's changes

message: Kamm voted for the Conservative Party in 2005. Perhaps this is relevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.132.104 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This fact is already noted in the article. Isarig 14:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conservative party

message: I just have changed the rather bizarre sentence, 'Kamm identifies with the neoconservative position on the Iraq War', to 'Kamm supported the 2003 Invasion of Iraq.'
'The neoconservative position on the iraq war' is a ridiculously unclear phrase. Avaya1 15:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: edited a sentence

message: Can someone enlighten me as to what one of these is? Is it what in the olden days we used to call a fact? Are these now bad? Felix-felix 10:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are bad when they are irrelevant, and included only to push a certain POV, as has been explained to you in detail. Isarig 16:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Irrelevant, or inconvenient? And how does inserting a relevant fact 'push' a POV? Felix-felix 16:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Irrelevant. You have already explained, multiple times, your purpose in inserting that irrelvant factoid: you believe Kamm is wrong, and you believe he can be proven wrong because supposedly Jews can't be antisemities. You are welcome to both of those personal beliefs, but keep that POV out of the article. Isarig 19:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I strongly believe that it is relevant that Atzmon is jewish - he defines himself as such, and would be defined as such by anyone who sees jewishness as ethnicity (which, incidentally, i agree with Isarig is not the same as 'race') - because this puts a very different spin on the allegation that he is anti-semitic. I strongly believe it is relevant that he is israeli and that he is anti-zionist. these 3 facts (factoids?) are all in Atzmon's own WP, and in most media mentions of him - again, all key to understanding the anti-semitism allegation. Enough with the revert war now please. BobFromBrockley 14:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Atzmon does not define himself as Jewish, and the word appears in his WP article only after Felix-felix added it there, as part of his POV-pushing edit war. The allegation that he is antisemitic was made becuase of things he said, and if the intent is to discredit that allegation (because supposedly Jews can't be antisemitic) - as you & Felix seem to be doing - that is original research which is not allowed. Chomsky is also Jewish - why is the Kamm criticism of him not qualified with "Jewish anti-Israeli activist Chomsky"? Isarig 16:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  Fine, that's a vote for inclusion and consensus. Felix-felix 16:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  2 people do not a consensus make, and WP is not run by "voting". Isarig 16:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is relevant, two editors agree, and WP is run by consensus. Felix-felix 17:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  2 people do not a consensus make. Isarig 17:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whereas one Isarig does? I think not. Felix-felix 09:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not the one making a claim that my position is the consensus. Isarig 21:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It is my understanding that Atzmon's writings are outrageously anti-Semitic. However, this is an article about Kamm, I think this is getting bogged down in proxy details about Atzmon and the Socialist worker party. All three parties I consider to be slugging in the gutter. It would be my recommendation that the additional line "In particular he cites..." be removed as unneccessary. Leaving it at the point where Kamm considers the Socialist worker party anti-Semitic. --Zleitzen 20:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The current version (by Truthprofessor) is an accpetabel compriomise as far as I am concerned. Isarig 21:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I prefered BobFromBrockley's edit, but I think we can reach a compromise here. Felix-felix 09:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can't believe there was almost consensus when I went off-line 10 days ago, and now we're back to the tit-for-tat fight. Especially as Atzmon this is pretty marginal to the article. It seems to me clear that Atzmon's Jewish background is relevant to a desciption of him as anti-semitic. It seems to me very understandable that when someone refuses to be called Jewish there is a case for objecting to that description. "Former Israeli" (Truthprofessor compromise) or "raised as a secular Jew" (my compromise) are perfectly good solutions to the problem aren't they? I'm going to change it now. BobFromBrockley 13:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fine by me.Felix-felix 14:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility, disruptive editing, and stalking-like behavior from Isarig. What do you think? Abu ali 20:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm, talk page edits like this speak for themselves, methinks! Felix-felix 16:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV pushing factoid