Talk:Politico-media complex

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 An acknowledgement 2 Result of proposal for deletion July 6, 2007 3 Corrections/links I was adding to the debate as Daniel axed the (deletion) banner 4 Mutual Appreciation Society 5 Recent edits 5.1 Refs 6 The Editor known as Block 6.1 WQA Response 7 On Quantification (existential/universal: there exists/for all) 8 Folded responses to KieferSkunk 9 Back to 'critics' (as employed by Block)

[edit] An acknowledgement

This contribution was inspired by and borrows heavily from the structure of military-industrial complex (MIC), especially the opening section which is very nearly a substitution of keywords.Dsmith1usa 08:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Result of proposal for deletion July 6, 2007

This article was nominated for deletion on July 6, 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

[edit] Corrections/links I was adding to the debate as Daniel axed the (deletion) banner

• The Campbell I was referring to was, of course, Alastair Campbell, Blair's chief spin doctor.
• The diaries I'm talking about are those written by Campbell as he tries to 'push through' the politico-media complex his version of events ('victors' 'n history 'n all that).
• The war is the one that continues in Iraq.
• The 'red-top' particularly 'gung-ho': The Sun.
• 'fine C in C' should have been 'our Dear Leader, that fine C-in-C.'
• 'Vom Kreig' should have been 'Vom Kriege.'

Dsmith1usa 10:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mutual Appreciation Society

Of course, for this phrase, I'm obliged to all that worked on The Italian Job and, yes, 'self-preservation' is probably a better way of calling it ;-) Dsmith1usa 08:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

Some commentators have tried to argued the usefulness of a PMC in shaping public opinion in a counterbalance of bad news that may be overshadowing real political accomplishments or in the face of the emergence of new political personalities and policies.^[1][2] especially shrill where the dead are white people.}}</ref>

[edit] Refs

You can't use the term some critics when you're listing the same bloke twice, and I don't think he's making the arguments the text suggests, and I think we're getting somewhat into areas of pondering how much weight we give to each of these individual commentators. I'd also ask that we keep the text somewhat simple, so that a layman can understand what on earth the point is behind a phrase such as "deleterious distortions". As to adding the Iraq War as a see also, I can't see any justification for that at all. Hiding Talk 13:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Editor known as Block

• Dear Block. I'm a bit tired of dealing with you. You've shown no cooperation on dealing with an early article of my origination in the face of you declaring it should be deleted. Now I know we had our workouts in Natascha Engel, especially when when she's been given her reward through Peter Hain, but I did start to get an impression that you would come to work with me and with the ideal of keeping us Wiki 'neophytes' in line, as we know stuff, and we try to work. However, the understanding that we come to is that the likes of all you 'grand editors' is that you are obstructionists and frightened. That's because of all the bollocks you let go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsmith1usa (talk • contribs) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • That's helpful. Have a look at Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith and see if you've got anything that will help solve the issue. As for the personal attacks, Wikipedia:No personal attacks might prove helpful. All the best, Hiding Talk 15:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WQA Response

Hi there. I am responding to a Wikiquette Alert regarding the above discussion here. I'd like to make a friendly suggestion that the above section be removed or archived, as it constitutes a personal attack against Hiding and is inappropriate for this talk article. I'd advise that a more appropriate place to give feedback for Hiding would be on his talk page, and that this article Talk page should remain focused on article content itself. (If you do decide to remove the above section, please feel free to remove this one as well.)

I am not passing judgement on either side of the issue with respect to the article content itself - I am a neutral third party uninvolved in this article, and I am merely addressing the personal dispute that seems to have arisen between you both. If you have any questions, please feel free to let me know - we should probably continue this discussion on the WQA page or one of our User talk pages. Thank you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• I understand your concerns KieferSkunk and indeed I'm not happy that I have had to appear to become a little more strong willed in the face of, for me at least, Block's awkwardness (scientists know something like this as, 'The Law of the Cussedness of Nature,' or, alternatively, 'There's always at least one, isn't there?') I'm devoting just a little bit more time on here, to dealing with Block, in the politest possible terms (under the circumstances), to illustrate some of the errors of his ways ... hypocrisy and double standards kind of sum it all up. I believe this entire record should be kept and kept public so that contributors - newbies especially - can find source on what they may be letting themselves in for. Dsmith1usa 08:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC) (There, this time I remembered, apologies Jossi for not signing the above.)

• I disagree that this is the way to go - having this here can poison the atmosphere on Wikipedia unnecessarily and may also be violating both WP:NPA and WP:POINT (the latter talks about disrupting Wikipedia to make a point). It does not lead to balanced discussions moving toward consensus - rather, it seeks to polarize the community against one editor, which is against the spirit of Wikipedia. Regardless of how you, or any number of editors, feel about a specific editor, you should bring up personal disputes about the editor's tactics either on their own Talk page, or in dispute-resolution forums such as Wikiquette Alerts or informal mediation. (Sorry for the delay in responding - been mostly offline for a couple of days.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Aaahhh ... the Wiki word of 'majick:' consensus. 'N then inspiring usages as: '... balanced discussions moving towards consensus.' With respect, KieferSkunk, you're indulging in some smoke with mirrors 'n handwaving. Since, whenever, has 'consensus' been some sort of guarantee of guidance towards ... what IS? (True/just ... etc. etc.) I'd bet that, on history's scale, 'consensus' is a miserable failure. The 'Triangle Trade' was a matter of 'community consensus' among those who participated, as was the Holocaust. But, anyway, that it is a comforting fiction of human understanding is neither here nor there. It's, well, what can I say, sooo subjective ... and thus by Wiki's own 'standards' unencyclopaedic. Grudging acceptance maybe ;-)

The idea of 'consensus' as being an aspect of 'mediocrity,' a kind of 'dumbing down' is featured in a recent R4 docu. on Wiki:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/radio4choice.shtml

Download 'n it should play for ya.

I, too, have been away, and apologize for my delay in getting back. Be sure, that I will respond to your later contribution.

N.B. There are parallels in this argumentation between 'consensus' in Wiki and 'democracy' as it plays in the West. Particularly how the 'poor/weak' plebs are 'allowed' to manifest their reasoning in the face of the 'rich/strong' equestrians/aristos. Dsmith1usa 10:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• My point is not that you have to necessarily agree with consensus, and I'm not trying to tell you what the consensus is on this article. My point is that a section in an article Talk page titled "The editor known as Block", deliberately calling this person out in an uncivil tone, is a violation of several policies on Wikipedia, and it is NOT helping things here. As I said earlier, it seeks to polarize editors against one another, and it poisons the collaborative atmosphere. A discussion about Hiding's editing style and/or the quality of his edits should be taken to his own Talk page, but should not be brought up here. Discussion on this page should be limited to the topic of the article. (I am off-topic, too, but that is for the purpose of informing all parties about the policies.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• I fold my response to this in with my response to your later contribution, Dsmith1usa 10:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On Quantification (existential/universal: there exists/for all)

My dear Block argues:

You can't use the term some critics when you're listing the same bloke twice ...(my emphasis: heh, it is a 'blockquote' too;-)

As long as the Universe of Discourse contains at least one member with the predicated quality logic tells me I am empowered to use the existential quantifier. Translated into plain English, just for you, that's some.

Now that's to be distinguished from 'several' which is a usual indicator of more than, say, two or three. So to use the word 'several,' in an argument, is to imply, at least more than two.

So when an acquaintance of ours, name of Blacketer, known to Block and recently given some Wiki admin. priviliges (AP) cites in his AP pleading:

He [that's yours T] has been in dispute with several editors ...

he's padding his case, since Blacketer full well knows that the only folks giving grief were:

• Galloglass
• Block
• Blacketer

This came about because I started adding much more material to the Wiki entry on Natascha Engel and, in my innocence, I sidled-up to the Village Pump to seek advice on the substantiation of some of my contributions. I was particularly perplexed by the problem of my knowing certain facts through my personal correspondence with her.

Extensive source is available on the Talk page for the Engel article about what transpired next.

Well, anyway, Galloglass left the scene pretty quickly, so that left me contending with Block and Blacketer. Now correct me if I'm being stupid, but to me that leaves two. Then, mid-ocean Block jumps ship claiming a syndrome he named 'wikibonked' (I think - I've no idea what it means, but I think I'm getting to the stage where I may have caught a dose;-)

So that left one ... Blacketer. So 'one' is Blacketer's version of 'several.' And then you made him an administrator.

I've brought Blacketer to the stage since he's part of the same story of the 'double-standards' and 'hypocrisy' that I've discovered around here.

Oh, if you get a chance and want a cheap laugh, ask Blacketer what being a 'candidate' connotes ...

... to be continued ... Dsmith1usa 10:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm finding it hard to cut through the text up above to work out what your germane point is regards this article and the content of it, but what I'm basing my objections on are the guidance offered on writing Wikipedia articles. With regards the term "some", and the substantiation of the phrase through reference to one journalist, I'm leaning on Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. If we can keep the discussion to the content of this article, as suggested above, that would be helpful. Hiding Talk 12:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Dsmith: See my more recent reply to the WQA section above. The way you've worded your retort either violates or is close to violating WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and/or WP:POINT. Hiding has made some valid points, as have you, but I see a genuine effort on Block's part to keep the discussion civil and free of direct personal references, whereas I can't say the same for you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Folded responses to KieferSkunk

Well, where should we start? ...

Hiding has made some valid points, as have you,...

Well, that's good. Do me a favor and list out my valid 'points,' 'n pass 'em over to Block, since our mutual friend, previously (on an entirely different article) has insinuated an overshadowing assertion on my editing behavior:

Block writes:

Oh, you wanted a pointless debate.

No, I made the mistake of thinking that hanging around the Village Pump would be a good idea in the attempt to work on my concerns on 'objectivity.' [Emphases added.]

'N then later there is the 'below radar' indirect attack on my earnestness with the implication of 'trollism:'

I'm off to clip clop over the bridge with the billy goats gruff.

This, in the talk space of the article, receives its due, and restrained, reponse. Indeed, I suggest he be gentle with himself. (Block, shortly after, went off, claiming a state of wikibonkedness [whatever that is]).

You go on to say:

I see a genuine effort on Block's part to keep the discussion civil and free of direct personal references, ...[Emphasis added]

Yes, it's called 'weaseling' with smart ass remarks in the hope of getting cheap laughs from 'communities of consensus' 'in the know. We can all play that game, but, being human, we can get tired and if it waddles, quacks, swims and flies we start calling a duck, 'duck.'

You say:

... and it is NOT helping things here.

Ummm ... glass houses come to mind. We can ALL find ways to be unhelpful to processes.

Trying to interject into something we know nothing about is a good way of being unhelpful and, generally, making oneself a pain in the ass:

I have no idea what this point is relating to, ...

Of course, the person who thus declares that they have no idea about what they are about to speechify on, then, regardless, goes on to do exactly that! Who was this from? Guess, and then give yourself a shiney. (Here's a clue ... it wasn't you. [Heh, amazing what you can start to do, on reading Chaucer, 'n Canterbury for to goon.]

This was when I was trying to explain to another editor, (who, much to my amusement had earlier tried to persuade me that by using the word, 'candidate,' we connote 'failure'), the difference between 'the thing' and the 'name of the thing'. (Aside: this editor, still appearing to be cavalier over the 'thing' and 'name of,' has now been made an administrator through the majick of 'consensus.' Way to go 'consensus.')

I seek not to poison anything nor polarize one against another. However, I dislike, intensely, hypocrisy and double standards and if I see it or experience it, I will call it out (paraphrasing you) and I'll take my chances. What's the worst you can do? Block [sic.] me, perhaps. I tremble in my boots. Oh, weary wo ... my existence is now meaningless (ROTFL). If this upsets the 'equestrian' editors, who appear to wave the rule books when it suits 'em ... amen. Too bad. And too bad for Wikipedia.

If I have, in the past, posted in the 'wrong' areas, my reponse, that's a consequence of past 'newbieness' and, regardless, being bold - as encouraged by Wikipedia.

(I, too, am off-topic, too, but that is for the purpose of informing all parties - especially newcomers - about everything that has transpired here.)

Regards, KieferSkunk, it's been real ...

Pppsss ... you write:

... and I'm not trying to tell you what the consensus is on this article.

The 'consensus' was, my dear KieferSkunk, ...there was 'no consensus.' Do you know the name for this paradox (an inbuilt contradiction in the much vaunted, particularly by the Wiki Equines, rules)? Do you know it's many other names?

... 'n now we return y'all to the usual programming ...

Dsmith1usa 10:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I find this entire response to be highly inappropriate, and it shows that there is nothing more I personally can do to help out with the situation. I will be referring this dispute to a more appropriate forum, and will no longer be involved in the dispute myself. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Back to 'critics' (as employed by Block)

Names -> no names -> (Some) Critics -> explicitly quantifying (two)... LOL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Politico-media_complex&diff=145899968&oldid=145707660

Well, as you saw fit to edit Block ... it's back to your original now (all your work) ... well, we're back again.

It's like Groundhog Day innit my dear Block? Dsmith1usa 11:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Dsmith: This is your last warning. Stop with the personal attacks now or you will be reported to the Admin Noticeboard. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)