Talk:Tim Anderson (political economist)

Use of tabloid 'hit piece'

Entries about countries Anderson has visited and the nature of his 'solidarity' are using tabloid 'hit pieces', e.g. this one from the Daily Telegraph: 'Sydney University’s Tim Anderson praises North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un'. Two others from the Sydney Morning Herald and The Australian are not far behind. They could be expanded and built on but, in the case of the Daily Tele 'hit piece' (where nothing in the article matches the headline's claim that he 'praised' the DPRK leader) the distortion is so bad it might be better to remove that source altogether. What do others think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khalid Latouf (talk • contribs) 00:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

---

I agree with Khalid (UTC) KateLVM (talk) 12:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism on this page

I draw attention to attempts by Alsee to remove the entire section of foreign language versions of Anderson's Syria book. This is unacceptable and should have been reported as vandalism, when it was reverted. (UTC) Further multiple vandalism reverted, from The Drovers Wife. Warnings for vandalism have been made. (UTC)

KateLVM ([[User talk:KateLVM|tj

Second warning to The Drovers Wife about vandalism of my contributions, in the first instance removing my appropriate attribution in the claim about Syrian Government attacking civilians. (TUC)

KateLVM (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Autobiography

The Autobiography header is problematic: I don't see how it can be ever removed unless the article is reverted back to the point before User:T.anderson (who is presumably the Tim Anderson of the article) started editing. The edits haven't been too bad, they've included citations and nothing has been deleted, but it would be better if they were placed in the Talk page as suggestions for neutral editors, perhaps with a {{request edit}} tag, as Wikipedia:Autobiography recommends. Horatio (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

It just needs some attention for NPOV and sourcing, focusing on the material not relating to the Hilton bombing - especially his activism around Syria, which the "Anderson" account spun to sound nothing like all the reasons it's received a ton of controversial press recently. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Response: of course, Anderson rejects the western Syria war narrative, that is the reason for controversy and the personalised media attacks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khalid Latouf (talk • contribs) 00:55, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Some have tried to add polemics about the war in Syria ('regime' bombing civilians, etc). This is inappropriate in a biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khalid Latouf (talk • contribs) 04:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Justice Action

The article says he was a founder of Justice Action in the 1990s, yet its article states it was founded in 1989.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:53, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

In fact the entry says Justice Action was founded in 1979 (UTC) KateLVM (talk) 12:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, 1979. So it's even more wrong.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Controversial views and conspiracy theories

The Controversial views and conspiracy theories'section adds nothing new in substance, as the war on Syria and Anderson's writings are discussed in other sections. However some editors seem to be using this section as a dumping ground for personal attacks on Anderson and his publications, including long negative or abusive reviews, which are unbalanced and add little of substance. If there is something new in substance, I suggest it be add in the other substantial sections. This section could then be removed. (UTC)

KateLVM (talk) 11:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I have created a section for Controversial views and conspiracy theories and I invite discussion here. Alsee (talk) 13:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I dispute the change to "Anderson has been controversial for his anti-war views." A lot of people are anti-war, Anderson is specifically Notable for conspiracy theories, as supported by multiple cited sources. Also supported by his own repeated use of the word "conspiracy" itself when laying out his claims, claims of "hoaxes", "false flag operations", and broadly attacking MainStreamMedia across the globe as "fake news". Also supported by Anderson establishing his fringe status saying he is "censored" from mainstream publishing by universities, by academic bodies, and by "government and corporate sponsors".[1] And supported by having to publish on/with Globalresearch, which is well documented as a conspiracy theory publisher in that article. This link to Rationalwiki compiles a mild-blowing list of just how extreme of a conspiracy publisher Globalresearch is.

I can't fully read this Paywalled Dailytelegraph piece, but it looks potentially usable if someone can access the full article. The Google snippet, and snippets from another site show The Sydney University academic, who has repeatedly visited Syria as a guest of Bashar al-Assad’s government, used his food security lecture yesterday to take aim at the media as part of a conspiracy involving three US administrations.

I propose returning the text to say he's controversial for conspiracy theories, as well as restoring this text&ref:

According to Sydney University Students News, Anderson "advocates for a wide variety of conspiracy theories".

References

Note that per the Fringe guideline, fringe POV is often largely or entirely unable to make it's way into top-tier academic RS or major news RS, and therefore may receive little or no independent critique by those sources. The guideline says criticism may be included by rough WP:Parity of sources. The cited source is more Reliable than anything published by Globalresearch, or which is self-published. Alsee (talk) 10:37, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree about the "anti-war" thing. He's not in the least controversial for being anti-war, but for his views on North Korea, Assad, etc. (I don't think "conspiracy theories" should be in the section title though.) I don't see a problem with the Sydney U item either. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The Telegraph article is quoted in this Telegraph blogpost, so possibly could cite it via this? https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/blogs/tim-blair/the-hezbollah-perspective/news-story/49951422a1fe481b71f3d805bcbcae7e BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia should decide which views are "controversial" and which aren't. That isn't neutral. Pulp is a student newspaper published by the University of Sydney Union. (It is not called Sydney University Students News or Pulse.) I don't think a student newspaper is a very reliable source. There's very little editorial control. The Daily Telegraph is biased and known to launch extreme attacks on people:[2]. I think the best solution is to list Anderson's activities and opinions, without making a judgment about which are "controversial" and which are "conspiracy theories".--Jack Upland (talk) 00:36, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

---

I agree with Jack on this point. (UTC)

KateLVM (talk) 11:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph looks to have a 163 year history as a respected paper, and per WP:Parity the University Newspaper appears to have more editorial control than Anderson's publications. However the discussion here is currently split, and I'm hoping for more input before deciding whether to drop the content or continuing to further develop it. If we keep it, it really needs to be developed into a more coherent narrative. Alsee (talk) 03:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

There are pretty abundant sources for Anderson being a controversial figure at this point, and I don't think that much is reasonably disputable. On the same note, the attempt to frame the criticism about his views as being "anti-war" is ridiculous. However, controversy sections generally are bad news and should be avoided. I feel like this might be solved by having a "views and theories" section and thoroughly sourcing it so people can make up their own minds without editorialising on Wikipedia's part. Also - the Daily Telegraph may be a conservative tabloid, but it's not okay to try and blanket argue that it's an unusable source (ala the Daily Mail) without an actual formal proposal to that effect. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

---

The controversy from anti-war material is hardly 'ridiculous'. Most of the venom and name calling aimed at Anderson comes from his defence of Syria (NB not "Assad"). As for North Korea, no one would care if he or none else went there if a nuclear war were not being threatened at the time. Anyway i repeat my point that controversy should be discussed in substance, in existing or new substantial sections. This new section is rapidly becoming an open abuse vehicle. (UTC)

KateLVM (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Attempts at unsubtle POV spin don't help your case. Plenty of people are opposed to war in Syria, for many reasons. Anderson is specifically controversial as an extremely strident voice in support of the Assad regime. Claiming that supporting Assad specifically is "defence of Syria" is indefensible nonsense. Equally, the attempt to include a tortured reference to "refusing to censor". You can quote Anderson's exact words if you like, but that attempt to spin it not remotely a possible conclusion from any neutral party. "American Herald Tribune" appears to be a glorified blog with a few fringe obsessions, and so not a reliable source. Neither is his Amazon page. Attempting to include ranting about disagreeing Wikipedia editors in the article reflects badly upon you and your argument.

I've long not been impressed at the status quo of this article, but you're effectively making a case against your own position with these very bad attempts at spin: it's simply not possible to try to work towards neutral descriptions of his positions that aren't centered around controversies as his detractors see them if his supporters keep trying to engage in really bad spin instead of honestly describing Anderson's positions and statements. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

---

Well that is your own POV / opinion. Your mass vandalism of my entries is not impressive. (UTC) KateLVM (talk) 10:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

You have readded a rant in the actual article about not getting your way with the text. This is absolutely unacceptable in any article, in any context, anywhere, and will inevitably be reverted. Again, your edits are doing the opposite of helping your cause at this point. No rants and report what Anderson actually said instead of how you want Anderson to be received and this is easily solved: literally vandalising articles out of spite (which is what this is universally considered as) sooner or letter just gets you banned. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

KateLVM for the last week you have been single handedly in a slow-motion editwar against four other editors. Not only is that "not impressive", it may lead to administrator intervention. Alsee (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

[[User: Alsee|Alsee] your vandalism of the publications section (since corrected) and your damage to the first par history gives you no moral high ground for anything.(UTC) KateLVM (talk) 13:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

You didn't (literally) vandalise the article this time by including a rant about not getting your way in the article, there was nothing so fundamentally wrong with your edits they warranted reverting, and so you weren't reverted. Funny how that works. The Drover's Wife (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The publication section edit did warrant reverting, I did in fact revert it, and it still warrants reverting after it was Bold-Revert-Revert-Revert-Revert added back again. However I was willing to allow the disputed content to sit there while trying to settle some of the more serious fringe issues first. But we may as well move to Bold-Revert-Revert-Revert-Revert-Discuss now. I opened a new section below. Alsee (talk) 21:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I've taken an axe to a bunch of stuff on both sides that wasn't sourced to reliable sources, as there was plenty of rubbish that was anti-Anderson as well. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I mistook the PULSE site for PULP, the above discussed university newspaper, so I didn't properly examine it before adding that ref. That was definitely a mistake on my part. Alsee (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the earlier comment by Drover's Wife that it would be better to have a section called something like "Views and theories", rather than focussing on controversies. While I agree that some of Anderson's views are "controversial" (and his footy tips are absolute rubbish), who is the arbiter of this? I've never suggested a blanket ban, but the Daily Telegraph is itself controversial. (And, no, it doesn't have a 163 year history, nor is it conservative.) If Anderson is pro (or anti) same-sex marriage is that controversial? Well, it has been a controversy. Also, really how many people know about his recently expressed views? I only found out here. It's not much of a controversy. It's more a case of extreme or unusual opinion.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

It's a matter of documentation in reliable sources: to my knowledge, no one has ever given a rats about his opinion on same-sex marriage, but his views on certain issues seem to make the newspapers often enough. Conversely, doing this properly would require us to tighten up the sourcing so we're actually referring to that coverage and not to a bunch of randos on the internet with problems with him. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Changed heading to "Opinions and responses" from "Controversial views". If his appeal fails and his employment by Sydney University is terminated, a more descriptive heading might be substituted in due course. Philip Cross (talk) 13:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Publication language list and links

I previously attempted to remove the the list of language-translations and BUY-IT-HERE links for the Dirty War on Syria, which was reverted. Content copied below for convenience:

(This book is now published in Swedish, Spanish, Italian, Icelandic, German, Farsi, Bosnian  and Arabic  )

References

For comparison J._K._Rowling, author of the Harry Potter series, has published around twenty books. Some of those books have even translated and re-published in up to eighty languages. The publication list in that article does not list republication in each each language.

The big pile of spam buy-this-book-here links is promotional and warrants reverting here. All of those buy-links are riding on a list of republications in other languages, which I also believe are inappropriate here. We list books, not every republication of each book. It's inappropriate here, and it would be a wall-of-disaster hundreds-of-entries for an author with a large number of books republished in a large number of languages. Alsee (talk) 21:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. No author article has that kind of list. It may be acceptable to cite a neutral entry (for instance, Trove) to establish that a book has been translated into several languages, but conveniently including links to purchase the book in every language it is published in is spam. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, on further reading I'm a bit dubious about the quote from The Spectator. I don't have a problem necessarily with the source, but the quote in the article is insulting his publisher, not Anderson specifically (and thus irrelevant). It's such a huge rant that "Anderson’s chief role, it seems, is to be an informal spokesman for Assad’s war ministry, rebutting all charges that chemical weapons have been used against civilians" is about the only quote in it that's plausibly useful to explain anything coherent about conservative criticism of Anderson. I feel like there has to be better sources for that out there, but I'm not interested enough to dig them up. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:31, 10 October 2018 (UTC)