User talk:Philip Cross/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For attention to detail in current affairs articles Cedderstk 06:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I found your update to the Julian Lewis biog. very interesting. I note your use of the word 'posed'. Any further into' on this? He had claimed to be a member of the Labour Party. Tony Kelly (Wiki: Kellybfd) Kellybfd (talk) 16:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

3RR

A "heads-up" for WP:EW. Cheers. Please self revert your last edits, and discuss on the Daily Mail talk page. Collect (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Nadine Dorries

The blog contains valid criticism of the remarks, the version without contains NO criticism for these remarks. (Which, by any measure are foul and objectionable) They may not meet your standard, by they meet mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toss.er live (talk • contribs) 08:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Read my comments on your talk page which explain why I reverted. It is WP standards which I am adhering to, not my own. Dorries has many authoritative critics who can be cited in the article. We already have a comment from Chris Bryant and the responses of others are sumnarrised. Forgive me for not naming you directly but someone who uses abusive coarse slang as a user name is difficult to respond to. Philip Cross (talk) 09:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, allow me to get this "sumnarrised" for you: Bryant's remarks do not refer to the abuse remarks. As for the blog, did you, or Wikipedia, or anyone else expect a victim of childhood sexual abuse to use their own name (or perhaps post their home address?) on a blog? By posting the article, of which I included no content and referred to it as an "attack", which is what it is whether you agree with it or not, allows people to read it's remarks, consider that it is written under a pseudonym and, you know, decide for themselves. I would also remind you that Dorries stated that she thought sex education led to the rape and molestation of children. Read that again: CHILDREN. She wasn't saying that she didn't like IKEA FFS.... your version eliminates criticism and gives her a free ride.

As for the user name, are you serious? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toss.er live (talk • contribs) 09:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Bryant's response is to the bill which Dorries supported. You are repeatedly missing the point as to what is acceptable on WP. Disruptive editing, of which missing the point is one example, leads to blocks. Is this clear for you toss.er.live? Philip Cross (talk) 09:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Bryant's criticism was of the BILL, the blog criticises the Dorries comments on the bill. Is that clear for you? The full post is now: "Her remarks were attacked on the nightmaresandboners.com blog by "Vanessa", a writer who claims to be a victim of childhood sexual abuse, in an article titled "Nadine Dorries Thinks I Was Asking For It."[43]" This is factual and allows any reader to choose to read the attack or not but also allows them to decide on the validity of the contents, your interpretation of the "rules" may not allow for that, but you are assuming I care what you think, "blocking" and further editing is shutting out valid criticism of an political position which is disingenuous at best, your (sorry...) interpretation allows Dorries to dodge responsibility for her statements. Take you blinkers off, man.... or did your NKVD application just get lost in the post?--You know it makes sense 11:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toss.er live (talk • contribs)

Me: "Bryant's response is to the bill which Dorries supported". You: "Bryant's criticism was of the BILL, the blog criticises the Dorries comments on the bill." As the blog is an inadmissible source, your point is irrelevant. Why are you incapable of finding admissible sources which do criticise Dorries directly on this issue? Since you don't care what I think, I am a loss to see why you are repeatedly posting here. Cheers. Philip Cross (talk) 11:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Missing the point? Ha! Project much...? "your point is irrelevant" "inadmissible source" ahhh, the joy of engaging in unsupported absolutes in an attempt to assert authority, Thanks for your interest, so sorry about your small penis. --You know it makes sense 11:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

User name

....mine is based on a e-mail adress I use. As for whether the name: "falls outside acceptability"

"There are four kinds of usernames that are specifically disallowed:

  * Misleading usernames imply relevant, misleading things about the contributor. The types of names which can be misleading are too numerous to list, but definitely include usernames that imply you are in a position of authority over Wikipedia, usernames that impersonate other people, or usernames which can be confusing within the Wikipedia signature format, such as usernames which resemble IP addresses or timestamps.
  * Promotional usernames are used to promote a group, company, product or website on Wikipedia.
  * Offensive usernames are those that offend other contributors, making harmonious editing difficult or impossible.
  * Disruptive usernames include outright trolling or personal attacks, include profanities or otherwise show a clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia."

I'll take your opinion "under advisement", Thanks.--You know it makes sense 11:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toss.er live (talk • contribs)

sockpuppet editing

There is an open WP:SPI case looking at sockpuppet editing primarily on the Johann Hari/ Talk page. As you edited the Johann Hari/Talk page between 2004 and 2011, your input is welcomed.

Susie Orbach

It is not up to Philip Cross to remove a recent personal photograph chosen by susie orbach and replace it without copyright permission from the photographer with a photo that Cross prefers from the Net. Can Philip Cross leave the Orbach entry to people who know what they are doing please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.4.105 (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you must be confusing me with another editor, I have not touched any image file on the Susie Orbach page. You have reverted one of my two edits from six weeks ago which removed the phrase "and campaigns vigorously on many fronts" from the Journalism section. I did so on the grounds of vagueness, as indicated, it is also original research. Philip Cross (talk) 15:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

This edit from 3 August is the most recent change of the photograph. Philip Cross (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

New Statesman

Philip - The New Statesman edit performed was entirely correct and did not require your actions.

Points of note:

• Bulleted list item Spencer Neal left the New Statesman more than 6-months ago and is no longer Publisher.
• Bulleted list item The New Statesman is not a left-wing magazine. It is a political, cultural and thought leadership magazine. In terms of political opinions it is centre-left, which is why I did not undo the right-hand mention.
• Bulleted list item The NUJ discussions are not relevant when taking into account the 98 years of its publication. Far too much real estate was dedicated to this on the page.

Rather than undo your edit I would appreciate it if you undo your own undo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbyyy (talk • contribs) 16:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not think anyone will know what a "cultural and thought leadership magazine" might be, and have not come across the term before. OK, "nonsense" in my edit summary was too strong. While the description in the opening summary has to match the opinion the magazine might have of itself, "centre left" in the summary is disliked by many editors and it keeps being changed. While it is pretty accurate, that battle is clearly lost here. As far as the category "Socialist publications" is concerned, that is surely historically accurate. On the NUJ derecognition. Although you might have a case on the grounds of recentism, you are objecting to a mere two or three lines which have a reliable source.

Removed Spencer Neal from the infobox because there is no longer a source for this, as indicated in my edit summary. Philip Cross (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Philip - I appreciate your response.

The property cannot be described as socialist, or defined as left wing anymore and it is misleading to describe it as such. It has writers from all the main UK parties on staff. True, it has a history of supporting the centre-left Labour Party and Liberal Party, but should be described as being progressive and/or centrist rather than left wing and socialist.

Also, the magazine and website is very much more than niche politics and culture. More than anything else it defines itself as a thought leadership magazine with mass rather than niche appeal. Let me know if you need any statements from staff or citations to back this up.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbyyy (talk • contribs) 21:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You can add citations supporting the above argument. The small circulation (compared with the tabloids) does not suggest 'mass' appeal. Philip Cross (talk) 11:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Paul Johnson

Dear Philip, can you please stop inserting the ridiculous story about Gloria Stewart into Paul Johnson's entry? It was a story paid for by a very downmarket tabloid newspaper, the Daily Express, corroborated by nobody but Stewart herself, and caused a lot of unhappiness at the time. I know you care a great deal about accuracy and sources, and it does seem the source here is just not worth paying attention to. It would be a kindness if you could just let this one go. Sarcyncha (talk) 14:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC) PS Sorry, I don't know how to start a new topic here! Sarcyncha (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

This biographical detail is properly cited. You will see from the talk page that its removal from the article has been attacked in the past by other editors, so maintaining its absence would be difficult to achieve. Philip Cross (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC).

But since he has never admitted the allegations, it would be much more accurate to say that it was "alleged" rather than "revealed" that he had had an 11 year affair. Sarcyncha (talk) 13:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Philip

Your point about categories is well-taken, and had I corresponded with you first then I would not have made the newcomers mistake and blundered in and made the wrong style of objection. However, my edit was made in what I content to be the spirit of the rules, and it’s those I’d like to chew over with you here. My concern is for the public treatment of sexuality and how that relates to the spirit of Wikipedia. I believe that spirit is best expressed in this excerpt from WP: BLP -

“Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment."

Johnson is indeed the moralizing sort, one who has stuck his head above the parapet to make pronouncements on this, that and the other. But, as far as I can tell, he has never made any public mention of the rights or wrongs of spanking. Certainly, he wrote that

- some people love spanking. - people should stay married and not have affairs.

It’s also true that he had an affair.

But it’s a logical leap to say that he’s a hypocrite for being into spanking. If he’s never come out against spanking, why is spanking considered a notable entry here? Hitchens is a notable writer, but he hated PJ. If he were a judge being asked to pronounce on PJ in court, he'd have to declare an interest and stand down; as would PJ's mistress.

If the allegation of hypocrisy does not stand then it's hard to see how spanking is a notable entry, especially when it concerns a titiliating claim about a living person’s private sexuality. It seems like we’re meting out treatment to Johnson that we wouldn’t like meted out to ourselves. Max Moseley might not be everyone’s cup of tea, but in his case the public consensus was "if he’s into spanking, and the women he spanks are fine with being spanked, what business is it of anyone else’s?" That was certainly the view taken by one of the highest courts in the land, a view that is arguably more objective and disinterested than the memoirs of a spurned mistress.

If someone wants to say that PJ is a hypocrite and a jerk then I’m not going to argue, but we can’t cite spanking as evidence of hypocrisy, and we need a really good reason to publicise his sexuality at all, just as we’d need a good reason to publicise what it is that gets me or you horny. A lot of people have made sacrifices in order to de-stigmatise human sexuality. If their sacrifice means anything, we should extend the protection they fought for to Johnson, even if he is a finger-pointer extraordinaire. He’s never pointed the finger about spanking, and even if he had, it wouldn’t mean that all bets are off. I know there is an element of cognitive dissonance in learning that a right-wing pro-marriage traditionalist enjoys a sore bottom, but there's no more to it than that. There’s just as much cognitive dissonance in learning that Elvis never wrote a song in his life, or that the apparently stud-like Marvin Gaye suffered from premature ejaculation - but it’s no more than cognitive dissonance. It doesn’t change the way their music sounds. It doesn’t make them hypocrits. Johnson has never called out spankers, so why are mentioning it? Why are we resorting to consensus when we can resort to reason and logic?

I'd genuninely like to politely engage with you on this point, as I believe you're inadvertently doing someone a disservice.

The protection against the invasion of privacy in WP:BLP is really to avoid original research. My point on the talk page is that this has been covered by publications at the top end of the newspaper spectrum, and is in the public domain in numerous places. So Johnson's privacy in this area has already gone, and the issue is really whether to repeat Stewart's assertions. I contend that they are worth including. While it may be "titillating" to some, these are more than "claims" - the Deborah Ross article from 1998 in The Independent has a legal warning not to repeat Johnson's reported denial. While it can be inferred that Johnson is a hypocrite, that isn't stated in the article. My own recollection is that before 1998, he objected to the hurt the medis cause wives when affairs are exposed - and urged the tabloids to continue exposing sexual miscreants at other times. So he was then being both consistent and inconsistent with an aspect of his private life which was highly likely to be revealed at some point. (Francis Wheen and Christopher Hitchens had already quoted telling passages from his two novels.) Traditional attitudes towards sexuality is in retreat in the UK, even if seems to be re-emerging in some parts of the US. Philip Cross (talk) 15:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Philip Cross! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 12:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Peter Lennon

When I get a chance I'll expand all the sections. I have lots of material to add. Fmph (talk) 13:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Oliver Kamm

Fair enough. I'm new to editing; how do I determine if a site is 'fringe' for future? Also, what do you think of Kamm? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stepheneadon (talk • contribs) 17:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You need to start with Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Whatever one thinks about an individual who is the subject of a Wikipedia article should be irrelevant, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:No original research. Philip Cross (talk) 00:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Havel not selected for Nobel Peace Prize

Good morning, Philip Cross. I am not quite happy about your deleting my amendment. Possibly you don´t know the mentality of Havel´s admirers in the Czech Republic thoroughly. They are many, that is clear. There is a great, and for me too great, idolatry surrounding him after his death. At the same time, those same people don´t like President Klaus, to be cautious in wording. Klaus is a realist, not a dreamer as Havel in a certain sense was.

My reason for adding a clear statement that Havel was at last not selected for Nobel Peace Prize, although he had been nominated by several occasions (maybe as much as nine times), was simply the fact that too many people are persistently confused by the term "nominee". They are convinced that he was actually a laureate or that he was nearly a laureate. Maybe you have read both articles, on Havel and Klaus, and maybe you could see that many editors here on the English Wikipedia come from the Czech Republic, and they write relatively poor English. I am not an Englishman, either. So please take it for granted that Wikipedia being open to everybody is, unfortunately, a field for people with good but also with bad intentions. Indeed, the prevailing intention of a number of editors on Havel is to hail him. On the other hand, there was a terrible amount of outright vandalism and slander concerning Klaus on all possible national mutations of Wikipedia.

You can be sure that my intentions are to do good editing. Can you imagine that we find a way how to say that there was at last not enough support for Havel to effectively obtain the Nobel Peace Prize? There were possibly some reasons not to make him a laureate. This assumption is, however, not to be verified. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 08:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Reginald Berkeley

See Reginald Berkeley (which you have contributed to) for my proposal to merge the two articles as I am certain that Reginald Berkeley (politician) and Reginald Berkeley (writer) are the same person, as confirmed by the obituary of Captain Reginald Berleley in The Times of 1 April 1935 page 9, which refers to his plays and also to his career as an MP (presumably not an April Fools Day hoax!). Could you reply on the article talk page please, as I have asked several people for comments. Hugo999 (talk) 12:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Formatting footnotes

Hi Philip. When you're adding material, wouldn't it make sense to properly format the footnotes, rather than simply including links between reference tags? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Normally, I do not cite by that method. You may be referring to my edits on the Geoffrey Alderman page. I did not add any, just made the existing ones less awful as a remedial measure. It was necessary to check how WP rendered Alderman for the Press TV article, and then found some problems in the historian's article. Philip Cross (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Press TV article

Re. your editing of the [Press TV] article. You have chosen to interpret the “exploring ways to limit the operations of the IRIB's Press TV service” as “in response to the jamming by the Iranian government of broadcasts by the BBC Persian Service”. It seems to me you are making unwarranted assumptions. Could you please withdraw them from the article.

Miltant tendency

Hi Philip I see you've had another look at the Militant tendency article. I remember your edits from 2007 or thereabouts were very helpful, and the article gained a good rating of some kind shortly after. You may have noticed that Hal Draper had a look at it last year, and cut more than a third off, under the comment "cut some unreferenced/POV/non-notable bits". It's this entry in the history "20:56, 27 June 2011‎ Haldraper(talk | contribs)‎ (60,749 bytes) (cut some unreferenced/POV/non-notable bits) (undo)" It was previously 98,592 bytes, and I think it should have been done piece by piece, allowing some discussion. I've glanced at the edits, and it seems to me some useful infomation was removed. Since you are looking at the article, and had previously polished it up, I thought maybe you would like to know.Andysoh (talk) 01:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Richard Littlejohn

Thanks for reversing me on Richard Littlejohn as I can't believe I missed that in the article. D'oh! It was late I suppose. Keresaspa (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Russia Today - arguments

Please find some reasoning on my Talk page. Sorry if this isn't according to the rules. I'm a newcomer here). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valerylev (talk • contribs) 17:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

John Kay (journalist)

Philip,

I see you have deleted various additions to the entry for John Kay (journalist).

The reason given was no source.

I am the source for the information concerning Kay at News International because I worked closely with him.

I think you should revisit your changes in that light.

Regards,

MediaEthics (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Youn need to visit WP:NOR which will explain why it was legitimate for me to revert your edits. Philip Cross (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

About sourcewatch edits

Philip, could you indicate what is wrong with documenting Hari's meddling in SourceWatch? If it is ok to document his meddling in Wikipedia and other blogs, then isnt it relevant to document what he has done elsewhere? In many respects, his intervention in SW is more blatant and self-serving; he spent prodigious amount of time doing it. And we can verify that he did it by the IP address, the fact that the pseudonym entry lied about it, and the fact that the pseudonyms on edited "Johann Hari". Here is a summary of what happended at SW: SW history

Kind rgds --Antidotto (talk) 18:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

As a wiki(!), it does not meet the requirement to be a reliable source. Philip Cross (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

New Statesman

Hi, I see you've made a fair few edits to the New Statesman article in the past. Could you help keep an eye on it please, certain editors seem very determined to delete the circulation figures. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)