Talk:John Pilger/Archive 2

American foreign policy

"He is particularly opposed to many aspects of American foreign policy, which he regards as being driven by a largely imperialist agenda."

Although I think this is true of Pilger, I think that perhaps it should be added that he will also freely criticise greater "Western" foreign policy in general where he believes there to be an injustice. In his documentaries he will lump together "America and Britain" or "Washington, London and Geneva" for example. I think that this sentence could perhaps be amended to reflect this. Benson85 05:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

He'll criticise any "policy" which equates to suppression and slaughter - Pol Pot's for instance. It's just that he emphasises the involvement and orchestration of Western governments because that's the point he is addressing. But it's not true to suppose he only oppposes violence perpetrated by America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.164.105 (talk) 08:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, in fact he goes quite far out of his way to avoid criticism of his favored regimes. The only reason he criticises the Khmer Rouge is because they fell out with the Vietnamese communists. I don't see any evidence he criticised them prior to that. North Vietnam trained, supplied, and supported the Khmer Rouge and brought the Vietnam war to Cambodia yet Pilger absolves Vietnam of all responsibility. Similarly, Pilger has been entirely uninterested in the appalling human rights record of Vietnam after 1975. There is no explanation for his sudden disinterest other than ideological bias.----Pepik70 (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC) 23:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Where do you read this rubbish? Don't answer. Wikispan (talk) 23:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's Pilger's 1970 World in Action documentary about Vietnam entitled "The Quiet Mutiny" on YouTube here; [1]

... and Pilger's own site with a number of his documentaries available to view online: [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

"Year Zero: The Silent Death of Cambodia" - Pilger's 1979 documentary on Pol Pot and his regime here: [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is biased and does not fit our neutrality policy (WP:NPOV), the whole article oozes adoration and there is no criticism or even hints of his actually being an extremist and fringe rather than a mainstream journalist. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Er, hang on, Pilger is not an "extremist" or "fringe" journalist, he's a highly respected journalist who has, for example, won Britain's "journalist of the year" award at least twice.

Certainly, he has strong opinions, but that does not make him an "extremist".

And BTW I think if this article is biased, it's in the anti-Pilger direction with the "Criticism" section actually leading the section about his work! And why the repetitious references to "pilgerism", is this the only criticism that can be made?

This article has become quite a mess since I last looked at it. It really needs a cleanup. Gatoclass (talk) 10:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Gatoclass. Nothing is stopping users from adding criticism, providing it's balanced and adheres to guidelines. There is, therefore, no sound reason for the tag. smb (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Not so, in its current state it is not neutral and there is a dispute because the criticism section has been removed. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The criticism section has not been removed. See here. Individual criticism was deleted as per WP:RELY. This was explained in the edit summary. (diff) Self-published pages, and blogs, are not considered reliable sources in biographies of living persons. smb (talk) 03:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It is still NPOV and that needs tagging. Iyt is widely considered very poor form to edit war to remove an NPOV tag, such behaviour is contradictory as evidenced a dispute. Please don't remove the tag but to try to address the issues. Your claim that we can write a POBV article and rely on mythical others to NPOV it is well outside standard practices here. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

But you fail to show how this page violates policy. It contains standard biographical material (listing individual works and awards etc). You wrongly said there is no criticism section. In fact there is. You said you wanted to see more criticism. I said nobody is blocking you from adding more, providing it's balanced and well written. You can't appeal to personal considerations - John Pilger is an extremist! - slap a tag on the page and walk away because you dislike him. Your last sentence is unintelligible. smb (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the tag again, and will keep doing so unless there's a coherent reason given for including it.FelixFelix ^talk 16:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Coherent reasons have already been given. The article is not neutral, your edit war threrats arent going to make it neutral either. You could, instead of edit warring, work on making the article neutral. In the meantime do not accuse other editors of being incoherent, that along with your edit warring threats doesn't look at all good. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Three different editors believe you haven't provided a logical reason why the tag should stay. Saying the article is "not neutral" because it's "not neutral" isn't enough (a circular argument). Please explain in detail the POV issues you see with the page. smb (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

In that case could you reiterate your 'coherent reasons? I'll remove the tag again until this has been done.FelixFelix ^talk 14:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the first comment, this article borders on hagiography. It opens with beaming praise from ideological bedfellow Noam Chomsky. Also, I don't see why the 'criticisms' section needs rebuttals, particularly from Chomsky, when the praise section goes unchallenged (I would argue that the entire article is a praise section, and as such a separate praise section is unneccessary).

Also, Pilger was sued for libel for his work on Cambodia. The paper his article was published in settled out of court and issued an apology. Yet while all of Pilger's awards are mentioned, somehow this doesn't come up. I would also think that this is worth mentioning.

I will be trying to work these ideas into the text. In particular, his reference to Obama as an "Uncle Tom" was critised for being racist, I think it is appropriate to move this to the criticism section.----Pepik70 (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC) 23:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I am in the camp that desribes pilger as a lousy journalist and extreme left wing advocate. I need only point to what he says about various issues in the world to give substance to my claim. One thing I found interesting was a slur that said his father sent telegrams of congratulations to Hitler in WW2. I don't see any biographical content here among the hagiography which would allow me to evaluate the slur from a Michael Coren. DDB (talk) 09:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ddball, Pilger is a joke and nobody in the mainstream would take him seriously, this article praising him is just ridiculous. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.110.235.130 (talk) 06:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Criticism and Praise

I think the format of this section is highly problematic. For example Noam Chomsky's response to "pilgerize" is appropriate to put in the section, but does seem to be praise. Regardless, I'd like to see the article follow the guidelines recommended in Wikipedia:Criticism and either incorporate the information into the main article better, or create a more verbose (i.e. non-bullet-pointed) Criticism section. I understand people are very touchy about these things otherwise I'd have gone in and made the changes already, but I want to see what people have to say. NOTE: This is about format, not content appearing in the article. Chiraldecay (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The quotes section

Wikipedia's affiliated project Wikiquote lacks an article on John Pilger. In order to tidy this article, I propose to move the section and add the wikiquote template. Obviously, this material can still drawn upon to outline Plilger's viewpoints as appropriate. Philip Cross (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, no one has objected in the last two months. I will take that as indicating consent or at least acquiescence and go ahead. Philip Cross (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Archive page

Wikipedia advises editors of the problems of overlong articles which are definded as above 30k in length. This talk page had grown to 42k. With no clean chronological break between sections, sometimes they have lasted for several years, the only solution was to copy and paste those discussions to which no new comment has been added for more than a year to a new page. Adding a date to 'Archive 1', the usual practice, is therefore inappropriate. Philip Cross (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

"received academy awards" poor choice of words?

Academy Award is the official name for the Oscar, an award that he has not received. Some of his awards have the words "academy award" in their title and the source http://www.newstatesman.com/writers/john_pilger uses the phrase as well, so it can certainly be defended which is why I don't want to change it without making sure that other people feel the same. But at least I was initially mislead and confused because to me Academy Award was synonymous to Oscar. StefanVK (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Assange, recentism and trivia

That the left-leaning Pilger offered to help bail the left-leaning Assange, is not exactly a shocker. Money wasn't needed, court didn't want Pilger, didn't effect Assange's release either way. This is the sort of episode that might get a two-sentence mention in a 500 page biography on Pilger, never in an encyclopedia article. It's just recentism -- someone saw Pilger's name in the newspapers! But it says nothing about the life of the man or the things that have made him notable. It's just more thoughtless sprawl (like so many wikipedia articles). The section as it was appears mostly a vehicle to carry the quote from the judge being dismissive of pilger.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be overlooking the fact that Pilger has been a vocal supporter of Assange, and indeed interviewed him for his last documentary. This is clearly more than a passing connection, and the fact that Pilger's offer to contribute to the bail was ultimately declined is neither here, nor there. I would also note that the fact that Jemima Khan and Ken Loach offered bail is mentioned on their pages, yet nobody has removed either, despite the fact that their personal connections with Assange are less obvious that Pilger's. I am therefore amending and reinstating the text. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Well they should. As the burden is on inclusion, i'm reverting again until more editors have chimed in.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Considering the media coverage of Pilger's involvement in Assange case has got - not to mention Pilger's prior support of Assange and Wikileaks - this starts to look like censorship, especially since the initial text was on the page for almost two weeks before you unilaterally decided to delete it. What suddenly changed? It would seem by the logic that you are trying to impose, if Wikipedia had existed in 1979, you would be resisting including any mention of Cambodia... Nick Cooper (talk) 14:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not "censorship" it's "proportion" and avoiding coat-racking. If every irrelevant scrap of a newspaper article that ever mentioned pilger was tossed in, this article would be longer than the bible. He's a man with lots of causes and talks a lot. Nothing wrong with that -- but this is a biographical article, not a scrap book. Looking over the rest of it, there is bloat every where -- and the important bits need expansion/work (so much "he-said, she said" about his politics, so little perspective).Bali ultimate (talk) 14:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

So to return to your own analogy, if Pilger were writing an up-dated version of Heroes now, do you honestly believe that Assange would get no more than, "a two-sentence mention"? Pilger interviewed Assange for The War Don't See, and has been a vocal supporter of both him as a person and Wikileaks as an institution. That there is not a single mention of any of this on this page beggars both belief and credibility. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably Assange is noy very important in the scheme of things, and won't be seen to be a year from now. Pilger's opinion og Assange is something that is important to an article on Assange, but not on Pilger. For Pilger's biography what is important is that which allows us to evaluate what he has done over the course of his career. Recent stuff is not as important, and may ultimately not reflect anything of value imho DDB (talk) 21:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Nice crystal ball you've got there. It seems to me that this page - like most others to with living people - has been constantly updated with whatever the subject is doing at present. It's not as if Pilger's first connection to Assange was the offered bail - he's interviewed him, and written about him and the whole Wikileaks issue, the latter also being a major part of The War We Don't See. It's clear that Assange provokes strong opinions in some circles, so deleting any mention of him here looks supisciously like denialism to me. That's quite apart from the warped logic of, "it's relevant to that page, not this one," could be used to justify deleting a lot more from this page. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, much of this page is not relevant to who Pilger is ..a cold war advocate for Communism. Sure he is willing to hijack an issue and lend his name to it, but that doesn't mean he transforms it. His endorsement of Assange is meaningless, as it doesn't mean Assange stands for anything except what Pilger wants to be associated with. Under what circumstance would Pilger criticise Assange? If there are no limits, no analysis, then it is meaningless. Many articles about recent people suffer from this. Also articles about people long dead are also skewed here by popular debate. There is nothing terrible about that .. but a good editor won't accept it either. DDB (talk) 10:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

"A cold war advocate for Communism"? Really? You seem to be displaying a disturbingly strong bias against Pilger, his work, and his motivations for his connections with Assange.

I would further note that The War You Don't See is Pilger's second documentary about the War on Terror/Iraq/Afghanistan - the first having been in 2003 - yet the subject is remarkably lacking from the "Activities of the military" section, and is barely mentioned on the page at all. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not displaying "a disturbingly strong bias against Pilger, his work, and his motivations for his connections with Assange" but a measured criticism of the anachronism of a cold war communist advocate desperately raking up muck. There is much biographical content missing, but there is much advocacy presenting huzzahs. Were he a conservative I doubt he would be given this amount f space, or even a column. DDB (talk) 04:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you've just confirmed exactly what your bias is. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

If you think that, and not merely feel that, can you substantiate that? You have asserted it twice, highlighted my view once but not referred back to any of Pilger's work to dispute it. Have you noticed how bare his life section is? Bondi is a very wealthy beach side neighborhood of Sydney. Sydney Boy's HS was among the leading schools of the day (public, but selective). He is said to have begun a student newspaper there. Many students begin such things ,, did it continue long after he left? Was it notable? He witnessed a kennedy assassination, why does he make his claim about a gunman? We note he was a war correspondent in Vietnam, and then refer to his writing on the subject. Pilger claimed his work was a scoop, did anyone else say that? Why? Why not? We move forward to Cambodia in '79 when Vietnam finally began to overthrow that terrible regime. He blames Nixon (not Johnson) for the Marxist regime (not Pol Pot or Ho Chi Minh either). We then go to East Timor where we have no critical evaluation of events or assertions too. DDB (talk) 20:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

These things are included because that is what is reported of Pilger's life, either by himself, or by others. We are not here to second-guess or synthesise new analyses of the type you seem to be suggesting, especially not if they are motivated by the sort of clear antithesis towards the subject that you seem to be. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring the slur again, I must point out that my statement that the autobiographical treatment has shortcomings is valid. The reason for the shortcomings is a poor excuse. Clearly the article is weighted towards propaganda supporting a leftwing thesis which should not be justified with insult but may be argued in terms of status quo without the insult. DDB (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Personal Life Section

Is he single? Married? With a Life Partner? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.159.111.98 (talk) 10:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)