Wikipedia founder confronted over banning Daily Mail

[thekohser]

It's fair to say that Wikipedia has the checks and balances in place to ensure that individual citations are going to reliably-informed sources, but then childish to throw up your hands and say that you have to "ban" a source because it publishes things that people want to read about and occasionally gets a story wrong and hurts people's feelings.

As an example, I'm told that "the great thing about Wikipedia" is that all of its information -- especially with biographies of living people -- has to be properly sourced. Last week, a famous celebrity agent renewed his marriage vows atop a globally-recognized mountain, with dozens of A-list celebrities in attendance (many of whom are "green" ecology advocates but didn't think twice, I suppose, about burning considerable jet fuel to go 8,000 miles to get to that mountain). Anyway, even though this vow renewal took place earlier this week, Wikipedia's biography of the man still merely says, "They renewed their vows in 2017." No outside source is cited at all.

Why should Wikipedians be forbidden from using one of several Daily Mail articles to append that fact with a source? Is it because the Daily Mail is not reliable for celebrity marriage vow renewal information?

[DHeyward]

BREAKING NEWS: X Factor millionaire Simon Cowell is stretchered out of his house wearing a neck brace after falling down the stairs at his London home
Read more: linkhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... pital.html[/link]

Up to her old tricks? Taylor Swift shocks fans as she turns nude cyborg in full ...Ready For It? video... as fans go wild over Calvin Harris references
Read more: linkhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/ar ... video.html[/link]

Brexit ministry loses another minister as Baroness Anelay resigns and blames a worsening injury she sustained when she fell out of a Black Hawk HELICOPTER two years ago
Read more: linkhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... tment.html[/link]

Wife whose husband is accused of trying to kill her by tampering with her parachute tells court he barely visited her in hospital after and refused to say he loved her
Read more: linkhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... pital.html[/link]

Teenager, 18, is charged with murder following the death of a 47-year-old nurse who was showered with ACID after a bottle was kicked at her as she sat on a bench
Read more: linkhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ttack.html[/link]

And so on and so forth. That is just TODAY (Oct. 27, 2017) from the front page of this outstanding "newspaper."

Let me repeat myself for emphasis: The Daily Mail is the same exact thing as the National fucking Enquirer in the United States and is similarly not suitable for use as a source for anything BLP-related at Wikipedia.

I'm pretty sure CNN or USA Today covered all those stories except for possibly the murders. Not to mention that they are covered by all the other UK news outlets.

Not only that, most of the local newspapers in the U.S. use front page story headlines without distinguishing whether the story is local, national or worldwide. Editorial oversight has tanked with the internet and DM is just one of all the outlets. They are no worse than any USA Today affiliated outlet or even Amazon's Washington Post. They cater to sensationalism but they are generally accurate. Clickbait percentage is not the criteria for accuracy. Really, if you ignore clickbait coverage, their product is nearly identical to everyone elses.

Bullshit.

Bull Fucking Shit.

RfB

Simon Cowell https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/peo ... 806654001/

Taylor Swift https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/art ... sic-video/ (WaPo went on to analyze Swift's tumblr "likes" to gain clues about the music video. Deep stuff there.)

Baroness Anelay https://www.ft.com/content/37f9659a-dba ... 8f64bcf9b0 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-brita ... SKBN1CW20C (oh, this was real news as Anelay resigned from Brexit post. Not covered by WaPo or USAToday. Covered by DM as well as Financial Times and Reuters).

Parachute murder https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... otaged-it/ (I was wrong, WaPo covered the murder)

As expected, I couldn't find a specific acid attack in USA Today, CNN or WaPo but the attack happened in a time frame consistent with general articles on the uptick of acid attacks in Europe. The attack was covered by BBC.

Please don't paraphrase my quotes. You obviously missed the point that all the outlets covered your list of articles.

[Ming]

Not only that, most of the local newspapers in the U.S. use front page story headlines without distinguishing whether the story is local, national or worldwide. Editorial oversight has tanked with the internet and DM is just one of all the outlets. They are no worse than any USA Today affiliated outlet or even Amazon's Washington Post. They cater to sensationalism but they are generally accurate. Clickbait percentage is not the criteria for accuracy. Really, if you ignore clickbait coverage, their product is nearly identical to everyone elses.

Well, you've lowered your standard enough to make a good WP editor on any number of "in popular culture" topics. Look, the Wash. Post shows up on Ming's doorstep each weekend (there's not enough time to read it during the week) and Ming is familiar with the web front pages of any number of new sites. Having looked at the DM's front page just now, Ming can't see the Post running a graphic story about an abused dog in the "above the fold" spot. Ironically, the current feeding frenzy about sexual abuse among media figures has somewhat forced them into greater relevance, but the character of their participation in that does not inspire confidence in Ming that anything they are saying about it is true. Meanwhile, it is hard to pick out political stories or anything of substance (political or otherwise) in their Weekly World News presentation style. Sunday's front page was much worse.

Ming copped a look at the Dallas Morning News front page and, well, there's a lot of sports stuff. Wadayawant? It's Dallas. The Detroit News is more concerned with local stories, but they are substantial for the most part. USA Today led off with Michael Flynn, not dog-abuse porn. The Wash. Post and the NYT, of course, both led off with the Mueller probe; Ming thinks there may be something about that on the DM front page-- ah yes: "At least the spooks aren't Russian! 'Seething' Trump is haunted by the Mueller probe and Manafort indictment as he and Melania host White House Halloween celebration."

The only people who make these kinds statements about the major US papers are people whose grip on reality is so poor that they'd believe WingNutDaily over anything--even the Enquirer, which is more reliable.

[Ming]

While Ming is at it: Lies of the Daily Mail

and 10 Egregiously False Stories in the Daily Mail

[Johnny Au]

Oh Merciless One, did you check the front pages of the Toronto Star, the Globe & Mail, the National Post, and the Toronto Sun?

I would like to see how the Canadian papers fare.

[DHeyward]

Not only that, most of the local newspapers in the U.S. use front page story headlines without distinguishing whether the story is local, national or worldwide. Editorial oversight has tanked with the internet and DM is just one of all the outlets. They are no worse than any USA Today affiliated outlet or even Amazon's Washington Post. They cater to sensationalism but they are generally accurate. Clickbait percentage is not the criteria for accuracy. Really, if you ignore clickbait coverage, their product is nearly identical to everyone elses.

Well, you've lowered your standard enough to make a good WP editor on any number of "in popular culture" topics. Look, the Wash. Post shows up on Ming's doorstep each weekend (there's not enough time to read it during the week) and Ming is familiar with the web front pages of any number of new sites. Having looked at the DM's front page just now, Ming can't see the Post running a graphic story about an abused dog in the "above the fold" spot. Ironically, the current feeding frenzy about sexual abuse among media figures has somewhat forced them into greater relevance, but the character of their participation in that does not inspire confidence in Ming that anything they are saying about it is true. Meanwhile, it is hard to pick out political stories or anything of substance (political or otherwise) in their Weekly World News presentation style. Sunday's front page was much worse.

Ming copped a look at the Dallas Morning News front page and, well, there's a lot of sports stuff. Wadayawant? It's Dallas. The Detroit News is more concerned with local stories, but they are substantial for the most part. USA Today led off with Michael Flynn, not dog-abuse porn. The Wash. Post and the NYT, of course, both led off with the Mueller probe; Ming thinks there may be something about that on the DM front page-- ah yes: "At least the spooks aren't Russian! 'Seething' Trump is haunted by the Mueller probe and Manafort indictment as he and Melania host White House Halloween celebration."

The only people who make these kinds statements about the major US papers are people whose grip on reality is so poor that they'd believe WingNutDaily over anything--even the Enquirer, which is more reliable.

Once again, you are making conclusions about statements I didn't make. I'm glad you still like print. "Front page" and "above the fold" is a quaint anachronism.

Regardless of the source, Wikipedia generally doesn't use click-bait coverage so you are safe from dog porn or whatever. There are many takes on the Manafort et al indictments. In fact, one could argue that Trump's reaction is the most poignant as the only thing newsworthy about it is its relation to Trump and the Trump campaign. No one disputes headlines can be sensational, either. They generally aren't written by the reporter. You can find word for word AP articles with any number of headlines in multiple papers across the U.S. Some are horribly inaccurate.

You are inferring statements that I've not made. I've never said it's more accurate. Never said it should be preferred over other sources. I responded to an assertion that because of it's front page, it should never be trusted when every single front page article was covered by other outlets. The response to that was ad hominem attacks and the claim that it was bull shit. It took about 5 minutes to show every single article was covered by other outlets. Even today, you have started off with personal attacks. I couldn't care less about the DM but it's reactionary, frothing at the mouth hatred of it appears unhinged. It led with Trump coverage but it appears you were distracted by the click bait headline rather than the coverage. WaPo and NYT led with Manafort. The blurb about 'seething' was credited to CNN with inline link. 'Fuming' was credited to WaPo the same way and is a front page WaPo story about Trump watching TV (riveting story and serious coverage - he was late to breakfast).

The Bismarck kerfuffle is a perfect example of how reactionary blather hinders accuracy. Apparently it wasn't splashy enough for WaPo or NYT to cover one man's fight with Wikipedia over a WWII battle. DM covered it. The facts and claims weren't really controversial or outrageous. DM was perfectly fine for the coverage of the Bismarck but handwringing reactionary nonsense got in the way of truth.

Lastly, on any given day, local papers cover an amalgam of local, national, and international stories. The headlines are atrocious. They often don't show a location byline and cover sensationalized stories. Last week, for example, a story in USAToday ran in all their affiliated local markets about a dead baby found in a swing with maggots. This snuff piece ran next to other items that made it seem as if it happened locally (in my case it was next to local traffic fatality). It required a click to learn that it was a national snuff piece originating in Iowa. They do this for all sorts of topics including your animal porn, teacher/student sex stories, unusual or tragic deaths, etc, etc. These are the same practices you deride DM for and it's a legitimate complaint but it's hardly local to DM especially with the other British tabloids and outlets like USAToday.

And BTW, check out the headlines on NY Times front page story: "Trump Belittles Aide as ‘Low Level’ and Calls Him a ‘Liar’." Then go to the story (different headline) "Trump Belittles ‘Low Level’ Adviser Who Tried to Connect With Russia" - now see if you can figure out why the headline was changed for the front page. The guy plead guilty to lying to the FBI. Calling him a liar is hardly controversial as he openly admitted it. Note also that the NYT didn't use his name in the title. Not exactly household stuff. They do mention Flynn, Manafort, Podesta and others. They didn't name him because low-level aide names aren't particularly recognizable. Also consider that the Russians were peddling the emails to this aide. Kinda kills the entire meme that Trump campaign was involved in the hacking if they are trying to peddle it up the chain, rather than down. Georgie (the NYT uses his name in the middle of the second paragraph after they puff up his title in the first) would not need to be involved if Putin/Trump worked out the elaborate scheme to get dirt on Hillary. That's speculative just as realizing that Tony Podesta filed his belated "Foreign Agent" forms after Mueller started probing and is separating himself from his own company might be because he finds himself in the same crosshairs regarding failure to report. So far, it's likely just a civil fine unless he also has received undeclared income from those connections.

(And P.S. the headline in DM was a snark at CNN and WaPo that were using terms like 'seething' which is much more in line with tabloids)

[Kingsindian]

Banning Daily Mail will do basically nothing. AFAIK, the other tabloids like The Sun or Daily Mirror aren't formally banned. They are all held in the same contempt, anyway.

As for broader issues, here are the trust figures for UK news outlets (from 2012):

Guido Fawkes: 4%
Facebook: 7%
Twitter: 8%
The Sun: 9%
Daily Mirror: 13%
Daily Express: 17%
Daily Mail: 22%
i: 25%
The Times: 37%
Daily Telegraph: 39%
The Guardian: 39%
The Today Programme: 40%
The Independent: 41%
Sky News: 46%
Financial Times: 48%
ITV News: 61%
Channel 4 News: 61%
BBC News: 73%

Also:

Ninety-two per cent apparently said they wanted less content about celebrities in the press.

Open Road director Rebecca Reilly said: “You would expect that an erosion of trust in particular titles would impact sales, but as you’ll see from our data, the level of trust people have in newspapers is inversely proportional to their circulation figures.

“So what does this tell us? That we don’t expect our media to have morals? That we view it largely as entertainment?

Here is another poll from 2014, which has similar rankings.

[DHeyward]

Banning Daily Mail will do basically nothing. AFAIK, the other tabloids like The Sun or Daily Mirror aren't formally banned. They are all held in the same contempt, anyway.

As for broader issues, here are the trust figures for UK news outlets (from 2012):

Guido Fawkes: 4%

Whoa. Guido Fawkes is the Marxist/anarchists patron saint. I guess we know why they have idiotic beliefs. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guido_Fawkes

[Poetlister]

Whoa. Guido Fawkes is the Marxist/anarchists patron saint.

That is such an irony. He was a devout Catholic and the last thing he wanted was anarchy. He just wanted a Catholic king.

[AndyTheGrump]

For the benefit of people who apparently can't think things through, the 'Guido Fawkes' referred to in the poll as a 'news outlet' isn't the same person who was hanged, drawn and quartered in January 1606. The poll refers to 'libertarian' blogger Paul Staines (T-H-L). No idea whether his choice of alias was anything to do with patron saints...

[Zoloft]

For the benefit of people who apparently can't think things through, the 'Guido Fawkes' referred to in the poll as a 'news outlet' isn't the same person who was hanged, drawn and quartered in January 1606. The poll refers to 'libertarian' blogger Paul Staines (T-H-L). No idea whether his choice of alias was anything to do with patron saints...

/me wanders through the topics, watching for tone and rhetoric.

[DHeyward]

For the benefit of people who apparently can't think things through, the 'Guido Fawkes' referred to in the poll as a 'news outlet' isn't the same person who was hanged, drawn and quartered in January 1606. The poll refers to 'libertarian' blogger Paul Staines (T-H-L). No idea whether his choice of alias was anything to do with patron saints...

J is for Jest.
https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-1626560801.html

[Midsize Jake]

J is for Jest.
https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-1626560801.html

Look, you have your idiotic beliefs, they have theirs. It all evens out in the end, right? Everyone can have their nice idiotic beliefs together and it's all one big happy family!

To some extent, I think you have to accept that these kinds of reactions to extremist propaganda and political rhetoric are a natural thing, part of a process by which systems of democracy/free expression/free enterprise defend themselves from those who would prefer to destroy them, usually to obtain some sort of short-term financial gain. These days however, it's hardly a sure thing that such reactions will be enough, because the extremists (at least on the right) now have multiple billionaires backing them with no effective legal or market-based restraint. The Daily Mail, owned by billionaire Lord Rothermere, is as good an example of this as any.

Personally, I think the problem is that advanced technology has now reached the point where the vast majority of people can afford it, and not only that, they're satisfied with it. People's aspirations are changing, and "attainment" has become less and less associated with materialism - especially at the high end. There are too many rich-enough people now, so it's getting harder for super- rich people like Lord Rothermere, Rupert Murdoch, Trump, and Putin to assert dominance by simply buying things; they have to use their money to gain power, influence and control, because only those things are still meaningful. If we could somehow invent a new way for rich people to engage in the sort of ball-thrusting dominance behavior they seemingly must engage in without corrupting our popular media, then maybe we could regain some level of social equilibrium and possibly even survive as a species in spite of them. But as it stands now, there just isn't anything else out there that really works for them.

I don't think the long-term solution to this is to have websites like Wikipedia declare entities like the Daily Mail "unreliable." That's really just one of those pee-in-your-pants-on-a-rainy-day solutions, quite frankly - gives you a warm feeling for a short while but nobody really notices. Still, you can't blame them for trying, and if the frisson some people get from such things helps to delay the inevitable violent worldwide anti-oligarch revolution until after my own personal death, then I guess that's a good thing as far as I'm concerned.

[CrowsNest]

An unfortunate slip by Guy Chapman on Jimbo's talk page.....

There is consensus, based on multiple independent sources showing the Mail to be biased and unreliable......09:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Plenty of Wikipedians, probably Guy himself even, have been at pains to deny the very suggestion that the paper's political stance had anything to do with their decision to ban it. They insist, absolutely insist, it is only about reliability.

Following this up, the other Guy, the Macon fuckwit, has dropped his usual screed to support the ban. I shall repost only the relevant highlights......

The Daily Mail regularly fabricates entire stories.....regularly fabricates entire interviews.....regularly plagiarizes articles from other publications

His only presented source? A blog by a fired employee.

As ever, it seems reliable sources backing up the Wikipediots explanations for this ban, are still very very thin in the ground.

Dare I say, they may even be making it up?

All of this has resurfaced because a train company has decided to stop stocking the paper, and were upfront about their reasons. A little too upfront for the Wikipedians, since much of it was their obvious but unspoken agenda too.

[Poetlister]

If they were mainly worried about its bias, why didn't they ban the Daily Telegraph?

[Renée Bagslint]

Come to that, why not ban all news media with the exception of Wikitribune, the only outlet to have discovered the secret of neutral reporting?

[Ming]

I would be easier and probably truer to the principle of avoiding primary sources to ban all new outlets entirely.

[Poetlister]

Come to that, why not ban all news media with the exception of Wikitribune, the only outlet to have discovered the secret of neutral reporting?

Given that there is (or is intended to be) a fair amount of crowdsourcing in Wikitribune, can it be regarded as a reliable source? As far as I know, Wikinews is not regarded as one.

[CrowsNest]

Virgin Trains and the Daily Mail

The benefits of being the boss I guess. Embrace good decisions as the embodiment of your principles, reject bad decisions as the folly of your underlings.

[Renée Bagslint]

The benefits of being the boss I guess. Embrace good decisions as the embodiment of your principles, reject bad decisions as the folly of your underlings.

Here lies our sovereign lord the king,
Whose word no man relies on;
He never says a foolish thing,
Nor ever does a wise one.

This is very true: for my words are my own, and my deeds are my ministers'...

[Randy from Boise]

I would be easier and probably truer to the principle of avoiding primary sources to ban all new outlets entirely.

Newspapers are no longer newspapers — hardcopy publications with layers of editors and fact-checkers. Nor are books really books, with big publishers sometimes churning out dubious politicized screeds while self-publication of esoteric information by true experts becomes more and more possible, if not yet common. (By the way, my forthcoming stuff with a Trotskyist (!!!) publishing house both runs through multiple editors and does not dictate a political line as to my own commentary or conclusions and is thus no less solid a "reliable source" in Wikispeak than any commercial publisher, but I digress...)

So, obviously, it seems, banning the vehicle of information rather than attacking the bad content itself is highly problematic, at a minimum, even if there were a will to ban all news outlets entirely. The entire "reliable sources" line of argument always has been pretty ridiculous. There is "factual" and "wrong." Every publication includes a mix of both, no matter how hard they try to get things right. Facts can be presented dispassionately and with balance or they can be summoned tendentiously.

What is needed — a vast array of smart editors exercising judgment and behaving honestly — is much more difficult to achieve than the theoretical model used by WP, that "anyone can edit" by regurgitating "reliable sources" according to "Neutral Point of View."

No, not anyone can edit. No, there is no such thing as a "reliable source." As for NPOV — now that is a useful idea, if only Wikipedians would live up to it...

RfB

[Kingsindian]

Survey by Reuters about trust in media outlets in the UK. The Beeb is at the top. Daily Mail is near the bottom. Funnily enough, Buzzfeed ranks even below the Mail.

Also, funnily: even the users of the Mail rank it near the bottom.

[Dysklyver]

Maybe there should be an effort to ban The Sun given how it consistently ranks as crappier than the Daily Mail.

[AndyTheGrump]

Maybe there should be an effort to ban The Sun given how it consistently ranks as crappier than the Daily Mail.

Not really necessary, given how rarely people try to argue that it meets WP:RS. The problem with the Mail is that some people take its claims to be a serious newspaper on face value.

[Ming]

Well, part of the problem is that it used to be a real newspaper. Newspaper sourcing is one of the bigger problems in WP, since (a) people can't figure out that news reports don't become reliable until confirmed over time, and (b) the NYT is in fact a local paper first of all, and doesn't render everything in it of nationwide or worldwide note.

[Johnny Au]

There's even a short discussion about the validity of the Toronto Sun (T-H-L) newspaper: Talk:Danforth_shooting#Toronto_Sun_column,_BLP_vio? (T-H-L)

See the discussion immediately above with regards to the shooter's purported ISIL links as well.

Yes, both Harizotoh9 (T-C-L) (see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =852497452) and I argue that the Toronto Sun is essentially the Canadian counterpart to the Daily Mail.

[Poetlister]

There seem to be about 2700 occurrences of "torontosun.com" and 3000 of "Toronto Sun", so it's not a negligible source. Well, just set up a request for comment and get a few friends to join you, and no doubt you can get it declared unreliable.

[AndyTheGrump]

Back on the subject of the Mail, author and Mail on Sunday columnist Peter Hitchens (T-H-L), who edits Wikipedia as Clockback (T-C-L), has just been blocked indefinitely, after his edits to the article on George Bell (bishop) (T-H-L). Hitchens has been a long-standing critic of the way allegations of child abuse by Bell (long after his death) were handled, and seems either to have mistaken Wikipedia for his MoS column, or decided to vent his anger at not being able to spin the Bell article his way. At least, that is the only other explanation I can think of for edits which someone of Hitchens' reputation would surely have realised that blatant editorialising in the article wasn't going to fly with the 'community'. See the diff for Hitchens' purple prose:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =852723065

[Poetlister]

Good old JzG, another great indefinite block. Now, how wise is it to block one of Britain's best-known journalists?

[AndyTheGrump]

Good old JzG, another great indefinite block. Now, how wise is it to block one of Britain's best-known journalists?

How wise would it be to give journalists special licence to use Wikipedia articles as a soapbox? Hitchens knew exactly what he was doing, he isn't a complete idiot.

[Dysklyver]

"A complaint might as well have been passed to the Fire Brigade or to Tesco"

This is good encyclopedic content right here.

[Poetlister]

Good old JzG, another great indefinite block. Now, how wise is it to block one of Britain's best-known journalists?

How wise would it be to give journalists special licence to use Wikipedia articles as a soapbox? Hitchens knew exactly what he was doing, he isn't a complete idiot.

It's wise not to antagonise people with influence, as Jimbo had to concede to Seigenthaler.

You certainly don't issue an indefinite block to everyone who puts in a bit of dubious content, or there'd be very few editors left.

[AndyTheGrump]

Good old JzG, another great indefinite block. Now, how wise is it to block one of Britain's best-known journalists?

How wise would it be to give journalists special licence to use Wikipedia articles as a soapbox? Hitchens knew exactly what he was doing, he isn't a complete idiot.

It's wise not to antagonise people with influence, as Jimbo had to concede to Seigenthaler.

You certainly don't issue an indefinite block to everyone who puts in a bit of dubious content, or there'd be very few editors left.

Personally, I consider it my moral duty to antagonise people with influence.

[Poetlister]

Personally, I consider it my moral duty to antagonise peoplewith influence.

FTFY.

[Bezdomni]

"A complaint might as well have been passed to the Fire Brigade or to Tesco"

This is good encyclopedic content right here.

Speaking of the complaints department, anyone heard from Smiley? (cf. CrowsNest, Wikipedia Sucks!, "The Daily Mail ban" §)

I did not know his identity when I blocked. The clincher for me was the edit adding that the complaint might as well have been made to the fire brigade or Tesco. That’s not even remotely appropriate. And it’s representative. He edits like a Daily Mail columnist. It would be exactly as bad if he edited like a Daily Mirror columnist. Guy (Help!) 06:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the statement is entirely true, and I am unsure of the reasons for his maidenly shock at the mention of the Fire Brigade and Tesco. Anyone would think, from my being marched off in chains for this, that I had inserted chunks of the writings of the Marquis de Sade. It is not obscene, or insulting, or in any way objectionable, and is a correct statement of the true legal position. But as he well knows, it was placed there, after other persuasions had failed, to bring impartial editors into the matter to resolve a conflict of more than two years. I am a columnist for the Mail on Sunday. Our editing standards are very high and extremely professional.Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback (T-C-L) (talk) 10:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Fixed quote by request from Bezdomni - t

[Poetlister]

Of course, any half-competent editor would have stopped him repeating himself.

[Bezdomni]

That's my fault, somehow, I remember I wasn't going to copy the last line.... thanks Tarantino

If he were not Peter Hitchens his talk-page access would have been cut by now.

[Bezdomni]

It appears that Mr. Hitchens has had talk page access removed now.