Talk:Andy Worthington

Could you please explain more fully...

Could you please explain more fully why you regard it as remarkable that Andy Worthington has not traveled to Guantanamo? Are you aware that there are very rich resources for historians, about Guantanamo, that do not require traveling there? Are you aware DoD has been forced to publish over 25,000 pages of documents about the Guantanamo captives?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Discussion of a specific article belongs on article-talk, not user-talk.
2. Worthington is a journalist as well as a historian. As event in Guantanamo are currently unfolding, it is not unreasonable to assume that he is acting more as a journalist in documenting these events than as a historian. A journalist would normally be expected to travel to the places they report on wherever feasible, rather than relying solely upon second or thirs hand accounts.
3. The source considered this relevant to discussion of Worthington's book, so I see no reason that we shouldn't.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• User:Hrafn writes: "A journalist would normally be expected to travel to the places they report on wherever feasible, rather than relying solely upon second or third hand accounts."

I suspect our challenger is unaware of how tightly scripted and controlled visits to Guantanamo are. The visit -- even of US Senators -- are basically like a Potemkin Village. Even US Senators -- even the flag officers conducting inquiries into brutality reports -- were not allowed any access to the captives. Carol Rosenberg of the Miami Herald is providing the best topical coverage of Guantanamo. But visits are of essentially zero value to those working on trying to chronicle the background of the captive population. No offense, but I think this challenge is simply not well founded. Geo Swan (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Self Promotion?

Is there any compelling reason why the reviews on Worthington's book is located in this article? It smacks of self promotion, and would be best left out of the article. If he wrote a book, leave that item, but remove the commentary. This is a not a review venue.Yachtsman1 (talk) 07:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

If Andy Worthington personally contributed any portion of this article he would fall under suspicion of a conflict of interest, and of self-promotion. Otherwise it is not "self-promotion" -- by definition.

When no-one has yet found enough material to create a standalone article on a book it is routine to cover material on the book in the article on its author. If you are ready to start an article on the book, please go ahead. I'll put it on my watchlist. Geo Swan (talk) 17:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

questionable edit...

I am concerned that this kind of comment lapses from policy. Who says it is "a liberal weblog"? Geo Swan (talk) 08:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

HuffPo describes itself as a liberal weblog. See The Huffington Post.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

[[The Huffington Post]] does not support your assertion. It does not say the Huffington Post describes itself as a liberal weblog. It merely calls it "liberal".

Where the wikipedia article on the Huffington Post calls it liberal, it cites a reference. An article by the Washington Post's commentator on media. He too does not claim the Huffington Post calls itself liberal. He merely calls it liberal.

Neither the wikipedia article, or Howard Kurtz's article, called it "a liberal weblog". Note: Online encyclopedia articles are not considered reliable sources -- even other wikipedia articles.

Note: It is important not to write from an Americo-centric point of view. The word "liberal" retains its original meaning in the rest of the Anglosphere. Geo Swan (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming that the Huffington Post, an American weblog by the way, is a liberal weblog, described as such, as you admit, by the Washington Post, another American publication, that no doubt was speaking to other Americans when such words were written. It is important to realize that when looking to source, one should not use relevativism to downplay its sigificance on the basis of an alleged difference in meaning in other areas. On this basis, as you have confirmed it is a liberal weblog, I have reverted your previous edit. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

{{Articleissues}} tag

An {{Articleissues}} tag was placed on this article in January 2009. It asserted that the tag placer had concerns over notability and primary source.

I believe all those concerns have been addressed, and plan to return to remove this tag after a reasonable period of time.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

done Geo Swan (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of EL

Another editor added an EL, that seems to me to be perfectly appropriate. Iquinn deleted it, without any rationale other than what appears to be POV. I added it back, agreeing w/the initial editor. Iquinn -- lacking consensus -- edit warred by adding it back. I have reverted, and would ask Iquinn not to edit war, and not to delete appropriate material without consensus (which he clearly lacked at the time of his last revert). Pls take that as a warning. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason to delete it.

The POV charge is ridiculous because it is Worthington's own POV. I found the link from Worthington's own site.

Take a look at the Guantanamo force feeding article. It has more ELs than information, and Iquinn himself has added to the ELs. This one hardly has any. I really don't see the issue.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 05:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

@Epeefleche, your should check the facts before making false accusations and you should follow WP:BRD.

1) "Iquinn deleted it, without any rationale other than what appears to be POV." False.

I did not remove the link because of this. Where did you get this crap form? Any diffs? What is up with you coming in here edit warring without understanding anything and to threaten other editors before even a discussion has started? What is up with you?

"Pls take that as a warning."

Discuss in a civil way and cut the crap.

2) My edit summary: "there are thousands of other links that fit EL - i do not see any reason to choose this one. Please explain on the talk page"

So tell us the reason?

@Randy almost the same for you. Check at least your facts before making false accusations.

1) Who said that link is POV? You have any diff or you better take in consideration to apologies.

2) So for you the same question. That you have not answered. What is the reason for the link? That you find it on his website is not a reason there are hundreds of other links as well.

3) What have the number of links in Guantanamo force feeding to do with that? Is that your justification? (by the way these links in that article are references to information that have not been covered in that article.) "Iqinn added links to other articles so do i" ??? I do not think that this here is the right place to discuss other articles and that can not be your justification, right? So tell us the reason for the link here. He has given countless interviews with many organisation. As Antiwar radio, Democracy now... and and... (there are dozens of other links more important than that one) so why do you think that your link is the most important. EL says the link should be kept the links to a minimum. So tell us instead of attacking other editors and edit warring. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 07:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

If it's not POV then I have no idea what your problem is. I would certainly understand if we were heavy with ELs, and had to choose which to keep. We only have three, and they're all directly to his published work.

This differs from the refs in that it is an audio link. I hope to add video links, too. This one is a basic topic for Worthington. That's what external links are supposed to be for

-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree w/Randy. As to Iquinn's edit, his edit summary speaks for itself. As to civility, I know of no more civil way to warn Iquinn, though if he prefers the template warning I can leave that for him. I also wonder whether it might be possbile for him to be slightly more civil in his communications on this page -- much appreciated. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

@Epeefleche and Randy your edit summaries speak for yourself the edit history on this page and this discussion and other terror suspect BLP's. I personalty think it borders almost "hate speech". But this is simply my personal opinion. And well Epeefleche you broke WP:BRD 2 times and then starts threatening me for no reason. Ridiculous. Well that has become your edit history. You did not answer my questions regarding the content issue. So i guess you think because you and Randy have the same POV entitle you to not discuss in a civil way and to instead threaten other people? Well then that is your history then. Best.

@Randy, The problem is that there are many other audio links that seems to be more important than this one. So why prefer this audio link over the others? IQinn (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

There may be better audio files. Perhaps you've noticed Wikipedia is big enough to accommodate more than one. We can discuss which ones to get rid of when we have too many. We're not there yet.

I don't dispute that I have personal opinions. Nevertheless, this link doesn't disparage Worthington in any way other than revealing his position on these matters. It obviously puts him beside Begg but that's also simply illustrative of his position on the issue. Amnesty International is there, too. There are no "gotchas" or anything else that he'd personally think of as embarrassing at this point in time.

If you hadn't listened to it, this was Worthington giving a general presentation to a general audience. It's perfectly suited to this article.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

"There may be better audio files." You have any objection when i add other audio links to the EL section? IQinn (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Why would I? I never have any objection when it fits the same parameters I've set for my own edits.

And whenever we do have too many, I don't mind removing this one if you can find better.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You might have found that WP:POINT when i just added more links to audio files. Just want to make sure you won't take it the wrong way. I just have seen a lot of these links and some good ones. Andy Worthington is very outspoken. So i am going to add them when i come across them and of course you can have a look we can discuss when that leads to to many links in that section. IQinn (talk) 09:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem for me as long as we don't endorse his POV. He only gets funnier when he's the most outspoken.

At this point, it isn't so much educational as historical. Those who might be swayed by claims that he supposedly opposes torture have already swallowed that general line long ago.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not think that but as more i read what you write the funnier it gets for me. Sorry but this "At this point, it isn't so much educational as historical. Those who might be swayed by claims that he supposedly opposes torture have already swallowed that general line long ago." does not really make sense. Anyway, i think that might be irrelevant. IQinn (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Iquinn -- I hope I misunderstood you, because at first reading it struck me that you might be engaging in a personal attack. I haven't engaged in hate speech, or anything that could reasonably be considered such, and I kindly request that you not personally attack me with false scurrilous personal accusations of such a heinous nature. If you prefer that I call this a request, rather than a warning, I'm happy to oblige.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
• Epeefleche -- is this an attempted to draw the attention away from the fact that you personally attacked me and you violated WP:BRD here in this article? How about an apology for that? Eppefleche - this is not an accusation nor an attack on you it is my personal opinion that i am free to express. In my view the articles i named border hate speech. Regards IQinn (talk) 09:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You are free to have your personal opinions, but you are not free to make false scurrilous personal accusations of such a heinous nature based on them. Similarly, you should not delete content from articles based on your POV.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You should not edit war and you should not make false accusations and you should not attack other editors based on false accusations. It has been shown that your claims are all simply wrong. As said that is think that the articles i named border hate speech is not an personal attack. Best. IQinn (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Andy Worthington. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.andyworthington.co.uk%2Fabout-me%2F&date=2009-01-05 with https://web.archive.org/web/20080506181046/http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/about-me/ on http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/about-me/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/books/article/541216
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cageprisoners.com/about-us/people

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)