Talk:Norman Lowell/Archive 1

Archive 1

Vandalism

If you're contemplating labelling Norman Lowell as a "racist", "neo-nazi", "white supremacist" etc, I'm going to quote from Wikipedia's Naming Conventions page:

"When naming or writing an article about specific people or specific groups always use the terminology which those individuals or organizations themselves use." Drew88 19:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

---

I doubt the neutrality of the article. Certain statements such as

"An official enquiry about the protest concluded that the protest was not peaceful and the Maltese soldiers were justified for the use of force. The enquiry found out the illegal immigrants involved in the violent protest had been denied refugee status and where to be deported." are incorrect. In fact the report states that certain actions by the Maltese soldiers where unproprionate, refering to the action of a particular soldier Maltesedog 14:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Please let me know what else you find biased, and I'll do my best to edit it. --Drew88 15:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Please stop using Wikipedia for propaganda

This article was originally a propaganda exercise for Lowell and his Imperium Europa political party. I am trying to balance it by inserting other documented and sourced facts, some of which are admittedly not favourable to Lowell. There are many other contributions I intend to make, such as Lowell's habitual reference to Jews as 'Rodents' and his vitriolic attacks on all those who do not agree with him.

There is then the famous statement, made publicly on Smash TV, that Imperium Europa will colonise Mars!!!! (honest, he really said 'Mars') --Avel2 08:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Avel2

All the sources are now added to the article, and personally I don't see any biasses at all. By the way, you mention Lowell wanting to colonize Mars as if it were a laughing matter. Funny how people criticize Lowell's ideas, claiming that he's crazy and what not because he wants to create an Empire and colonize Mars, as if these were bizarre ideas! See: Roman Empire, British Empire, Colonization of Mars and Space colonization.

Drew88 13:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

My views

Permit me to enter into the picture of the case regarding Norman Lowell. I have been contributing to the Wikipedia on articles concerning Malta for years now.

Permit me to make the following reflections:

- An article has been created on this person, who was not even elected in Parliament. (Fine.)

- The content of the article is longer than the content of other articles of politicians, such as Edward Fenech Adami and Alfred Sant.

- As far as I know he was not employed with BOV but with another bank

- The information in the article has no "citations". Very dubious statements

- Whats the importance of certain items such as the carrying of the sword?

These notes are solely a personal reflection on the article. Maltesedog 11:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Question one: as you said, that's fine, especially since Lowell is now an infamous figure.
• Question two: You only mentioned articles of Maltese politicians.
• Question three: I don't know anything about that issue, that's why I added the "citation needed."
• Question four: Which statements are you referring to?
• Question five: I have no idea, and I don't even know whether it's true, hence the "citation needed."

Drew88 12:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

In reply to your above comments may I correctly analyse the following:

• Question two - I mentioned the articles of the two most important personalities in Malta. You described Mr Lowell as infamous, why should he have a longer article.

• Question three

Examples include - Refers to Muammar al-Gaddafi as "il-kulunell purcinell" (the clown colonel), The Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition and Leader of the Green Party recently "Declared War" on Norman Lowell. Refers to the Malta drydocks as "tal-patchwik" - stating that the English Navy built them as a first-stop repair center for their ships, and not as fully fledged dockyards. The whole article is based on facts which are not documented in anyway (apart from a fw references).

• What is the point of including statements which are dubious? They could be hoax.

Maltesedog 13:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Well, that's what wikipedia's all about. You can't just delete anything that's not cited, unless of course it's vandalism, although in this case some edits are arguably vandalism...but, ya know...if I delete them people would argue that I'm only adding "positive" info on Lowell and that I'm using wikipedia to propagate his movement etc...

--- Anon msg

• I would even dare to say that Norman Lowell should not have an article on wikipedia. Maltesedog 16:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, I can see that. Even the ANR spokespeople have an article, how about you nominate those for deletion also? This article will never be deleted, because people care more about Norman Lowell that any other Maltese politician, and I could give you a citation for that too, because it's a fact.

Drew88 09:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

re-add of employment

So, post AfD, .. it seems like we should discuss some of these topics here, such as: "please don't re-add the following topics without (a) citing sources or (b) discussing on the talk page: 1. bank employment 2. colonization of mars 3. attributed quotes etc.. ". I am using this latest edit as an example, I don't have an opinion on whether it should be re-added, I am just thinking of how other controversial articles manage these things. 「ѕʀʟ·✎」 15:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

slander

Most of the content here is plain slander and unfactual. most factual items have been taken out of context.

one example of slander is him being dismissed as a bank manager which certainly was not true.

the facts as from Norman Lowell's own mouth are:

I am referred to as "dismissed from the bank". I was not, I resigned for a better job. This is common knowledge and a fact that come out in the records of the case. Also, not a penny went missing from the bank. Simply, an Italian used my signature to perpetrate fraud in Italy, that's all.

Where and when did he say that? Source please. Drew88 05:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Biased editing

I am astonished that one person (Drew88) has been able to fight off any efforts to modify wording and adjust content in an article that is undoubtedly one of the most biased I have encountered on Wikipedia. If anyone is interested, please see the changes of mine he reverted and described as "vandalism". As I saw, astonishinh.

I am not interested in making this article biased AGAINST the subject but I must say - it seems Lowell is what most would consider a "crank" and at the moment this reads like he is a politician who is taken seriously and has considerable influence.

He undoubtedly isn't. For example, until I came along and made some edits, the article reads as if:

(a) there had been a concerted effort to "ban" him from the mainstream media, as opposed to the more likely situation that he had simply been ignored due to lack of notability; and

(b)he had enjoyed success in Euro elections when in fact he only secured a fraction of a percentage of the votes cast in Malta.

We can do better than this - just because this person is significant, a propaganda effort in his favour is surviving on Wikipedia. Lets add some balance. I have no interest in having this article deleted but I suspect that may be where this ends up. --SandyDancer 11:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your interest. Please note that I am not in any way affiliated with Norman Lowell or his political party, nor am I a supporter or sympathizer. Yet, I do believe that, like other articles on wikipedia, it should be free from any bias. I will doubtless reword anything that is defamatory (statements such as "far-right", "largely ignored" etc will be instantly deleted, since these are sheer personal opinions.), as per Wikipedia's policy.

EDIT: Regarding the two points you mentioned:

a) The sourced article states that he was banned, even though it's "more likely situation that he had simply been ignored due to lack of notability." Find a source to prove your argument.

b) You are right about this one.

Drew88 16:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for taking a constructive approach and accepting I was correct to edit the bit about the election result. I also accept I am wrong to say he was largely ignored by the media - clearly not the case.

However I thought my changes to the intro were a start at trying to give more of a flavour of what Lowell represents and what he is, so to speak. I accept my edits may not be the right way to do this BUT I think your reversion of these wholesale leaves us with something of a whitewash.

I can't help but think from your editing on Wiki, despite your protestations to the contrary that you are a supporter of Lowell - fine. From what I've read, I certainly am not!! However - if you do support him for what he is and what he represents, you shouldn't be afraid of a fair and balanced intro that presents in an intelligible and efficient manner where he falls on the political spectrum in a way that people can relate to. Currently it doesn't. I'll back off and come back and edit the intro in a bit - but maybe it would be better if you did this first? That way we don't get edit warring. --SandyDancer 16:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I've come back to this article today and reassessed the situation. What we have here is a page about an extremely controversial, but also rather insignificant, individual who has run in one election with little success. The article reads badly and appears to be "owned" by one user who even went so far as to tag the top of the article so as to deter edits. At present, anyone reading this article would be frankly baffled. Upon reading the few citation links, some of which are from far right websites, they would soon feel that the article hadn't adequately presented them with a picture of Lowell. --SandyDancer 21:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Merger of Imperium Europa and Viva Malta into this article

I am also proposing that the page on "Imperium Europa" be merged into this article - "Imperium Europa" appears to simply be the name chosen for Norman Lowell's election campaign in 2004, and although I am not denying it may well still exist as far as he and his supporters are concerned, we have been presented with no evidence of any real party structure independent of Lowell.

To use an analogy, Katie Price ran under the banner "For a Bigga and Betta Future" in the 2005 UK General Election, but that's a red link. Imperium Europa should be too.

If more evidence was needed, the website for Imperium Europa even serves as an advertisement for Lowell's own artworks. It seems to be more or less a personal homepage, perhaps representing his ambition to form a political movement and party. It can be discussed here, in the page about him (which I do not propose deleting).

The same applies to Viva Malta, for the same reasons.

--SandyDancer 22:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Imperium Europa is a political party, Norman Lowell is a person. If anything, I'd propose to merge Viva Malta and Imperium Europa, since they are more or less the same thing.

Drew88 07:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you please present some evidence that Imperium Europa actually exists as a political party in the conventional sense, and isn't just (a) the banner Lowell ran under in the 2004 EP election and (b) a website that is effectively a homepage for Lowell (which is a showroom for his artworks, among other things). --SandyDancer 11:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

SandyDancer

You're not even Maltese, how do you expect to correctly edit a page about a person who's only notable in Malta? Sure, you can rely on articles you find online, but as you may have noticed, pretty much all the media is against Norman Lowell and his party, for obvious reasons. There's even a website dedicated to "spreading the true agenda" or whatever : [1]. But of course, everything you read is only partially factual and mostly biased... and rightfully so, but such information has no place on wikipedia. Perhaps you'd be interested in writing a "criticism" section? That would make more sense.

On a side note, regarding the banning of Norman Lowell...it is well-known in Malta that Lowell was banned from the media, but unfortunately I could only find one source stating that. The person interviewed in the article is the editor of one of the most popular Maltese websites, www.maltafly.com, on which Lowell has been frequently made fun of.

Drew88 08:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"You're not even Maltese, how do you expect to correctly edit a page about a person who's only notable in Malta?"

Sorry, I forgot - you own this article. I note that previously someone who was from Malta tried to make this page less biased and you constantly reverted until he gave up.

"...you can rely on articles you find online, but as you may have noticed, pretty much all the media is against Norman Lowell and his party..."

Maybe that points to the fact he isn't notable enough for an article on Wikipedia? Are you suggesting deletion? If we allow an article which, by your own admission, is to be based purely on your original research, with links to other media outlets ignored because they aren't favourable, we clearly can't have a balanced article or one that is in any way appropriate for an encyclopedia.

"On a side note, regarding the banning of Norman Lowell...it is well-known in Malta that Lowell was banned from the media, but unfortunately I could only find one source stating that."

Fine. The assertion should be deleted. Your one and only source is a seemingly throwaway comment from someone that runs a fringe website - no evidence of any formal ban whatsoever.

I am sorry, but I am going to revert back to my edits as you have done absolutely nothing to argue against them.

I suggest you either present some valid arguments OR ask for mediation if you disagree. Please don't revert again.

I will also be removing the tag you have placed which clearly aims to discourage other editors.

--SandyDancer 11:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The "fringe website" you talk about is one of the most popular websites in Malta. Are you aware of that? No, because you're not Maltese.

Anyway, I'm not going to argue with you...I'm not gonna edit this article ever again, don't worry. I don't really care...

Cheers mate.

Drew88 12:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

My intention is not to stop you editing, purely to make you see this page is biased and that you shouldn't stop others trying to correct that.

I looked at Maltafly's entry on Wikipedia. It is a stub, created by you, solely linked to by articles about Norman Lowell which were also created by you. No other user has made any substantive edits to it.

I googled Maltafly. [2] The results brought up a mix of (1) Wikipedia and its mirrors, (2) references to it solely in the context of Norman Lowell and (3) miscellaneous porn sites.

I will be proposing Maltafly be deleted. --SandyDancer 12:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Whilst I agree with Sandy, I even had gone to extent of proposing rewriting of the article and temporary deletion from wikipedia. The suggestion failed, and I therefore I feel I was silenced on the argument. The article gives too much importance to a personality whose notability is disputable, considering that there's no article on Louis Galea for instance, who is surely a more important politician, being the Minister of Education in Malta Maltesedog 19:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Drew88 should have a look at a couple of Wikipedia guidelines such as Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Personal attacks, WP:3RR, Wikipedia:Notability. There is a H.U.G.E. amount of websites which are MUCH more popular than MF.com and which are not here - why? Because this is not their place. This is not a collection of definition or links. It's an encyclopedia. There are Harry Potter fansites which are so huge that they attract millions of hits per day and yet they're not here. Why? Because this ain't their place. If you can't get that into your head than this is not a place for you either. Enjoy your NPA warnings. _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 19:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

RFC

I've posted an RFC for this article over at WP:RFC/POLITICS. Perhaps we could get some broader input. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent idea Maltesedog 11:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed --SandyDancer 11:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I am relatively new to Wikipedia, but from the policies I've read, and from skimming this talk page, I think the following must be obeyed.

• If labeling him something, and saying that is a fact, it must be something he agrees to.
• If stating accusations, quote other sources, and don't just place your opinion. Don't say it is a fact, say it is an accusation made by a particular person or orginazation. State his stance on the accusation if he stated it.
• Do not place political propoganda, and do not speculated.
• Only state the facts

Try to find a compromise between the edits--Connor K. 20:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Connor! Welcome to Wikipedia. I am new too.

Of course I agree with some of what you say, but I want to stress that I absolutely do not agree with the statement "If labeling him something, and saying that is a fact, it must be something he agrees to."

If that were the case, it would often be impossible to write informative and balanced articles about certain individuals, not least in the case of those who have been the centre of controversy.

I do agree that if someone categorically denies being something, then that denial should be referenced. But a generally held view which can be backed up with reputable sources should not be omitted because the subject themselves disagrees with it.

I appreciate you are coming to this article fresh, but previously it was almost useless in informing the reader about Lowell - many edits to the article which were backed up by fact were simply deleted by one user because he wanted to portray a view of Lowell that even the man himself and his mother probably wouldn't agree with! --SandyDancer 21:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I understand Connor's point about labelling. We can't say "Lowell is a racist" unless he identifies himself as one. However, we can say "Lowell is considered a racist by reliable source XXX and reliable source YYY; Lowell, on the other hand, labels himself a racialist." Or something like that (I don't know if either of those are true or accurate.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. --SandyDancer 07:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly what I meant. When i said that you had to state it as an accusation, what i meant was lable it less as a "fact" and more of a statement made by source XXX or source YYY. I understand what you meant when you said it would not be balanced if he had to agree. I did not mean you only could post information if the topic agrees with it. I meant that it shouldn't be an opinion and it should definately have a cited source. (by the way, i'm not on my computer, this is Connor, so my sig won't be my normal one. ---151.188.0.235

Nazi Watch Malta

According to Wikipedia's reliable sources policy:

Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking.

A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

Drew88 11:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Two points:

1. The link isn't to a post on a bulletin board, usenet, a wiki or a message left on a blog. So this guideline is inapplicable.

2. In any event, the website isn't being used as a source or reference - it is merely in the "External Links" section. There is a difference. The fact that the authors of the content are not named is irrelevant - no statements of fact in the article rely on this site as their source so the reliability is a moot point.

I am restoring the link again for a second time on this basis. --SandyDancer 11:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI, here is the guideline about External Links, as opposed to sources: Further Reading/External Links. You will note this section makes it clear that links in this section and those used as references are distinct - and rightly so. The test for inclusion seems to be "links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader". I think this passes that test - it is a site set up specifically in opposition to Mr Lowell, which actually helps assert his notability. --SandyDancer 12:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

And if you need any more convincing, here is the page for the British National Party - which includes here similarly critical websites. --SandyDancer 12:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The websites listed on the BNP page are neither anonymous, nor personal websites. The External links policy clearly states:

Links normally to be avoided:

A page that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

And the Reliable sources policy clearly states:

A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

Not only is MNP a personal website, it's also blatantly anonymous. Still, I'm going to wait for your reply before editing. Perhaps I misunderstood something. Drew88 17:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The guidelines on sources you are quoting don't apply here - it doesn't matter whether or not the website is "anonymous" or a "personal site" because it isn't being used a source for any of the facts in the article. It is merely listed as an external link.

Moving on, the guidelines you quote here regarding External Links are clearly relevant. But I don't think any of them mean we should include this page. It isn't merely "inaccurate material or unverified original research" - in fact if you look at the site, it links to various sources including Times of Malta etc. And in any case it is an opinion based site. Again, if anything on this website was being used to back up statements in the Wikipedia article, that would be an issue. But it isn't. --SandyDancer 17:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

How exactly aren't they applicable, if the External Links policy clearly states that "A page that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, [should be avoided]"? Drew88 18:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Because this website isn't used as a source. You aren't reading what I am writing correctly. The guidelines on Reliable Sources don't apply.

This website is clearly of interest to the reader - it shows that Lowell is a controversial figure and someone involved in ongoing political activism, which draws opponents. I just don't see what your problem with the link is - its not like its content is endorsed just because it is linked to here, just as the content of the Imperium Europa website isn't endorsed either.

If you have a real problem with it I suggest you ask an admin to get involved because if you revert again you will breach the 3RR rule. --SandyDancer 18:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Sources and links generally

Attempts have been made to use (1) posts on discussion boards in Maltese and (2) posts on discussion boards you can't access without registering for the board as sources for facts stated on this article. This definitely does run counter to (a) common sense and (b) Wiki guidelines on sources. So I removed them. --SandyDancer 22:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC) An attempt was also made to restore a link to a website called "The Lowellist" which previously just showed a "you've been hacked" message and now doesn't work at all. So I removed it. --SandyDancer 22:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Do you think we should keep the Nazional, sorry, National Vanguard links as well? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Personally, no, I think they should be removed - apart from in "External Links" - because Lowell is a contributor to the site and that's a notable fact about him and is useful. In so far as extreme-right racist nonsense can ever be useful, that is. --SandyDancer 22:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

But apparently liberal anti-freedom of speech nonsense such as that promoted by Malta Today can be useful, right?

Anyway, I added the link to the forum in which Lowell states that he's "a strong libertarian." I think it's a very valid source because a) It's the official forum of the party b) the piece is actually the statement attached to the suit of yesterday's libel action, hence it was written by Norman Lowell himself, and c) The quotation was not translated, it's taken word for word in English; just do a quick search on the page.

And regarding "The Lowellist": the website does indeed work, I checked multiple times on multiple computers with different IP addresses. Drew88 04:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

So you are saying Viva Malta is the official page of the Imperium Europa party? That is contrary to what you have said previously. I agree that the Lowellist is still working, so good to add it. Do not agree that posts on discussion boards in Maltese are good sources. --SandyDancer 10:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Not "the" official page, but it's still an official website of the party.

Drew88 12:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Good work on fixing all the references. --SandyDancer 17:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. There's a repeated reference though (17 and 21), and I have no idea how to fix that. Perhaps you can figure it out.

Drew88 17:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Nazi watch Malta - supports ANR?

Where is the evidence for this? Having looked at the website there is not evidence it supports this "ANR" group? --SandyDancer 10:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed entirely evident that, not only is the intent of the website to propagate ANR, but the author of the website is also clearly an ANR member:

for example:

"Courageous ANR Says It As It Is: The ANR continues to gain respect by being the movement not bought or in unholy alliances with the establishment, as might indeed be the case with the Nazis of discredited Imperium Europa and laughing stock hate monger Nazi Norman."

The anti-Islam (or "Islamofascism") nature of the website also directly correlates with ANR's stance. Basically, the website's purpose is clearly to promote ANR's ideologies while concurrently belittling Imperium Europa. Isn't that evident to you? Usually, the media doesn't distinguish between the two far-right groups, but in this case, the webmaster makes it clear who he is supporting.

Drew88 11:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Such circumstantial evidence doesn't justify the description of you have added - that the website "promotes the ANR". I think its enough to say the website is critical of Lowell rather than speculate on whether or not they support another party and to what extent. I think you should revert those descriptions. They add nothing anyway, but as they aren't verified they have no place on Wikipedia. --SandyDancer 11:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

But they do promote ANR. It is not critical of Lowell either; it's aim is to belittle Lowell while promoting ANR ideologies by comparing the two. If you knew what their (ANR's) stance is, and if you read the Nazi Watch website, the aim is clear.

Drew88 12:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)