Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed O'Loughlin/Anonymous user comments

• Eleland's behaviour unconscionable:

  Having first attempted to censor the O'Loughlin biography by simple deletion- then Eleland tried to have it "sanitised" according to his own opinion by getting Admin Editor Manning to do his work for him.

  The best Manning could offer was that he had read O'Loughlin's articles and could find nothing objectionable about them. This is totally contrary to the Wikipedia philosophy, whereby personal opinion is not relevant. One would expect more of an Administrative editor.

  Then Eleland and Manning scoured the net and admitted that they "SADLY" could find nothing in O'Loughlin's favour.

  So they resorted to a "RfC" request for comments, hoping someone would come up with some evidence for O'Loughlin or some cogent argument against his critics. Still nothing!

  Now they are resorting to putting the article up for deletion on the basis of lies!

  I shall enumerate the way these crypto POV (point of view) pushers work below. 124.191.88.235 (talk) 02:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

  1. References put forward in criticism of O'Loughlin are NOT "obscure" as Eleland claims - they include "The Australian" a national newspaper, The Jerusalem Post another national newspaper, The website of a significant Lebanese Community group of Australia (hardly a pro-Israel source), and many well researched media monitoring publications. It is Eleland's technique (see his editing history on Israel issues) to pour scorn on quite reasonable references hoping no-one would notice or protest.
  2. The quote that Eleland falsely attributes to "Israel lobby" above: (repeated here):

     Ed O'Loughlin frequently puts Palestinian interpretations of events as the leads to his stories, with a paragraph much further down including a statement from an Israeli spokesperson. He also often uses language or interprets the news in ways critical of Israeli policies.

     Was rendered as:

     O'Loughlin deliberately structured his stories and chose his words so as to favour the Palestinian side in any dispute

     was ACTUALLY written by Administrative Editor Fluri (Dave) called in to adjudicate the article. This was his summary of the assessment of O'Loughlin by media expert Fleischer

  3. The suggestion that this article is being used by pro-Israel activists with "an axe to grind" is false. The article IS in accord with Wikipedia guidelines for "undue weight":

     If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts

     Eleland CANOT demonstrate any references that O'Loughlin's work is of sound quality

     If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents

     Prominent adherents HAVE been demonstrated that O'Loughlin's work is unsound

     If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not

     Significant criticism from the Australian Jewish and Lebanese communities, international critics and transparent academic studies prove that the viewpoint is not in this category.

     Eleland is lying when he makes the above claims.

  4. There is a deeper concern about Eleland. His use of the term the Jewish (or Pro-Israel) lobby is obnoxious. Where is the evidence he has of any conspiratorial or even co-operative pro-Israel activity? In any case the claim against O'Loughlin is not that he is anti-Israel , but that his work is unequal its treatment.124.191.88.235 (talk) 03:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Moreover there is evidence that Eleland is a pro-Palestinian activist. His editing of articles (such as the Caterpillar Inc., The Erekat article etc, etc article) suggests dubious motives on his part and should exclude him from this part of Wikipedia, as he is IMPOSING his own opinion on it!124.191.88.235 (talk) 03:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed there is a very deep concern that Eleland's modus operandi stinks to high heaven! Even a cursory appraisal of his edits shows that he cruises articles pertaining to the Arab Israel conflict frequently and erroneously questioning the validity and veracity of any pro-Israel statements, then in a capacity of Wikipedia Admin editor he systematically disallows them. There is a name for this unilateral behaviour... and we all know what it is, Eh Eleland?! Eleland the people reading this will know who you are. They know what you are doing to the O'Loughlin article as well.

• Please assume good faith. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 12:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Initially I assumed good faith. But after experiencing first hand the behaviour of eleland, entering into detailed discussion exchanges with him, and studying his past editing performance, I saw something quite disturbing. Why don't you have a close look at the discussion pages for this article and also check out eleland's performance on anything Arab Israeli in Wikipedia? 124.191.88.235 (talk) 13:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• • • Comment in reply to some of the above: I'll ignore most of it, of course. But the "Lebanese Community of Australia (hardly a pro-Israel source)" is simply the political organization of Michel Aoun's Free Patriotic Movement in Australia. Thus, the fact that it objected to O'Loughlin's characterization of Aoun as a "coup leader", in reference to his actions in January 1990 is not terribly remarkable, nor does it define the position of "the Australian Lebanese community," despite the IP's claims. <eleland/talkedits> 18:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Eleland! Glad to have you back on deck. Pity you still miss the point, vide supra. For your benefit I'll make it again. It is something of a partisan approach for O'Loughlin to characterize a Lebanese Christian seeking to throw off the oppressive yoke of Syrian occupation as a "coup leader". Naturally, Australian Lebanese Christians would feel aggrieved as they see him as a patriot. I'm not surprised that Eleland debases and derides the Lebanese Christian community when it disagrees with his more "authoritative" sources i.e. those that fit in with his opinion, "of course". Argumentum ad verecundiam - quite poor, Eleland, quite poor. And remember this, Eleland, Lebanese Christians are not Jews, they are an important part of the Australian Lebanese community, and dear Eleland, they have on record that Ed O'Loughlin is a biased reporter http://www.ualm.org.au/articles.php?article=73. I invite readers to see for themselves124.191.88.235 (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC).

124.191.88.235 21:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• The United Australian Lebanese Movement is the Aussie branch of Aoun's FPM. From their "About Us" page, "The UALM is and will always be an integral part of the world wide movement aiming to free Lebanon. This world wide movement is known in Lebanon as ' Al tayar al watany al hor' which translates into ' The Free Patriotic Movement' led by General Michel Aoun," and it goes on to praise him in hyperbolic terms. <eleland/talkedits> 21:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for translating the Arabic for us. Oh. it was on the UALM website anyway for us all to read.

So, let me get this straight, Eleland, - O'loughlin is predominantly published in Australia, large sections of the Australian Jewish community, sectors of the Australian Lebanese community, Members of Parliament, international commentators, media scholars and others, are all scandalised by the poor quality of O'Loughlin's journalism - but you, Eleland, are going to stop this "conspiracy" appearing in the Wikipedia even if you have to deceive and nit-pick your obsessive self all the way to oblivion. Pathetic! 124.191.88.235 (talk) 00:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of that old hoary chestnut, the "Israel Lobby", you wouldn't expect a 'pro-Palestinian' lobby group to expose the dishonesty of a blatantly 'pro-Palestinian' lobbyist like O'Loughlin, would you? Is the person suggesting that there is something sinister about a group of people lobbying for Israel a la notorious anti-Semitic forgery "The Protocols of the Elder of Zion"? Why are these people not even making an attempt to justify the work of this journalist who consistently imparts a totally one sided message in contavention of normal journalist standards of fair and honest reporting?

On the subject of Honest Reporting - this organisation was formed in 2000 i.e. before Wikipedia was even dreamed about. The claim that it recruits people to advocate for Israel on Wikipedia is sheer nonsense. HR operates to expose those journalists who abuse the standards of honesty expected among their profession.

It seems to me that much of the above argument doesn't address the issue at hand - is this article a fair representation, or not?

The article as it stands is well-balanced and a reasonably accurate representation of this controversial figure (O'Loughlin), his job description and his apparent inability to separate commentary from journsalism.

The observation has been made that Ed O'Loughlin is reflexively anti-Israel and anti-American. O'Loughlin is the subject of regular discussion in two well-considered Australian blogs: The Blank Pages of the Age (similar to sites trying to keep the Washington Post and New Tork Times fair and honest) and Tim Blair (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Blair). Two particular references to O'Loughlin are http://theblankpagesoftheage.blogspot.com/2007/10/essential-ed-oloughlin-companion.html, and http://timblair.net). Arnold Roth's critique in ICJS http://www.icjs-online.org/index.php?article=923 alone is a powerful indication of the depth of feeling raised in moderate observers by O'Loughlin.

Given that the biography as presently printed appears fair and unexceptionable, it should not be subject to consideration for deletion - nor even shown as considered by some to be biased.

George 124.190.248.65 (talk) 00:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• O'Loughlin's reportage IS scandalous, this is the thrust of the article in the Australian Newspaper referred to in the biography, this is the response of the Australian Lebanese community, this is the assessment of the Australian Jewish community, this has found international recognition through articles by intellectuals editors like Bret Stephens and David Singer and this is also confirmed through media monitoring groups like HonestReporting.com

  O'Loughlin is notable for his partisan advocacy. It is highly dubious for opinionated editors like Eleland to attempt to block this truth. One wonders about Eleland's real motivation. 124.191.88.235 (talk) 00:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Probable sockpuppetry and/or WP:SPA disruption

• • • • Various people (including myself) have indicated here that the article be kept and why. Their opinions have just been wiped or delegated arbitrarily to a secondary page. This page is not a genuine discussion but a set-up policed by a clique of "Wiki pseudonyms" (some or all of whom might be the same individuals) who manipulate the outcome. Opinions the clique does not want, are deleted. If the same is attempted in retaliation, the editor is threatened with banishment. I've no doubt that THIS very comment will be wiped similarly. This whole page for deletion of the Ed O'Loughlin article is a construct of Admin editor Eleland. A study of his edits, shows that in a sample of twenty sequential cases in articles to do with th Arab Israeli conflict, in each case, he has taken the Anti-Israel position without exception. I can enumerate these cases and others. Such an individual is not a person to be deciding the issue of deleting the Ed O'Loughlin article. I wish to issue a complaint to the Administration of Wikipedia regarding this Kafkaesque system that exists in Wikipedia. When Googlepedia comes it will wipe you off the internet if you don't address this problem. Best Regards to Eleland, Crotalus or whatever you call yourself. 124.191.88.235 (talk) 20:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

C1818 (talk) 12:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)I agree with the above. This whole issue has gone far beyond discussion of Mr O'Loughlin's biography. We have here a case in which the editorial practices of a Wikipedia official, Eleland, are in question. If Wikipedia's integrity is to be protected - and it must be - it is an extremely valuable and influential resource, Eleland's editorial practices must first be addressed, before further action on the O'Louglin article. This writer seeks guidance from Wikipedia officials as to where this matter must go next. There is a huge amount riding on the outcome of this, including the credibility of Wikipedia itself. This is a serious matter, and should not be simply relegated to the "excessive influence" of the "Jewish Lobby (TM)" as Eleland might claim. Incidentally I was flagged as a supposed single purpose editor - possibly an attempt to demean my comments on Mr O'Loughlin. I am new to Wikipedia but certainly intend to contribute widely. Time permitting I may next write something on synthesis and electron transport mechanisms in polypyrole p-toluene sulphonate as well as other topics - I have already initiated an article on necrophores. Incidentally, the format and structure of quoted comments on Wikipedia needs to be revised. It is very difficult to follow who edited what content in discussion. May I suggest discussion pages be formatted in a way similar to email or Usenet News whereby there is a hierarchy of quote marks to indicate who said what. C1818

• • • • My contribution to this discussion has been moved, so I respectfully re-post it: my point is that much of the argument we have had doesn't address the issue at hand - is this article a fair representation, or not?

The article as it stands is well-balanced and a reasonably accurate representation of this controversial figure (O'Loughlin), his job description and his apparent inability to separate commentary from editorialising and opinion pieces.

There are many references to the statement that:

• • O'Loughlin's reporting has received criticism from media commentary groups [1] and the Australian Jewish and Lebanese [2] communities who have accused him of unfair journalistic practices.

These references appear in the article itself, and in a number of highly ranked Australian blogs: The Blank Pages of the Age, and Tim Blair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Blair). Two particular references to O'Loughlin are http://theblankpagesoftheage.blogspot.com/2007/10/essential-ed-oloughlin-companion.html, and http://timblair.net). Arnold Roth's critique in ICJS http://www.icjs-online.org/index.php?article=923 alone is a powerful indication of the depth of feeling raised in moderate observers by O'Loughlin.

Indeed, the argument could mbe made that O'Loughlin is reflexively anti-Israel and anti-American. That is impossible to prove. But the article simply says that he has been heavily criticsed, a proposition that is unarguable, with sufficient evidence having been given to that effect. Accordingly, the biography as presently printed should certainly not be subject to consideration for deletion.

Georgeaz (talk) 11:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Claims are not validated simply by accumulation

I think a few things need to be sorted out here.

It is something of a partisan approach for O'Loughlin to characterize a Lebanese Christian seeking to throw off the oppressive yoke of Syrian occupation as a "coup leader". Naturally, Australian Lebanese Christians would feel aggrieved as they see him as a patriot.

1) Since his return to Lebanon, Michel Aoun has signed a memorandum of understanding with Hezbollah, which has placed him at odds with the anti-Syrian March 14 alliance. That means that even the Lebanese Maronite community, from which Aoun draws the bulk of his personal support, is divided between his party and the parties in the March 14 bloc, most notably the Phalange and the Lebanese Forces. This division among Lebanese Maronites is a long-standing one and certainly reflected in the Australian Maronite community:

http://www.ouwet.com/n10452/critiques/how-low-can-aoun-get/

http://www.ouwet.com/n10452/critiques/what-would-aoun-do/

http://www.generalaoun.org/aust6.html

http://www.beirut-diary.com/?p=16

This makes talk of Aoun “seeking to throw off the oppressive yoke of Syrian occupation” demonstrably POV. Australian Lebanese Christians do not, as the initial remarks suggest, all see Aoun in the same way. And even those who do see him as a patriot are again in POV territory.

2) Ed O’Loughlin is referring, when he describes Aoun as a coup leader, to the events of the early 90s. If a military officer appointing a military administration without national consultation is not a coup, I would like to know how it is to be described, since on this understanding Pervez Musharraf may not be a coup leader either. It should be noted that one of Aoun’s chief supporters in his attempted coup was that champion of Lebanese liberty, Saddam Hussein.

3) The other point that the UALM objected to in Ed O’Loughlin’s report was that Aoun does not enjoy wide support. In a parliament of 128 seats, his Free Patriotic Movement (of which the UALM is simply the Australian branch, so it is definitely partisan on this matter) has 14 seats. Whatever the UALM may think, O’Loughlin is again reporting a fact. The Phalange and Lebanese Forces and al-Ahrar (Liberals), who also draw their votes from Lebanon’s Maronite community, have 11 seats between them. Other Christians vote for other parties, such as the Syrian Social Nationalist Party (Greek Orthodox) and the Tashnag (Armenian Orthodox).

And remember this, Eleland, Lebanese Christians are not Jews, they are an important part of the Australian Lebanese community, and dear Eleland, they have on record that Ed O'Loughlin is a biased reporter

The UALM (despite its grand title) does not represent all Australia’s Lebanese Christians. That there is “controversy” (ie. complaints from an interested party in the dispute) about Ed O’Loughlin’s reporting may be sufficient to label it “controversial”, but it is not in and of itself proof of bias. That could only be demonstrated by citing prima facie instances in O’Loughlin’s actual reporting. The two points at which the UALM detects bias do indeed demonstrate bias – its own.

O'loughlin is predominantly published in Australia, large sections of the Australian Jewish community, sectors of the Australian Lebanese community, Members of Parliament, international commentators, media scholars and others, are all scandalised by the poor quality of O'Loughlin's journalism

That people say they are scandalised is not proof that there is a scandal. Again, bias has to be empirically demonstrated, it cannot simply be asserted by reference to those who say they detect it. Large sections of the Australian Jewish community have, so to speak, a dog in this fight. Ed O’Loughlin is not Arab or Jewish. He is Irish.

What is more, that a paradigm of the Arab-Israeli conflict has great reach internationally among supporters of Israel does not make it self-evidently true. I am sure that large sections of the world community were scandalised by the “reports” of Galileo and Darwin too. And no, this is not to imply that Ed O’Loughlin is doing work of similar importance to those men.

There is a deeper concern about Eleland. His use of the term the Jewish (or Pro-Israel) lobby is obnoxious. Where is the evidence he has of any conspiratorial or even co-operative pro-Israel activity? In any case the claim against O'Loughlin is not that he is anti-Israel , but that his work is unequal its treatment.

In many of the quarters cited a moment ago, the claim against O’Loughlin most certainly is that he is anti-Israel. So any argument that cites such sources will need to address that issue. As for co-operative pro-Israel activity, there is evidence that letters of complaint written to The Age have been based on a single supplied template. As Ed O’Loughlin himself has pointed out, the Australian Press Council (which also does not have a dog in this fight) has cleared him of accusations of bias in more than one instance. It has never made a finding of bias against him.

O'Loughlin is the subject of regular discussion in two well-considered Australian blogs: The Blank Pages of the Age (similar to sites trying to keep the Washington Post and New Tork Times fair and honest) and Tim Blair (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Blair). Two particular references to O'Loughlin are http://theblankpagesoftheage.blogspot.com/2007/10/essential-ed-oloughlin-companion.html, and http://timblair.net). Arnold Roth's critique in ICJS http://www.icjs-online.org/index.php?article=923 alone is a powerful indication of the depth of feeling raised in moderate observers by O'Loughlin.

I am afraid that “moderate” is a POV term, as is “well-considered”. Wilbur Post (the single person who runs The Blank Pages of The Age, a blog that basically takes The Age to task for not reflecting his biases) routinely posts entries that generate no comment whatsoever or one or two comments to the tune of “you tell 'em Wilbur!”. On the few occasions that his posts attract more than a handful of responses, it is usually a sign that someone has taken issue with his claims:

http://theblankpagesoftheage.blogspot.com/2006/09/whos-on-first.html

http://theblankpagesoftheage.blogspot.com/2007/06/age-of-fairy-tales.html

Arnold Roth, meanwhile, freely admits that his view of the matter is driven by an agenda and that there are no factual inaccuracies he can detect in O’Loughlin’s reporting:

O'Loughlin's presentation isn't factually incorrect, at least not in obvious ways. But it's so partisan, so driven by a personal view of who's right and who's wrong in this conflict, that it qualifies as a showcase example of agenda-driven writing. Nothing wrong with that either. My wife Frimet and I also have an agenda - exposing terrorism and its overt and covert supporters.

Again, the claim of partisanship is not substantiated and does not come from a non-partisan source. The ICJS is run by pro-Israel advocates and features as one of its more strident writers Andrew Landeryou, a man demonstrably lacking in probity and arguably lacking in sanity. It also used to have a section entitled “Arafatuous Material”, which shows you the elevated standard of analysis.

Tzvi Fleischer, whose work is also cited with relation to O’Loughlin, works for AIJAC, the Australia-Israel & Jewish Affairs Council. No prizes for guessing which side he takes in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict either. In the house organ of AIJAC, the Australia-Israel Review, of which Mr Fleischer was editor last time I checked, when Ehud Olmert became Israeli Prime Minister he was described as having “won a mandate to govern” and his election was described as “a solid majority of Israelis flock[ing] to a more moderate worldview”. Mr Olmert won less than a quarter of the 120 seats in the Knesset. It would seem that the same number-crunchers who contend that Michel Aoun enjoys wide support are at work.

O'Loughlin's reportage IS scandalous, this is the thrust of the article in the Australian Newspaper referred to in the biography, this is the response of the Australian Lebanese community, this is the assessment of the Australian Jewish community, this has found international recognition through articles by intellectuals editors like Bret Stephens and David Singer and this is also confirmed through media monitoring groups like HonestReporting.com

All of the sources referred to here have a demonstrable record of pro-Israel partisanship, and from this perspective no doubt O’Loughlin does seem biased. The Australian is in commercial competition with The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald, so its view on the matter is not neutral or definitive either. Its position on Israel at the editorial level has long been unabashedly partisan towards that country.

Finally, there is no such thing as “the Australian Jewish community” which issues fatwa-like assessments of Ed O’Loughlin’s reporting. AIJAC is not a representative body, it is a lobby group. Unless they have additional sources beyond the UALM’s letter, the authors of these posts cannot claim to possess “the response of the Australian Lebanese community” (which includes Shia and Sunni Muslims, Druze and various Christian denominations) either, since the UALM represents only a single highly specific section of that community in its views on Michel Aoun. Apart from the UALM’s letter, I would be interested to know if The Age has received any other complaints in recent years from Lebanese Australian readers about Ed O’Loughlin’s coverage of Lebanon. If the authors of any of these posts can supply evidence of such complaints, I invite them to do so.