Talk:Jason Burke

edit war over coke-sniffing naked ping-pong

Someone named Nobbynob keeps deleting stuff from this quotation, which is clearly sourced, and that appears to be the only contribution he has ever made to wikipedia. Rather than continuing an eternal edit war over the issue, it should be discussed here. I added the next sentence of the quote to give it more context, but the fact is this quote may not be in line with WP:BLP policies. It is possibly that Nobbynob thinks he is enforcing the WP rule against potentially libelous claims, but it is my sense that Roger Hardy got that information from Burke's book itself. I haven't read the book, so I can't speak to that, at least not yet. If the claims cannot be sourced to the book, I agree the quote should be deleted. In general, however, I think even if it can be, it should not be the main thing in this article, as it is now. This is trivia, basically, and there should be a lot more notable information here -- like Burke's extremely influential theory of al-Qaeda as a notional rather than operational network (a theory that is frequently cited by counterterrorism experts and seems far more notable than his penchant for naked ping pong), or his extensive research into alleged Saddam/al-Qaeda ties -- he was instrumental in disproving the allegation that Ansar al-Islam constituted some kind of link between Saddam and al-Qaeda, in exposing key sources of the Bush Administration as now-notorious liars, and in substantiating the fact that Ansar al-Islam's alleged chemical weapon capability was laughable. All of this is more notable than the "odd sniff" of cocaine with American troops. There are many quotations, for example, about George W. Bush's well-known cocaine use - and it was far more than the "odd sniff" - yet there is not a word about his cocaine habit in the George W. Bush article. Not one word. In my estimation, Bush's coke use is far more notable than Burke's -- it was even a factor discussed during the 2000 election, and numerous reliable news sources published commentary about it -- yet it isn't even mentioned there. If it is to be mentioned at all here, it should not be front and center of the article like it is now (taking up fully one third of the article!)--csloat 20:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I just read Burke's posts on the talk pages of the users who keep inserting the New Statesman review. I will remove the quote as it violates WP:BLP, it is libelous, and, according to the author, there is nothing in the book confirming the allegation. Also, it is utterly non-notable. As I said above, there is no mention at all of the president's far more notable coke use; as far as I can tell, this particular allegation is not mentioned by anyone but a person who has never met Burke. It seems clear that this item keeps being inserted here for the sole purpose of undermining Burke's credibility, yet the author making the statement seems to have a high opinion of that credibility. If Burke parties naked with strippers and ping pong balls, that is trivia that is not relevant to why he is notable.--csloat 10:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, we don't know it is Jason Burke himself. If you look at the edits by Nobbynob and Jason Burke, they are identical. Even with the same grammar. It is curious that as soon as Nobbynob vanishes, "Burke" appears. Lets get real, this is so transparent. Have a look at this [1] and this [2]. These are directly the same type of edits. Also all the points put in are totally unsourced.

It in no way infringes WP:BLP The comment actually praises him. Only nobbynob and Burke seem to have a problem with it.

Even if it is the real Jason Burke, is it appropraite that he makes edits on his own page? Would it be right if Gerorge W. Bush or bin Laden did the same?

Also, what libel? The article is in the New Statesman. The quote is still there. If there is any problem it should be with Roger Hardy and the New Statesman. The fact is more than one person thinks it is suitable in wikipedia. If a wiki editor thinks it is a legal issues then fine. Furthermore, there is now a serious issue of Burke himself making the edits. The point of the quote was to talk about the all round person he was, not to do with any drug use. Therefore I am restoring it. Again Commodore, libel can only start with the New Statesman. We are using a quote from a reputable source and journalist and not stating it as fact.

Finally if the real Jason Burke has contacted wiki admin, we will hear about it and they themselves would say it is quoting from a direct source. Why has The New Statesman not changed it if it is libel? - Kratosky.

Quoting a reputable source does not get you off the hook when you have strong reason to believe the source is wrong. Please read WP:BLP (and you might want to read up on defamation laws if you're really interested in the legal issues at stake here -- repeating false rumors about criminal activity is one of the classic instances of actionable libel). But I'm not as concerned about the legal issues; for me the problems here are accuracy and notability. If there is nothing in Burke's book that substantiates the cocaine claim, where the hell did Hardy get it from? If there is something in the book that substantiates it, quote the book directly. If you didn't read the book yourself to find out, why are you so insistent on including second- or third-hand gossip from a book review? Take some time, read the book, and then put in the quote if it exists. In terms of notability, I don't see how any of it is notable. You say the point is to talk about "the all round person he was, not to do with any drug use" -- if so, why keep the incendiary drug abuse part in the quote? I also don't see why it is relevant that he plays ping pong naked or that he rides a motorcycle or listens to funk. Do we have such information about other reporters? I don't see anything about the vehicle Dan Rather drives or how much he drinks/smokes/etc. As I said above, even the George W. Bush article has no mention of drugs, yet it is well known that there was a huge controversy about his notorious coke addiction. Why should one rumor of "the odd sniff" be placed in here, when we have some evidence that Burke claims it is false?--csloat 20:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If I can enter in to this discussion. Roger Hardy is a very respectable journalist with BBC World Service, writing in New Statesman that has an established name. I don't think anyone is repeating false rumours. It's not as if it has been picked up from a blog or a biased unethical source. I don't think Roger Hardy would put out wrong information. And as Kratosky said, if it is incorrect, The New Statesman should and must remove it. This is not gossip. The point is it is part of an important paragraph about Burke and his character. You have to start from the beginning and work it to the end. It helps people decide if they want to read the book. I think it is notable and so it seems does Kratosky.

Hardy's claim is backed up by what is said in the Independent so you have a valid second source. You can't just quote one part of a bio, so motorbikes and funk are relevant and interesting. It also shows that Burke is a regular guy. If something was written about Rather, I'd support its inclusion.

If you believe that George W.Bush took drugs then find a credible source like the New Statesman or the Independent and add it. This is not rumour, it is a comment written in two sources. Again, we don't know that this is Jason Burke, Kratosky clearly illustrates that there is a total similarity between Nobbynob and "Jason Burke." I respect your comments Commodore Sloat but I can't see what the problems are with this.

If Jason Burke has been editing a page about himself then this is just like the staff of Norm Coleman, the senator from Minnesota. That is going to look very bad. So I hope that it is not Jason Burke. --Reem Butt

Let me get this straight. You're saying that Roger Hardy, who has never met nor interviewed Burke, is a better source of information about Burke's personal habits (and specifically about criminal activity) than Burke himself? That a sensational and patently libelous (yet otherwise entirely non-notable) claim about coke-sniffing and naked carrying on, that is unsourced in a book review, belongs in an encyclopedia entry? Again, if you find it in Burke's book, let's see it, but my sense is that neither of you has even bothered to read the book. Comments about Hardy's journalism are beside the point - this is a book review, not an investigation. Call Hardy yourself and ask him where the coke sniffing comment came from. And the article being edited here is an encyclopedia entry, not a book review, so it is irrelevant whether gossip about criminal actions "helps people decide if they want to read the book." As for Bush, many credible sources like the New Statesman wrote about his coke abuse, since it became an issue in the election. There was a section on that article about it and it was removed as non-noteworthy. I submit this one is far less noteworthy, as the only people making an issue out of it are on wikipedia. And you are wrong that Hardy's claim is backed up by a second source; the other review mentions nothing about cocaine or nudity. Look, I understand that coke-sniffing and table tennis and funk music are all part of this picture of him as a "regular guy," but I don't see how it is encyclopedic, and I do think it runs against specific rules in WP:BLP. Not every single comment that happens to be published in a newspaper or magazine is encyclopedic, and this is certainly one that is not.--csloat 23:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Commodore, I think as has been said numerous times, that we don't know that this is the genuine 'Jason Burke' that has made the comments. So Burke and Hardy may have met. I totally take your point, but the real Jason Burke, would take issue with The New Statesman and have it removed. Once that happens we can deal with it here. If the New Statesman made those comments about Bush then you should put them in again because they are very relevant. The whole critique on Burke is very important as it helps people see what type of person he is. He does not fit in to the mould of an old crusty academic. The real Jason Burke would dispute this with the New Statesman, that is his starting point. --Reem Butt

The issue has been resolved, sort of (I still think the other crap can go too and we should focus on substantive issues instead), so I won't belabor the point, but how do we know you are the genuine 'Reem Butt'? We have no reason not to believe he is Jason Burke, and, as he said, he did dispute with the New Statesman. Plenty of news articles appeared during the 2000 election about Bush and cocaine; it was a big issue and he had to address it publicly (even to say he would not address it). Certainly it was far more notable than Burke on a bike listening to Betty Davis and playing tennis with hookers or whatever.--csloat 19:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

from jason burke

i feel i should make an intervention in this debate. firstly, nobbynob is indeed me. not because i am particularly interested in anonymity but because i had little interest in getting involved in a whole debate personally. I edited my site because in part it was wrong. The name of my newspaper was wrongly cited, for example, and some editors had misunderstood the nature of my job and indeed my analysis. I changed to using ,y own na,e when it beca,e clear that the proble, was not going to go away. secondly, this is now reached a stage where i need to make some important points - not least because repeated attempts to contact the wikipedia administrators have failed. so: i do not have a coke habit, never have had and do not take coke nor have i made any reference to coke in my book. Roger Hardy, in his otherwise excellent review, made a mistake. it was an honest mistake but a mistake nonetheless; the New Statesman are currently in the process of correcting the error, deleting the reference to cocaine from their website and publishing a clarification. their statement that i take coke is of course extremely libellous and, as anyone with a basic understanding of libel laws knows, to repeat a libel, even in good faith, is to commit the same offense. that means that anyone repeqting Hardy's error is as guilty of defamation as he is. as some of you have pointed out, it is a great shame that trivial personal details have distracted from an important debate. I understand the desire to put a face to a name which is why I posted the Independent Review as an alternative. However I would vastly prefer that my own personal life is left out of things - especially when the discussion involves libellous and false accusations. By all means criticise my work or my ideas - though I would stress that an entry in an encyclopedia should be as objective as possible - but please leave me as an individual out of the discussion.

Resolved

As the New Statesman has now removed the line about Jason Burke and cocaine, I have removed it from the wiki page as it is only fair and in accordance with the rules. I do think it is very sad, that Mr. Burke felt he should create an alias and add numerous un-sourced bits of information in previous edits about himself. Also, it would have been better to have resolved this from the start by being open. That is a story by itself, as I think someone said, Senator Norm Coleman's people also did something similar on wikipedia. --Beau Chandler 08:50, 23 August 2006

Burke was probably not familiar with wikipedia conventions or with WP:BLP; I think we can cut him some slack. He was responding to clear defamation. Not the same at all as what Coleman's people did.--csloat 18:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Cut Burke some slack? Have a look at this [3]. These were edits by Nobbynob (which is the pseudonym Burke was using as admitted by himself) where extra information that could not be collaborated was added. So Burke was self-promoting himself. In addition Burke slyly removed an article by Hussein Shirazi which points out a number of mistakes he made about predictions about Afghanistan [4]. Now Burke claims he is more than happy for us to analyse his works and comments. Yet why did he remove the information that pointed out his own errors of judgement? It's totally pathetic. So fine the coke is out but cut him some slack for some self-promoting edits under an alias and remove other sources? I don't think so. This is just like Norm Coleman. Check out what Burke did on August 22. He did not even directly quote the section correctly. This is amazing! - Kratosky

Well, Burke should not be promoting himself in his own bio, I agree, but every claim made in the edit you linked to seems easily corroborated (and far more relevant than gossip about his personal life). I just assume he is not familiar with wikipedia which is why he felt it was ok to do that. No reason not to assume good faith here, especially with a new wikipedia editor -- simply point the way to WP:BLP#Dealing_with_edits_by_the_subject_of_the_article and be done with it. In fact, you might want to take a look at that yourself; let me highlight some things:

While Wikipedia discourages people from writing new articles about themselves or expanding existing ones significantly, subjects of articles remain welcome to edit articles to correct inaccuracies, to remove inaccurate or unsourced material, or to remove libel. Jimmy Wales warns other editors to think twice when encountering such attempts: "...reverting someone who is trying to remove libel about themselves is a horribly stupid thing to do."

While I agree, you point to edits where he did more than remove the libelous material, I imagine Burke felt he was balancing the slander by including material that was objectively more relevant and notable than gossip about personal issues with drugs, women, or ping pong balls. He should have gone about it another way, but there you have it from the founder of wikipedia - what you and reem butt did in terms of reverting his attempts to remove the libelous quotation was "horribly stupid."

As for the Shirazi article from Frontpage, I agree he should not have removed that without discussion, but I don't think it's the best source to have here (Frontpage magazine is a notoriously biased slander rag, and that particular article both distorts the things it alleges Burke said and distorts the reality on the ground in Afghanistan in order to make its point). So let's assume good faith and move on, no? The real question here is whether wikipedia editors are actually willing to analyze Burke's work, or whether it will continue to rely on citing only the most scandalous exaggerations that can be found in book reviews and other third party sources. Out of curiosity, have you read Burke's books or articles at all? Or just a review or two? If not, why are you so invested in these particular quotations?--csloat 22:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I have read his stuff, and although he does make some salient points, it often comes out as if he is the sole authority on this issue and everyone else is wrong. In relation to Kratosky's Frontpage comment, if you look at the original Burke article, Shirazi has accurately critiqued it. As for reverting libellous material, get real, As soon as it was removed from The New Statesman, it was removed here, pure and simple. So don't make out that I was trying to keep it in. Yeah wiki rules say that if there are inaccuracies an author can comment but not add things to self-promote them. I've read Burke's stuff, and as I said some things are right but he was not the one who pioneered these thoughts. The Guardian quote is currently way too much leaning in one direction. It needs to be tweaked. Lets also not forget that the Guardian is the sister paper of the Observer, where Burke writes, so I don't believe it can be seen as an impartial source. So of course they would praise his book. The comments were already stated in the previous paragraph. I am tweaking it. Reem Butt 11:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with your evaluation of Burke, but stop pretending that the New Statesman gets you off the hook with the libel issue. Repeating a libelous claim is libelous, esp. when you have reason to believe it is false, as was the case here. It is water under the bridge though. My problem with it is notability, and that still is a problem here. As for your "tweaking," I will leave it alone, but I will note that you did not make the "long sentence" any shorter -- all you did was remove the direct quote calling the book a "must read" and replace it with the implicitly conspiratorial claim that it comes from a "sister paper." It's a weasly way to attack its credibility, and it was done for obviously POV reasons. I'm not here to defend Burke and I'm not sure how I got put in that position, but let's focus on the substance of his arguments instead of gossip about his personality, and let's focus energy on meaningful criticism rather than weasly well-poisoning.--csloat 14:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Come on guys lets not fight. I think the issue has now been resolved. I agree with Commodore that the sentence was not made shorter although maybe it could have been. Lets see. However, I do feel that it is relevant to mention that the Guardian is the affiliate to the Observer. I don't think there is anything murky in saying that. So lets close this whole controversy. A sentence that has caused problems has been cut and that should be that. Beau Chandler 15:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Foden quote

The foden quote looked accurate to me; I've restored it (and I copied and pasted directly from the Foden article in case there was a word or two changed since Kratosky declared the quote "inaccurate.") I think it's a pretty accurate, although simplified, summary of one of Burke's main points in the book, and the way Kratosky chopped up the quote it really didn't make as much sense. There was also no apparent reason to chop off the second half of the quote as Kratosky did. Eventually, quotes directly from the book will be better here.--csloat 22:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jason Burke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080228172120/http://observer.guardian.co.uk:80/worldview/page/0,11916,715400,00.html to http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/page/0,11916,715400,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jason Burke. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051228182016/http://www.liberaloasis.com/burke.htm to http://www.liberaloasis.com/burke.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 19:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)