Talk:Anthea Bell

Edit war
No edit wars over whether Oliver Kamm is a political commentator, or blogger. Let us resolve the issue on the talk page if needed. Pradiptaray 05:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, I vote for blogger, as that is what he mainly does. Political commentator is so vague, that it's essentially meaningless-we are all political commentators at one time or another.if he was a journalist, journalist is what we would put here, he is not (not a professional one at any rate) Blogger tells the interested reader what he does, is succinct and accurate.Felix-felix 12:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Anyone can be a blogger, that's vague and it's not a profession, it's not notable. What is notable is that he's a published author & newspaper columnist (and that that is primarily political commentary probably makes political commentator more appropriate despite its vagueness — regardless, blogger should not be used here).--Invisifan 13:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * btw, I have 0 stake in this aside from encyclopedic accuracy, is ther some reason your are so desparately insistant on characterizing him as a blogger?
 * Anyone can be anything-a blogger is what he is and what he's known for. I have even supported it with citations, and have restored that edit until we reach a consensus.Blogger is entirely appriopriate for wikipedia, you'll note how blogger wikifies. I have no stake in this either, I'm interested in making good encyclopedia articles, as I'm sure you are. I'm also sure I don't need to draw your attention to WP:Assume good faith and WP:No Personal Attacks.Felix-felix 14:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at the discussion and I see nothing to change my mind. I do note exactly how "blogger" wikifies: it is a disambig page that points to a Wiktionary entry defining it as someone who has a weblog (blog). As for the citations, one is an interview where he is noted as being notably active in the political & financial arenas (and admits to having a blog — which is the interviewer's focus simply because he's doing the interview about blogging for his own blog on blogging), the other points to his blog (something millions of people have — literally anyone who wants to have one). Both are good references for his own article, but essentially irrelevant — it's not a profession and hardly a defining moment (Financier and political adviser would be accurate) — but in any event this entry isn't even about him.
 * As for reverting, note that you immediately put your own POV edit back, after this discussion was started without waiting for any discussion or concensus, so if you really intend good faith you should leave it as it was before until the discussion reaches a concensus (as my comment on reverting clearly stated). And no I'll not engage in an edit war by reverting again - you should do that.--Invisifan 15:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Lets see now - I think there really is no cause of debate. You guys are talking about different things. Felix-felix talks about the medium by which Kamm communicates - "blogger". Invisifan talks about the content of what he writes about, hence "political commentator". In fact, going through his blogs he writes about a lot of socio-economic issues under the sun. The edit war, then, was really over which single term to choose to describe Kamm. A simple solution is to incorporate both terms - they are not at cross purposes. Two observations on Kamm - he seems to be a curious mix of the left and right wing philosophies; and his Wikipedia entry seems disproportionately large. Pradiptaray 23:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Another thing - probably this isnt his source of income. He is a consultant and ex-banker, right ? Pradiptaray 23:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Martin Bell is not an MP any more. He is a UNICEF amabassador. I think the best way to describe Oliver Kamm is as a Times columnist so I have changed this. There are millions of bloggers but not many newspaper columnists. It is POV to say he is a "right-wing blogger" and also POV to say he's "curious mix of left and right wing philosophies", as he says he is left-wing. It's wrong to say he is a "blog-based political commentator" as his newspaper columns are separate from his blog. --ElenaZam 21:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Lots of people would contest his self description of 'left wing' thoughFelix-felix 16:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If so then that's still POV and so shouldn't be in a reference work.--ElenaZam 16:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Elena for pointing this out. I dont know much about Martin Bell or Oliver Kamm - I merely wrote the article on Anthea Bell and was trying to prevent an edit war, so I put my POV comments on the talk page and not in the article. I did not know that he writes for The Times, this would definitely be his best succint description. Pradiptaray 22:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * He rose to prominence and is (in)famous for his blog, although Times columnist is fine with me.Felix-felix 16:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems very unlikely that his blog is better-known than The Times but at least we all agree on the best succinct description. Calling his writing infamous is POV too but you know that:-) --ElenaZam 16:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Felix-felix -- if you have to ask a question about your edit then you obviously don't know the answer. If you don't know the answer then you probably shouldn't be editing this page at all (unless you've got an interest in French and German literature). I've spent two minutes researching the question you asked and found the answer. The Times archive lists 25 articles by Mr Kamm in the last 12 months. One article every fortnight is not "occasional", it's regular. --ElenaZam 21:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It was a rhetorical question. My search of the Times website revealed 7 articles. Ocasional I think.Felix-felix 09:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That he's a blogger is neither meaningful (anyone can be on a whim) or relevant (this article is not about him); how frequent or occasional a columnist he is is equally irrelevant — if anyone actually cares they can follow the link to his article for all this gory silliness. We all get that you don't like his opinions/politics, but that's irrelevant too. Let it go. —Invisifan 13:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, in a moment of clarity, I realise you are right-it was rather silly.Felix-felix 16:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's what all Felix-felix edits are about. We can see that, and yes it is silly. He also hasn't used a search function properly. When you go to The Times archive (not just the function at the top of the page, which gives a few weeks history) you get around 25 articles by Mr Kamm in the last 12 months. But anyway this is an article about translation. Felix-felix hasn't made a single comment about French or German books in translation but only remarks that are POV.--ElenaZam 13:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Anthea Bell. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.asterix-international.de/asterix/mirror/asterix_my_love.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.literarytranslation.com/workshops/asterix/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110811213441/http://arts.brunel.ac.uk/gate/entertext/4_3/bell_s.pdf to http://arts.brunel.ac.uk/gate/entertext/4_3/bell_s.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)