Talk:Piers Akerman

Akerman on Wikipedia
Akerman wrote about Wikipedia in 2007. He called it an "online fantasy project" and a "creation of gormless internet generation idealists", and said that this article was "grotesquely inaccurate". So I guess he's not a fan?

(Thanks to user:Brendan Cosman for noticing that 2007 column; see this archived discussion.) Cheers, CWC 08:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"Grotesquely inaccurate"
When I checked to see whether Wikipedia has an article about this guy, I found a morass of lies, deception, unsourced hostile claims, hostile claims that contradicted their sources, hostile claims sourced to propaganda websites, etc, etc.

I've removed the obvious bullshit, but there are more problems left that need fixing, probably including not-so-obvious WP:BLP violations.

I haven't checked how accurate Akerman's description of this article as "grotesquely inaccurate" (see above) was back in 2007, but that would be an understatement until my edits. It's really alarming to think that a BLP could get so bad without anyone else noticing (at least, anyone who wanted a decent article instead of a hateful pile-on). CWC 09:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hateful pile-ons tend to happen to those who write hateful material. But yes, we should guard against it. HiLo48 (talk) 03:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Peppa Pig
Too early to add some detail about Ackerman's criticisms of "Peppa Pig" as being feminist and left-wing? There's several articles in e.g. Canberra Times that criticise it. PaulWay (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes by Alans1977
I reverted your recent edits, believing that I could justify with WP:BLPREMOVE. You un-reverted. I re-reverted, here and here. Before acting again, please consider: Jones may have some immunity when saying unpleasant things about Akerman in parliament, Wikipedia may not enjoy the same immunity. There's a site (perhaps no better and no worse than your blogspot.com.au) saying Akerman denied. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * blogspot.com.au isn't the only reference I had for that material. Crickey was also a reference which is easily arguable as being a very long way from any blog and I dare say a lot more reliable than most of what passes for news in this country. The material may be contentious to anyone who doesn't like inconvenient truths showing those who like to pass judgement as being hypocrites, but the material is as well sourced if not better than had it been published by The Australian. Alans1977 (talk) 11:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Quoting WP:BLP: Regardless of your opinion of the merits of crikey.com.au ... it's quoting verbatim from Richard Jones, without any suggestion that crikey.com.au has checked it or believes it. I'm contending that Jones is a poor source and therefore WP:BLPREMOVE applies. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)