Talk:Djab wurrung

::Anyone seeing the satanic ‘deprecated’ scar can ratchet up another easy edit by eliding a piece appearing in CounterPunch on sight, without looking into the background of who wrote it, or reading the article for five minutes, cross-checking it, and seeing if there are alternative articles in the thousands of of sources not yet deprecated (and I have to put up seeing POV pushers cite regularly scores of sources that are thoroughly disreputable, and known to be such by informed readers, but which people like myself don’t waste their time in arguing for deprecation through due process.) I am arrogant enough to believe I have the professional background to assess quality – I’ve even published in an encyclopedia, on request, and, despite writing in a foreign language, my contribution on a controversial topic was accepted without question by the book’s editor, whose approach is diametrically opposed to my own. Kampmark is a fine journalist, widely published in mainstream outlets. So it is a matter of informed judgement. An analysis of the piece you question shows he didn’t as 90% of our mainstream journalism does, recycle and rewrite a paraphrasing synthesis of what he googled: he obviously picked up the telephone and rang round and checked sources by interviews, producing the best newspaper comment I could find on this particular incident. He lives close to the area where these incidents took place. And, if I had thought the piece poorly or hastily written, I would have binned it.

::Anyone seeing the satanic ‘deprecated’ scar can ratchet up another easy edit by eliding a piece appearing in CounterPunch on sight, without looking into the background of who wrote it, or reading the article for five minutes, cross-checking it, and seeing if there are alternative articles in the thousands of of sources not yet deprecated (and I have to put up seeing POV pushers cite regularly scores of sources that are thoroughly disreputable, and known to be such by informed readers, but which people like myself don’t waste their time in arguing for deprecation through due process.) I am arrogant enough to believe I have the professional background to assess quality – I’ve even published in an encyclopedia, on request, and, despite writing in a foreign language, my contribution on a controversial topic was accepted without question by the book’s editor, whose approach is diametrically opposed to my own. Kampmark is a fine journalist, widely published in mainstream outlets. So it is a matter of informed judgement. An analysis of the piece you question shows he didn’t as 90% of our mainstream journalism does, recycle and rewrite a paraphrasing synthesis of what he googled: he obviously picked up the telephone and rang round and checked sources by interviews, producing the best newspaper comment I could find on this particular incident. He lives close to the area where these incidents took place. And, if I had thought the piece poorly or hastily written, I would have binned it.

::So I have no problem with the fact that CounterPunch is deprecated since it means ”’generally”’ unreliable, and in any case, a large amount of the content there I’ve read reads like self-righteous hot air of zero encyclopedic value. But 16 years of occasional browsing have impressed me with the obvious fact that scores of highly disputable scholars and journalists do opt to publish at times in that venue, – people whose scholarly or professional backgrounds I am familiar with (Alexander Cockburn]] was widely acknowledged as one of the best journalists of his day when writing for the [[Wall Street Journal, and did not go off the deep end later) – and they clearly write cogently on topics, with numerous details of encyclopedic value which do not appear, casting round, to be available elsewhere. When that occurs, I cite them, even now, because they form an exception to the general rule. Not to do that, in my book, is to behave, to use ballistically hyperbolic analogies, numerous judges who, in a fraught ideological world, applied the letter of the law insouciant to the complexities of law in given realities, the likes of [[Robert Bellarmine]], [[Thomas Audley]], [[Vasiliy Ulrikh]] [[Roland Freisler]], [[Oswald Rothaug]]. In short, a deprecation majority, of less than middling quality mainly to judge by their reasoning and edit records, socks included, using dubious evidence, singled out Counterpunch, and laid down a rule. We are obliged to follow it. Fine, but the informed comments of editors of great standing over several ensuing discussions show that its application is not clear cut, that margins for exception should exist. I agree with them, and I will continue, case by case, to restore material erased mechanically where my considered judgment tells me that the piece in question, even if it appears in a venue like CounterPunch, retains an encyclopedically serviceable quality. Those who disagree can argue the point on the talk page, and if, there, a majority challenge my judgment cogently by showing the inadequacy of my own arguments ([[WP:CONSENSUS]]) in those cases, I will again accept that majority view and acquiesce. [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 11:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

::So I have no problem with the fact that CounterPunch is deprecated since it means ”’generally”’ unreliable, and in any case, a large amount of the content there I’ve read reads like self-righteous hot air of zero encyclopedic value. But 16 years of occasional browsing have impressed me with the obvious fact that scores of highly disputable scholars and journalists do opt to publish at times in that venue, – people whose scholarly or professional backgrounds I am familiar with (Alexander Cockburn]] was widely acknowledged as one of the best journalists of his day when writing for the [[Wall Street Journal, and did not go off the deep end later) – and they clearly write cogently on topics, with numerous details of encyclopedic value which do not appear, casting round, to be available elsewhere. When that occurs, I cite them, even now, because they form an exception to the general rule. Not to do that, in my book, is to behave, to use ballistically hyperbolic analogies, numerous judges who, in a fraught ideological world, applied the letter of the law insouciant to the complexities of law in given realities, the likes of [[Robert Bellarmine]], [[Thomas Audley]], [[Vasiliy Ulrikh]] [[Roland Freisler]], [[Oswald Rothaug]]. In short, a deprecation majority, of less than middling quality mainly to judge by their reasoning and edit records, socks included, using dubious evidence, singled out Counterpunch, and laid down a rule. We are obliged to follow it. Fine, but the informed comments of editors of great standing over several ensuing discussions show that its application is not clear cut, that margins for exception should exist. I agree with them, and I will continue, case by case, to restore material erased mechanically where my considered judgment tells me that the piece in question, even if it appears in a venue like CounterPunch, retains an encyclopedically serviceable quality. Those who disagree can argue the point on the talk page, and if, there, a majority challenge my judgment cogently by showing the inadequacy of my own arguments ([[WP:CONSENSUS]]) in those cases, I will again accept that majority view and acquiesce. [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 11:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

:::In short, the question here is, ‘Is Kampmark’ unreliable for what he reports on this incident?’ I have given my justifications above, and no one has replied or challenged them so far on this talk page. [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 11:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)