|
|
| (32 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | Hi,
| |
| | | | |
| − | try this way of creating new pages:
| |
| − |
| |
| − | http://www.spinprofiles.org/index.php/Article_Submission
| |
| − | Let me know if there are any more headings or formatting that should be added to the default.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | --[[User:David|David]] 15:34, 22 August 2008 (BST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | OK. Do you have any suggestions?
| |
| − | How do you mean html heavy?
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | --[[User:David|David]] 19:03, 22 August 2008 (BST)
| |
| − | you wrote:
| |
| − | :About Greenslade: you eliminated entirely valid comments. The Thatcher govt via Maxwell used the Mirror (Greenslade editor) to smear the miners in general, and its leadership in particular. It is a SORDID affair, because of the character assassination involved -- I hope you read Seumas Milne's account of this. Furthermore, IT IS NOT appropriate for Greenslade to review a book (Pilger's) which is critical of him... So, on both accounts, i think your edits are not valid.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I cut the comment that it was unacceptable for him to review the book. I have read Seumas's excellent book and you are right about the affair, but I have not touched anything on that. The question of whether it is inappropriate seems to me questionable. Greenslade admits to the fact that it criticises him, so he is not trying to hide that and snipe at the book. He admits it and praises the book. I think that there is a lot more that can be said about Greenslade than an alleged impropriety over a book review?
| |
| − |
| |
| − | On Geldof: all of the evaluative statements need some kind of referencing including 1. 'factual' referencing (eg blair's lap) and quotes showing what he has said. and 2. supporting evidence for the evaluation - eg his affiliations and comments and what is wrong with them - rather than give your views (with which I agree), we should have analysis, supporting views and evidence. No?
| |
| − |
| |
| − | --[[User:David|David]] 11:18, 13 November 2007 (GMT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | hi Paul, yes the use of the term terrorologist is the problem isn't it. I think we might need a more neutral category to denote people who are regarded as 'experts' or 'authoritative' on issues to do with terror as Ahmad was... bear with us...
| |
| − | --[[User:David|David]] 12:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Paul, do you have a recording of that awful Newsnight segment last night? We should get it online. I will see if I can find one. Kohlman and Weisburd are incredible. Have a look at the meterial on wikipedia about irhabi 007. This is an old story. Not sure why it was on last night except by way of spook spin.
| |
| − | --[[User:David|David]] 08:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Help on formating ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Hi Paul,
| |
| − |
| |
| − | You seem to be quite good with Wiki formating. Would you be able to have a look at this page for me?
| |
| − |
| |
| − | http://www.spinprofiles.org/index.php/Terrorexpertise:Elite_Conference_List
| |
| − |
| |
| − | --[[User:Tom Mills|Tom Mills]] 15:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Hmmm. Quite simple as it turns out. Cheers
| |
| − |
| |
| − | --[[User:Tom Mills|Tom Mills]] 15:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == faulty HTML ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Paul,
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I can't find Gohel mentioned in this link:
| |
| − | http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/internationalHistory/researchSeminars/workshops.htm
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ??
| |
| − |
| |
| − | --[[User:David|David]] 09:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | any references for van Creveld?
| |
| − |
| |
| − | --[[User:David|David]] 13:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == bio ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Thanks Paul, something like, "Tom Mills is a freelance researcher and journalist based in London" would be fine.
| |
| − | --[[User:Tom Mills|Tom Mills]] 08:43, 1 May 2008 (BST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Provided its attributed to Spinwatch I'm personally happy for it to be posted anywhere
| |
| − | --[[User:Tom Mills|Tom Mills]] 09:44, 1 May 2008 (BST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Portman Trust==
| |
| − | I have to admit, I am reduced to googling this one myself as I have not come across it before. This may or may not be relevant, but there is a Portman Trust mentioned by Paul Johnson in relation to the Portman family which owns a big chunk of London. [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3724/is_199901/ai_n8837896 England is a fen of stagnant waters, courtroom, police and pen]. Very mysterious. --[[User:Tom Griffin|Tom Griffin]] 20:01, 11 May 2008 (BST)
| |
| − | ===Brian Brivati and the Portman Trust===
| |
| − | Curiouser and curiouser!
| |
| − | ::In January 1999, when the newspapers were carrying stories that Lord Goodman and his solicitors' firm had misappropriated Portman Trust money, Brian Brivati wrote an article for The THES suggesting that there might be some fire behind the smoke. Many of Goodman's friends who believed that he would not have been reckless enough to mishandle a client's money, even if he had been disposed to do so, feared that Brivati's book, then in the final stages of preparation, would be a hatchet job. [http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=157056§ioncode=5 Private Acts in a Public Theater]
| |
| − | Interestingly, Goodman was one of the people burgled during the campaign against Harold Wilson. I will have a look into Brivati's role in this. It might come in handy for my Euston profile.
| |
| − | --[[User:Tom Griffin|Tom Griffin]] 20:39, 11 May 2008 (BST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | can you put the links to the diaries on the Carroll page as a footnote?
| |
| − |
| |
| − | --[[User:David|David]] 13:35, 25 May 2008 (BST)
| |
| − | ==Euston Page==
| |
| − | Hi Paul, the Euston page was getting very long so I moved the American sections to a separate page here:
| |
| − |
| |
| − | http://www.spinprofiles.org/index.php/Euston_Manifesto_United_States
| |
| − |
| |
| − | There is a link at the old page and a note in the edit history which maybe should have been clearer. I have not altered your formatting or removed any information except to move some of it to the new page.
| |
| − | --[[User:Tom Griffin|Tom Griffin]] 23:16, 1 June 2008 (BST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Next Century==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | This passage:
| |
| − |
| |
| − | : '''Next Century Foundation for Peace''' (NCFP) is an elite think tank, lobbying group, conflict resolution organization, media prize giving organization, venue where Israeli neocons meet their Arab or European counterparts, and blog platform to project opinion of principals. Its principals are made up of "former diplomats, businessmen, politicians, bankers and editors." Its "deliberations and conclusions of the committee will be conveyed to the Foreign Ministers or Foreign Office concerned in various capitals as and when necessary".
| |
| − |
| |
| − | needs a source...
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | --[[User:David|David]] 13:58, 27 August 2008 (BST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Hi,
| |
| − |
| |
| − | moved to here: http://www.spinprofiles.org/index.php/Category:New_Humanitarians
| |
| − |
| |
| − | This could say more explicitly that this is a term coined by Ed herman. I think that shortening the name is easier to type, and gives less of a hostage to furtune in terms of what it refers to.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | No?
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I will endeavour to change the category on all of the pages...
| |
| − | --[[User:David|David]] 09:34, 3 September 2008 (BST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Hi Paul,
| |
| − |
| |
| − | if you look at the history of that page: http://www.spinprofiles.org/index.php?title=Category:The_New_Humanitarian_Crusader&oldid=43690
| |
| − | you will see that it has never had a reference to Herman as you suggest. Can you add one? Also, can we remove the 'The' at the beginning? It seems to me that the category itself does not need the 'crusader bit in the title. But it is no problem to expand on that in the description?
| |
| − |
| |
| − | --[[User:David|David]] 09:17, 4 September 2008 (BST)
| |
