User talk:Paul

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?

--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... --David 12:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Paul, could you take a look at the Tariq Ramadan page? I ported from wikipedia and deleted a lot of neocon/zionist stuff. It still needs more work though and could do with an account of he campaign against him in the US? --David 10:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Paul, is the date for the LSE photos wrong? 2007 not 2008? --David 08:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. but it is listed as happening in 2007 on Schmid's page which you entered last year... So maybe that needs correcting?

Can you refer to the chatham house bit on his page? Is there a text or a recording we can use? --David 09:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)