Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:59, 5 August 2005

...be gentle to all, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves... 2 Tim 2:24-5

Southern Manifesto

Regarding The Southern Manifesto: Usually Wikisource articles only contain the actual text. In this case that would include the signatories, but not the (endless) list of people who did not sign. The current article contains some other material which would remain in Misplaced Pages. If you or other editors would like to cover elements of the history, such as notable politicians who did not sign, then that's appropriate too. Also, a summary of the manifesto itself should be in the Misplaced Pages article. Interested in writing it? Cheers, -Willmcw 21:53, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Reply from User:Nobs

• 'inter-generational non-consensual sex' is a term I read in the Albuquerque tribune March 6 2005 discussing current legilastion before the New Mexico State Legislature, I am busy recovering the source
• links to my site contain only well researched information not available elsewhere on www
• sorry my friend, I am a preofessional Research Historian and not in the business of self promotion. Nobs 21:26, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC) nobs

Hello Nobs -- The example you cite is therefore legal jargon if anything, but again, if one is passing a law to make something illegal, surely one is not using such terminology to avoid offending the offenders. And regarding the blog, please cite the source, rather than you blog. Please also see Misplaced Pages:No original research. {cross-posted to my talk page} Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 17:49, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I removed the links you added to your blog -- as well as "Pedophilia became inter-generational non-consensual sex". Please do not create or edit an article to promote yourself, a website, a product, or a business (see Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not). BCorr|Брайен 19:03, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

...will generally be automatically reverted. Cite original sources if you wish. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:30, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Request for AMA Assistance on Russell Tribunal

After reading your request for AMA assistance and the original article, I would be willing to listen and possibly assist you through your goals with this article. Please contact me at my talk page for further assistance. - KC9CQJ 02:46, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for being expedient. Do you have access to Instant Messenger or IRC so that we may collaborate? I've read the articles but would like to hear what you have to say in conversational form. KC9CQJ 04:29, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In the meantime, here's what I see to your question and what course of action I suggest -

• The deletions in the target article Russell Tribunal mainly have to do with leaving the criticism area of the article blank or links to what I presume are your own personal blog. As you may or may not know, Misplaced Pages does not permit original research - Misplaced Pages only permits primary or secondary sources to my knowledge, that way we as editors may verify it. Misplaced Pages is not a place to publish your own content, like a blog - it is an encyclopedia written by all, and I believe one of the comments to you on the talk page referenced that, albeit in an interesting, yet possibly condescending tone.
• The talk page commentary that you have gone through mainly is stating that although your point is valid, it does not belong within the article that you're trying to place it in. I noticed that your major premise for placing your notice within the Tribunal article is a footnote from Gulag Archipelago alone, and not major critical analysis or primary/secondary sourcing from the original author. If several different authors can be shown to say that one of the author's points in Gulag Archipelago was to point at the Russell Tribunal, so be it. Then it can be included.

These are the major points that are being made, I feel, and if we can find more primary sourcing that would indicate that this was some of the author's intent, then we can include it in the Tribunal article. If not, perhaps your contribution can find a place with the Gulag Archipelago entry.

Please find me on IRC in the #Misplaced Pages channel, contact me via AOL Instant Messenger at KC9CQJ, or e-mail me at kc9cqj(at)aol(dot)com , and we'll work on a resolution that fits the needs of Misplaced Pages and you. KC9CQJ 05:31, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And as another note - looking at our own entry on Bertrand Russell from Misplaced Pages, there's a quote there from Solzhenitsyn - so it would appear, that with some thought and persuasion, we could get an entry into either the Russell Tribunal or Bertrand Russell article until I realized that you put that quote there :=). I would suggest that we go for a mention of the footnotes and quotes either in Gulag Archipelago or Bertrand Russell, but let's investigate that on the talk pages first. KC9CQJ 05:55, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Response e-mail with suggested course of action to your mailbox. KC9CQJ 03:09, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Looks like the anonymous IP user is being a spot of difficult. I think we should break for the Gulag Archipelago article and pull away from Russell Tribunal, but that's just me. Sorry I confused him using your name - I just like to use names because I'm in the customer service business. Later. KC9CQJ 10:51, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

IMF Article

Saw your post about wanting to re-work the IMF article w/out going through the cumbersom add/change/rv/talk process. In similar cases, I've found putting draft re-write in my user space to be very helpful. I can work on it, then post a link to it from the real page's talk page, allowing other users to comment/edit my draft version. It allows consensus to be reached more easily, b/c only those people who are really interested will take time to work on the draft copy stored in your user space. Once the draft stabilizes, do a massive overwrite of the original article w/ the new consensus version. There will be enough "consensus inertia" built up that your big changes are likely to remain unless you've added significant bias/POV to the new version. Feco 19:29, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I put a new section on my talk page (section name: Nobs' list)... feel free to add links to pages you'd like a review of. Out of curiousity, how did you come across my name in order to req. for a review? Feco 19:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See User:Feco/Temp/Wal-Mart for an example of how to set up a temp page within your user space... allows for full wiki functionality. Just copy the directory tree structure, User:Nobs/Temp/IMF for example, and you get full wiki funcionality. Feco 19:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is about the International Monetary Fund; IMF can also mean the International Metalworkers' Federation, a global union federation.

I looked at the IMF article in your userspace... I think it's a drastic improvment over the current article in wikispace. One minor comment... many users like having an "overview" graf or two above the table of contents. You may want to add one to your version, lest someone slap an ugly intro at the top of your hard work. Feco 01:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I also looked at the "live" SDR page in wikispace... I like your edits. Feco 01:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It looks like the IMF article has stablized for the time being. I think you did a great job. I don't think I can add too many specifics about the nitty-gritty of the IMF's policy actions and things like that... it's a little too technical for me. I agree with your comment (on my TALK page) about trying to kill the everpresent phrase "critics say", but I don't the hardcore anti-IMF folks will ever let that slip by. For the time being, I'm going to drop the IMF section from my talk page, but feel free to go back and leave me a note later if you want me to take another look. Feco 19:02, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Discussion of Carter Doctrine

 Responding to the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan that had recently taken place, the President stated:

Any attempt by an outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.

This policy thus warned the Soviets away from Iran, which had just had a revolution and at the time was holding hostages in the United States Embassy, and from Iraq.

• Response to above anonymous post:

• Any attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.

This policy thus warned the Soviets away from Iran, which had just had a revolution and at the time was holding hostages in the United States Embassy, and from Iraq."

To argue that "an assault" on Iran, a nation which

• (1) had no diplomatic relations with the United States as of November 1979.
• (2) had no trade relations, i.e. stopped shipping oil to the United States in November 1979
• (3) was not part of any "collective security" agreement with the United States since November 1979

would be "an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America", even though the United States had no treaty obligations to do so, which would be repelled by "any means necessary", a vailed refernace to nuclear war is an incorrect reading of the Carter Doctrine.

• The vital interests of the United States are collective security agreements and treaty obligations with co-signatories, i.e. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the Gulf Emirates.

• The term "any", includes, but not limited to, Russia, Iraq, Mexico, al-Qaide, the mafia, the boy scouts, and virtually anyone.

• the term "outside" is ambiguos; does it mean "outside the Persian Gulk region" or could it mean "outside the security umbrella of American collective treaty alliances"

• the term "force" is used, and not the term "power", "nation", "state", or "government" etc. Hence it can include non-governmental entities, such as terrorist groups, etc, but may exclude boy scout organizations, for example.

And I beleive both former President Carter and Zbignew Brezhinski will support my arguement. --nobs

Historical method

Narrative

Contemporaneous corroboration is a method historians use to establish facts beyond their limited lifespan. It is used to locate, identify and examine testimony of witnesses. It is similiar to methods used by police and lawyers based upon Mosaic Law, "by the testimony of two or more witnesess a matter is established." Literally it means, "at the same time the story is told by multiple witness."

(It differs from "contiguous", or sequential events, and "consequential" or the accumulation of events). It is the method used by Alexander Solzhenitsyn in accumulating the testimonies of witnesses in the Gulag Archipelago, which consequentely becomes a valid historical document. The wiki article qualifies it as such by lisitng the testimony of 217 witnesses. (Technically, it would be incorrect to say Solzhenitsyn "wrote" or "authored" the Gulag Archapelago as a "work of non-fiction", to use the phrase of librarians and booksellers; while Solzhenitsyn's personality and biases come through, it is fundamentally structured as a work of "Literary Investigation"...but lets not split hairs...).

In contemporaneous corroboration the researcher or investigator must put out of his mind any conclusions he may be aware of, so as not to discolor his judgement. For example, everyone knows the verdict of history as to who won World War II. Now if the investigator begins with the conclusionary premise: "How did this come about?", he is using the "reverse method", seeking out facts to support his conclusion, and perhaps overlooking evidence of enormous consequence. Under the "contemporaneous" method of investigation, the researcher is ignoring conclusions and seeking out the heart and soul of the matter that consequently led to conclusions. The reverse method is obvious on the Bertrand Russell biographical page, where originally it read:

Template:Insert quote

"papering" over and "reinveting" facts to support known conclusion. (With a click one finds all sorts of apologies Russell spoke in support of Bolshevism and other doctrines.) "Reinventing facts" differs from Revisionism.

Revisionist history has often been criticized in recent years as an effort to "rewrite history". Critics of Multiculturalism for example claim it is nothing more than an effort to rewrite American History and attack upon patriotism or other commonlly held repsected accomplishments and achievements. While at the same time many of these same critics call for revision of McCarthyism in light of the Venona Papers. Revisionism is neither good or bad, it is a constant process.

The contemporaneous method seeks to "live the life" of the event, beginning at a point in time and moving forward. The reverse method begins with a conclusion and works backward. And beginning with a conclusion, often arrives at the same result (one wonders why, having known in advance the result, someone would spend the time running in circles).

Contemporaneous method was demonstrated and popularized several years ago with the PBS tlevision documentary of Kevin Burns, The Civil War, an achievement in that medium for using historical narrative and still photography. Instead of traditional recreations by actors and set designers, the text was carried forward by studied historians speaking "in the present tense"--narrating events 130 years prior. This may have sounded peculiar to the lay audience yet employed the exact terms, form and method historians use to gain the time depth perception lacking when "looking back at events" lacking in the revers method.

For years after the TV event, it became fashionable for cop shows, both SWG (Hollywood Screeen Writers Guild) and Reality shows, to show "real time" investigationors recreating events of homicides and discussing sequences using the contemporaneous method--in the present tense--about past events, ignoring any judgementor conclusion already obvious. And the methods purpose is obvious, to gain a greater understanding of the contemporaneous event leading to the conclusion, not the conclusion itself.

The Tribunal page on its face, i.e. using the scroll bar, is improperly researched. Beginning and ending with a conclusion, it may persuade a partisan juvenile to a particular POV, but to a serious researcher it obviously would be the last place to begin researching the Russell Tribunal. It's not worth delving into seeing the conclusion is foretold, its lack of evidence, reliability of sources, etc. While on its face sections do appear to be reprints of valid historical documents, most probably are, the evidence is overwhelming that it is a mere "propaganda piece" -- the precise charge levelled against the original Russell event in 1967, and not a serious study of facts in evidence.

Pity, cause the original Tribunal could be exonerated for all its intentions, despite its failings, like all human endeveaours, if serious researchers were to investigate the varacity of the information presented. The casual reader is left with the feeling someone is trying to persuade someone of something. Truelly the spirit is eternal.

Other examples using the reverse method in wiki:

IMF page referred to Eurodollars 3 decades before they came into existence.

CENTCOM pages says Centcom came into existence in 1983 with no referance to RDF and its sources in 1977; National Security Directive-63 Carter Jimmy Carter Library and Museum, CBO authored by Alice Rivlin

Reexamining a verdit

Revisionist history

Progressive view of history

historical documents

Plato's Letters, No. 7, 341 B-E

Please de-activate categories

Nob, could you please de-activate the categories of articles you are editing on your talk pages? All you have to do is insert a colon (:) after the first two brackets, ]. Otherwise, your talk page appears in the category listings. Thanks, -Willmcw 03:16, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

ASA

I don't think this abreviation for anti-Soviet agitation is in English language usage. But the article definitely must be written. Thanks for the hint. Mikkalai 21:21, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

thanks; I google myself. I started it already. You may take a look. Mikkalai

Re: Response

I replied on my talk page, user talk:willmcw. Cheers, -Willmcw 04:17, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Suleyman Ahmad

I'd be happy to help, but I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. If it's just a question of editing redirects, when you click on/type in a redirect, it puts a line under the title "(Redirected from Stephen Schwartz (author))"; if you click on the link in that line, it takes you to the redirect page, which you can then edit. If it involves page moves, I'm not sure I understand which pages you want to move where. - Mustafaa 05:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Gibbs article

Item 1.

The origin MAY have been in Iraq, but Iranian Shi'as are quick to point out that the Shi'a movement has evolved since those days. For example, after every friday prayer in Iran, the public shouts the slogan: "We are not the Shi'as of Kufa who left Ali alone". Kufa, in those days, was the Shi'a center of Iraq, if it ever had one. But I think the statements made in item 1 are generally accepted. Qum however was colonized. It had an indigenous population before the Arab arrival.

Item 2.

I think this view is widely held in Iran. Many people point to the "sarbedaran" rebellion as an illustration of this point.

Items 3,4,5,6.

One thing Ive heard alot in Iran is that they say that although Iran was a majority-wise Sunni country during these ages, yet Iranians felt a unique sense of sympathy for Ali and his Ahlul-bayt. i.e. they were Shi'a at heart. So there wasnt much of a big transition when the Safavids came around. But this is of course what I have "heard", mind you.

Item 7.

Im not sure what is meant by "the idea of Persian nationality was in due course created". I recall The Samanids and the Persian revivalist movements (that resulted in the Shah Nama) from several centuries earlier. However, The Safavids are

Also, the Safavid event wasnt really the first of its kind. Things were not so cut and dry to make the conclusions made here. For example, I have a copy of a book written during the time of Nizam ul-Molk, the great Seljuk Vizier, which shows that there was extensive debate going on between Shi'as and Sunnis in the court of Sultan MalekShah, with the Shi'as having the upper hand.

Item 8.

Im surprised that the items mention nothing of the Zoroastrian ties to Shi'ism that many scholars such as Ehsan Yarshater refer to.

Shi'ism may have opposed sufism, but in many ways it absorbed it too. What is the textbook "Al-Mafatih" but a collection of dhikrs? There is extensive overlapping between Shi'ism and Sufism, in my opinion. And besides, as I said, there has been lots of evolution been going on during these times.

Item 9.

I would also agree that "Shi'ism was not a natural outcome or expression of the national Iranian genius". Iranians were (and still are) philosophical renegades. They tend to rise out of the mold defined for them, and come up with new, often heretical interpretations of religion. Maybe that's why the aspect of 'aql is so emphasized by the Shi'a.

I think Shi'ism was not created by Iranians, but it certainly has strings attached to it.

Hope this helps. --Zereshk 02:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Russel Tribunal

Nobs, I understand the difficulties you are having with the Russell Tribunal, as I have had similar problems with the anon user on VVAW, Winter Soldier Investigation and another VVAW related article. Take it from me, dont expect a resolution any time soon if ever. Email me for some advice if you like, I know how to nail this one editor, I just need some more people. TDC 02:05, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Check out Norinco now. All material is attributed and linked. It will be hard to revert and claim any kind of legitimacy. TDC 20:24, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Philby

I've set up the pages as requested, but if you look at "what links here" for St. John Philby, you will see that several links now need to be repointed to the new page name - I leave that to you. jimfbleak 05:06, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's now a James Jesus Angleton article to go with the link you added from Kim Philby. Buffyg 05:20, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again re Jeb Bush article

Thank you very much for your kind words to me. There have been some nice people here. I am glad you posted. Thanks again. SummerFR 06:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC) PS And, yes, I agree with everything you wrote about how they waste time with pointless arguments just to derail me. But, I will finish the article. And it will be fair, and, great. :)

Prussia 1944

A phenomenae of madness and mayem that erupted among the multi-ethnic civilian population.

Req for Review

When you have a chance, can you take a look at User:Feco/Temp/Ricardo? I'm building a full explanation of the different international trade models, starting with the most basic. Each model explanation is far too long to be appended to the bottom of the basic model outline, so I'm building them on their own pages. Each model will eventually go into wages, prices, international equalization, etc. Ricardo is my first attempt. The nature of the material is relatively dense, but I've tried to make it as comphrehensible as possible to someone with minimal background in Econ. Let me know if you think it's readable/digestible.

It's still very much a work in progress, so ignore red wiki links, ALL CAPS notes to myself, and other things of that nature. Feco 23:43, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sharif

The Arabic (Urdu, too) word is شریف, and is pronounced "shuh-'reef" (long e). I would prefer "Sharif" as the commonest spelling and "Shareef" as the best. IMHO, let's try the latter. And be open to what the consensus of Misplaced Pages users want to go with. I am not an Arab myself, and would defer to someone from that region (Saudi Arabia and/or Jordan specifically—the family now rules the latter country), if I thought they were being reasonable.

Though I think Hussein bin Ali's name is often written "Sherif"--the early 1900s were a time of Turkish and French influence in the region.

One last thing, let me check how Lawrence (of Arabia) spells it in the Seven Pillars of Wisdom... yup: Sherif Hussein ... See: http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/l/lawrence/te/seven/chapter8.html, etc.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:14, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Jesus article

Thanks for all the hard work. I think the best solution to the ballot box stuffing that just occurred is to publicize that this vote is going on. As noted on the Talk:Jesus page I posted a notice about it to the Misplaced Pages survey announcements page. Prior to the stuffing incident, almost all of the votes came from either current participants in the discussion there or the VfD link. This had the result of giving a slight majority to BC/AD, and voting patterns were fairly randomly distributed with it. Something seemed fishy when all of a sudden about 7 votes in a row go in favor of CE/BCE. Sure enough, the very same guy who was expressing his surprise that the tide of the vote had turned in an attempt to malign another editor had orchestrated the whole thing. The best way to handle these types of situations is to make them public. Jayjg doesn't like the fact that I aired his laundry and naturally he will attack me and attempt to backtrack over it. But the fact that it is being aired is more than enough to cast doubt upon the way he conducts himself here. BTW, have you noticed just how vile and bilious the pro-CE crowd is in general? Between all the personal insults, attacks on motives, unilateral edits, general disregard and contempt they show for consensus, 3RR violations, and now ballot box stuffing one's really gotta wonder... Rangerdude 05:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

No, actually I don't like the fact that you called one vote "ballot box stuffing", or that you claim I "expressed my surprise that the tide of the vote had turned", or any of the many other false claims you have made. Jayjg 06:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

List of Americans in Venona Papers

• Elizabeth Bentley
• Joseph Bernstein
• T.A. Bisson
• Ursula Buerton
• Whittaker Chambers
• Lona Cohen
• Morris Cohen
• Judith Coplon, Foreign Agents Registration section, United States Department of Justice
• Laurence Duggan, head of South American desk at United States Department of State
• Max Elitcher
• Nicholas Fisher
• Maria Fisher
• Isaac Folkoff
• Harold Glasser United States Department of the Treasury
• Harry Gold
• Jacob Golos
• David Greenglass
• Ruth Greenglass
• Theodore Hall
• Kitty Harris
• Alger Hiss
• Charles Kramer, Senate Subcommittee on War Mobilization, Office of Price Administration, National Labor Relations Board
• Stephen Laird, Hollywood Producer, Time Magazine Reporter
• Walter Lippman
• Helen Lowry
• Hede Massing
• Boris Moros, Hollywood Producer
• David Niles, Advisor to Presidents Roosevelt and Truman
• Melita Norwood
• Edna Patterson
• William Perl
• Victor Perlo, Department of Commerce, Division of Monetary Research
• Julius Rosenberg
• Ethel Rosenberg
• Bernard Schuster
• Al Serant
• Greg Silvermaster
• Helen Witte Silvermaster
• Robert Silvermaster
• Jack Soble
• Myra Soble
• Robert Soblen
• Lud Ullman
• Bill Weisband
• Harry Dexter White
• Jones Orin York
• Mark Zborowsk

David Niles

No. 334, Moscow Center to Mexico City, 20 May 1944. However, for context see especially the previously released message, New York KGB to Moscow, No. 786, 1 June 1944, that mentions that friends of David Niles (a White House staffer) "will arrange anything for a bribe," i.e., get the transit visas for the Fishers.

External links

• VENONA Historical Monograph #4:
• Bernard Schuster and Joseph Katz: KGB Master Spies in the United States
• dict.leo.org
• Collins
• The Merkulov Letter, by Jerrold and Leona Schecter
• A NKVD/NKGB Report to Stalin: A Glimpse into Soviet Intelligence in the United States in the 1940's
• Diplomatic History Soviet Espionage and the Cold War
• WWII Resource links
• Kilgore Committee & Currie Commission
• [http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=453
• Waging the Cold War in America (includes material on Michael Greenberg)
• McCarthy Hearings
• William A. Mayer May 2003
• Moynihan Commssion Report
• mccarthy's_witches
• SubversiveActivitiesControlBd
• Members of Communist Party or Communist-action or Communist-front organizations
• Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 781 et seq.)
• Schrecker
• [The Terrible Secret, haunted Wood, etc.
• Hearings of the House Un-American Activities Committee Relating to the Alger Hiss Case

See also

• User:Nobs01/Agent handling
• User:Nobs01/here's what we know
• User:Nobs/Grand Alliance of World War II
• Jack Palladino
• User:Nobs/Magdoff
• User:Nobs/Perlo

===Abraham George Silverman=== In 1942 Silverman became civilian chief of analysis and plans to the assistant chief of the Army Air Force Air Staff for Material and Service.

Lauchlin informed Silverman orally 'on various matters' including the possibility that the government was about to break the Soviet code. Harry Dexter White had gave government documents to Silverman. Both men had helped Greg Silvermaster and other Soviet spies obtain or keep government jobs and had used their positions to influence U.S. policies in ways helpful to the Soviet Union.

Certainly Georege Silverman and Silvermaster were able to learn much about U.S. policies and about Currie's and White's own views through their friendship with them. Both at least occasionally obtained copies of government documents, probably from both Currie and White. Currie seems to have been involved in carrying out orders from Roosevelt to get U.S. intelligence services to return Soviet cryptographic documents to the Soviet Union and to cease decoding operations, and he seems to have spoken of it to colleagues, including William Yandell Elliott. Both Currie and White helped Silvermaster keep his job on more than one occasion in 1942 and 1943 when he was attacked for being a communist, though it is reasonable to suppose that they did so because they believed him innocent of any wrongdoing-even if he was sympathetic to leftist and communist causes. (The main reason Silvermaster had come under suspicion was his active involvement in the labor movement in California in the 1930s, in which he associated with leading members of the CPUSA.) And the Soviet Union no doubt found much to like in some of the policy positions taken by Currie and White, even if those positions were taken in order to further U.S. interests. Nothing in this story provides credible evidence of espionage or of an effort to undermine U.S. interests.

Aileron occured in the Venona traffic and was identified as Abraham George Silverman. The “D.” first initial given here may be an error or perhaps based on Silverman generally being known as “George Silverman.” The first letter of the name “George” is rendered in Russian by a Cyrillic letter that is usually Latinized as “Dzh.”

Aileron as a cover name was an obvious reference to Silverman’s Air Force position.

User:Nobs01/Secret apparatus

India Office

You might want to start Board of Control, as well - that was the predecessor of the India Office. I'm not sure about sources. General histories of the Raj would probably have some material. I also found , and in a library search. john k 16:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

ABCDEF or G.

Yes, I believe we do agree. I wish others could be more agreeable.:( Nice to meet you, come visit my user page. --Silversmith 23:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Ransom?

No, a ransom is something you pay to get back stolen property or kidnapped individuals. Jayjg 19:42, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I needed a login for those references, which I didn't have. But see this:

ran·som Audio pronunciation of "ransom" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rnsm)
n.
1.

1. The release of property or a person in return for payment of a demanded price.

2. The price or payment demanded or paid for such release.

2. A redemption from sin and its consequences.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. --Jayjg 20:34, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I suppose you could claim it, but it's an unusual usage. "Tribute" is a better fit, though. In any event, that's not the term used in the sources. If you can find a source describing it as ransom, that would be fine. Jayjg 20:46, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Discussion Deletion

On the "Allies" talk page, you removed a portion of the discussion pertaining to an ongoing article content dispute. Why did you do this? — Lifeisunfair 23:01, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

If I did it was a mistake. I'm terribly sorry. I'll be more careful next time. I did have trouble uploading before. Can it be restored? Nobs 00:31, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad to learn that this was unintentional. And yes, I've already restored the missing text, so there's no problem. Thank you for responding. — Lifeisunfair 02:22, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Causes of World War I

Hi,

Specific questions... what I really want to know are the names of a few important scholars from the 20s-50s, and what the author thinks about the general trend in historiography. Also, I'd be interested if they mention what east german or russian writers have had to say.

I also quite like A.J.P Taylor, so you can poke around in there as much as you like. I don't know anything about links between the Okhrana and the Black Hand... is there actually any firmly established link? I've never heard anything about that, and it would certainly have profound implications, so I'd be careful about that.

I do think that this article can use a bit of work, putting some focus into it. Unfortunately this is notoriously difficult to do with wikipedia articles ;-) However, its a subject that quite interests me, so I'll keep poking around in it for a while.

Thanks for the help. Peregrine981 03:14, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

assistance uploading image

• Need assistance uploading this image for posting on this site St. John Philby, seeing I'm an idiot. Thanks. Nobs 19:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
  • is the image in the public domain? Do you have a link to the source info? Thanks - Chris 73 Talk 20:23, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

My proposal

Hi Nobs. Since it is my proposal, I want control over the contents of the proposal. If you think that in my proposal, I misquote or misrepresent you, please do let me know and I will make an appropriate change. Also, I encourage you to express any of your thoughts in one of the discussion sections. As for voting, I have unprotected the page. I am not sure I understand your question. If you object to my proposal vote no, if you like it vote yes. If you aren't sure, take your time to think about it, make comments in the discussion sections, ask other people questions. Or, consider formulating your own proposal! Slrubenstein | Talk 18:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I appreciate your view. I know that atheists do use BCE/CE. However, anyone who claims that BCE/CE means that God does not exist is just flat out wrong. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:38, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Redirects are easy

#REDIRECT ]
That's all :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

the Bible article

FYI, I did not do anything to the "200 BCE" figure. That is what the text had when I went to the page. The only change I made was to change "100 CE" to "200 CE" as the outside date for the close of the canon. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Good job

Your placing the Katherine van Wormer issue in as an external link in the Junk science article is precisely what I have been talking about. I appreciate your effort in labeling what her opinions truly amount to.--MONGO 02:15, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Rosenbergs

Do you consider it 'non essential vandalism' (sic) to insert that the Rosenbergs were Jewish?Linuxlad 16:48, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Personally I beleive Rosenberg's faith (and/or race) is nonessential to the subject. News organizations have ceased to identify suspects and those convicted of crimes by race or religion about 1982 (its part of Journalistic ethics now). Only serves prejudice and bigotry, and is entirely non-essential to the article, if not irrelevent. Nobs 17:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, it seems quite useful to me that so many of the key characters are American-Jewish - eg i wouldn't eg be able to appreciate the power of Doctorow's book unless I knew that it was in that tradition - I think you're being too PC, sorry. In a similar way it's relevant to know that many British leftists, from the key players in the civil war to the 'Pentridge martyrs', were part of a non-conformist tradition. Bob

Assuming one subscribes to the "Left-Right Political Spectrum Theory" of Max Weber. User:Nobs

Plato dialogues naming survey

As an active participant in the discussions on Category_talk:Dialogues_of_Plato, I wanted to draw your attention to my survey proposal. This would likely bring in a number of outside and (presumably/hopefully) objective views - at the least, a fair enough number to make a consensus at the conclusion. Surveys need to be discussed by the involved parties ahead of time in order to come to an agreement as to their content, and thus make them valid. If you have the time, I'd appreciate if you got involved. Thanks! --Girolamo Savonarola 23:19, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

Bolesław Gebert

Strange, I must admit I never heard of the guy before, nor could I find any info on him over the Polish encyclopaedias. On the other hand he might be somehow related to Konstanty Gebert, who is a notable journalist and war correspondent as well as one of my personal favourites when it comes to journalism. He speaks English, so you might want to contact him and ask whether they are relatives. Halibutt 19:07, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Merkulov

No credibility presented. Insinuates Oppenheimer. Boris is wrong name. IMO a hoax. mikka (t) 00:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Hi, Nobs01! Boris is really a mistake. The guy's name was Vsevolod Nikolayevich Merkulov. Here's some proof (i don't know if you can read Russian), it's his short bio at FSB's official website KNewman 02:52, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

User:Nobs01/Internal Distress

Houston Press article December 5, 2002

Eliot Spitzer

Thanks for your note. I thought the standard scapegoat was "overzealous young people" rather than an "overzealous staff member", but, hey, whatever works for you.  :) JamesMLane 21:33, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FairTax

I see you made a post on the article's talk page; welcome to the FairTax article. Please stop by and make some edits, this article needs 'em. Don't worry if you revert me, if you have a reason, I won't be offended. Just jump right in. I'm not trying to 'claim' or 'own' this article, but I would like to see a broader base of contributors eventually. I try to remember that contentious articles like this are the very reason why we have an NPOV tag to apply... people aren't going to agree fully on this issue, but we should have differing views documented properly. Best regards. --Unfocused 04:01, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)a

Thanks. But after seeing the Law of uninteded consequences at work vis-a-vis double taxation on the elderly and muni's I almost got persuaded to oppose something near and dear to my heart. Seems the legislation itself in its raw form needs a lot of work. Nobs01 04:08, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ted Hall

Nobs, I've noticed on Theodore Hall that you said he wasn't charged because the FBI thought Venona would be hearsay, something which you seem to just be speculating about on the Ethel and Julius Rosenberg page. Do you have any clear sources for this, or is this just another of your "personal impressions"? If just the latter, please revert it back. --Fastfission 05:58, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'll have the time for editing large documents for quite awhile but I support the project. If you need somebody to look up any more difficult to find books or government documents (i.e. congressional testimony), it is generally easy for me to do so, so don't hesitate to ask. You should add the hearsay information (properly sourced, perhaps even quoted) to the VENONA page. --Fastfission 15:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there is any quick and easy way to remove the textual information from the document -- the heavy redactions make it unlikely that the OCR scanner would succeed very well. However I'll try (when I get the chance) to run an OCR scan on it and see if it produces anything useful. At the very least, it should make the document somewhat searchable. I'll let you know how that turns out. I've read Moynihan's book on VENONA and find his general thesis mostly convincing (VENONA shows that there was some CP activity, but that it was fairly limited, and that if it had been released sooner we wouldn't have had either the extremes of McCarthy or the extreme backlash to him). I may, if I get the chance, work towards a script which would compile all of the VENONA files themselves into one large PDF file and run an OCR on it. If I end up doing this, I will let you know and send you the file, you might find it useful I imagine. --Fastfission 16:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

John Carter Vincent

lived: (1900–72) biography: Diplomat, born in Seneca, Kansas, USA. He started his diplomatic career in 1925, headed the office of Far Eastern Affairs (1945), and was ambassador to Switzerland (1947). In 1952–3 he was named as the ‘number two’ State Department employee on Senator Joseph McCarthy's list of suspected Communists. A board of inquiry found ‘reasonable doubt’ as to his loyalty to the USA and he retired. He was never officially rehabilitated, but later commentators described him as an ideal diplomat, public servant, and loyal American.

FDR

Please stop inserting irrelevent trivia in the Roosevelt article. What is it with you and communism? Adam 03:01, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That is no doubt all very interesting, but it doesn't belong in an FDR biographical article. The CPUSA was always a minor party which had no influence on the course of American politics, whatever both its sympathisers and its enemies may have said. All this cloak-and-dagger stuff, if you really want to write about it, belongs in a relevant article, not in this one. Adam 04:41, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

armed forces

See the history of the Armed force page: 15:52, 22 Apr 2005 Violetriga (Armed force moved to Armed forces). Hope this helps. Philip Baird Shearer 17:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:willmcw's behavior towards me

Thank you for your comment. A little background - I first encountered willmcw a few days after I joined wikipedia and we had an extended but mostly friendly dispute over an article's content that resulted in a peaceful resolution. Despite this, he's gradually adopted a very bad habit of wikistalking against myself and, as I understand it, a few other editors who have similarly clashed with him in the past. He takes it upon himself to personally screen and edit virtually everything I do on wikipedia, seldom for any legitimate reason. He likes to delete factual information that doesn't conform to his POV under the guise of claiming that it is "unsourced" even when the statement's factuality is obvious or well documented (though he adds all sorts of truly unsourced material favorable to his own POV without any concern). Sometimes its downright bizarre and he deletes or edits something I've added in a way that belittles its significance even despite a source - which he's very briefly opened and misread or misconstrued, only to transpose that same misconstruction into the deletion or edit. I've seen this happen dozens of times, and it always ends with him being shown that his edits are made erroniously then backing down. I won't abstain from doing this where necessary, but it's terribly time consuming and very deconstructive to wikipedia when I have to personally justify each and every major edit I make to a self-appointed wikistalker who also happens to suffer from severe reading comprehension problems that frequently lead him to misconstrue plainly written wordings and source materials if and when he doesn't agree with their implications or, more commonly, he has some sort of personal fixation against the editor who made them.

When he can't find a reason to delete something I've added, his personality type nevertheless drives him to make unnecessary copyedits that simply shift sentences around or delete links he doesn't personally like, all with very little value to the article itself. I've seen this type before & its almost always an obsessive-compulsive personality that always needs to get the "last word" in or make the "last change" even if it isn't of any real value. Since, for whatever reason, he's "selected" me among the subjects of his wikistalking, I have come to expect that just about anything I do here will be responded to with a deconstructive edit by him in a matter of hours. It doesn't matter what subject or area the article is in - I could start an article on the Migration habits of Peruvian Fruit Flies and he'd be there within a few hours rearranging the thing - not because there's anything wrong with the article per se, but because I'm the one who edited it and he has this bizarre "need" to screen everything I've added here (and yes, willmcw - I am stating this in detail since I know you will probably be reading this post as you commence your daily wikistalking of me). It's also produced a very bizarre situation on wikipedia whenever I've become involved in disputes with other editors on an article, as willmcw has taken it upon himself to follow me to those disputes and side with the other person regardless of the article's topic, apparently for no other reason than the fact that I'm involved. The entire Houston Chronicle dispute is one such example. Willmcw has no real interest in the Houston Chronicle and seemingly knows next to nothing about it or any of the controversies it's involved in, but once Katefan let him know that I was there he jumped in for no other reason than to advocate her side. He's done the same thing in several other completely unrelated cases where I've differed with another editor - votes, VfD's, you name it! For a while I've generally tolerated it and responded in kind, but his etiquette abuses are approaching the level of personal harassment so the gloves are coming off, hence my comments yesterday. Thanks Rangerdude 17:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again. I made note of your observation about him distracting away from a resolution of the dispute, which is true. I've also requested arbitration against him for wiki-stalking me and documented some 40+ cases where he's followed me around to various articles Rangerdude 03:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Greetings again. Please check out . Willmcw has responded to my criticism of his wiki-stalking by accusing me of making personal attacks. This is a blatant misrepresentation as I made the statements he cites to inform him of my objection to his behavior - not to attack him. I have compiled an extensive and documented response, demonstrating his lengthy history of stalking me and appearing at all sorts of unusual places around wikipedia shortly after I've made an edit. I've also requested yet again that he cease and desist, and proposed that the two of us avoid each other wherever possible as a solution. Rangerdude 09:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FYI - it appears that Willmcw has asked one of his buddies, SlimVirgin, to nominate him for administrator. This same administrator reacted very irrationally and defensively after I put forth my complaint about Willmcw's behavior last week, effectively insisting that since what I described of Willmcw was not the Willmcw "he knew" all my evidence should be ignored. Votes are currently open and I've stated my opposition in the strongest terms possible.

I realize it's unwinnable right now to stop his nomination, but it's something that needs to be in the record. Any reconciliation that could've occured between this particular editor and myself perhaps a couple weeks ago has effectively been spoiled by our recent chain of disputes and his attempt to initiate RfC proceedings against me for stating a valid complaint with his editing behavior. I believe that if granted administrator powers (which appears to be the case) he will be prone to abusing them in the event we have future disputes. Maybe he'll prove me wrong but experience is the only thing I've got to go on with this one. It also troubles me that he answered an explicit question asking if he'd been involved in major editor disputes before and remained completely silent about both the Houston Chronicle and the RfC etc. incidents that took place only last week. That's not being very forthright. Rangerdude 17:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That would be more of a concern to me if I were running for something around here or attempting to get on somebody's good side. But I'm not - I'm simply interested in making constructive edits around here. Since those edits are my only concern it is in my interest to ensure a full disclosure of reasons why Willmcw - who as an administrator would potentially behave and use his powers in a way that abusively impacts my editing given his past behavior - may not be the best choice. If being the lone opponent is what it takes to get the pertinent information out there of why this editor is a bad choice (for example - his completely unjustified attempts to insert himself into a closed mediation

) then I'm more than willing to do that and feel obliged to do so in the interest of full disclosure. Rangerdude 17:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Harry Dexter White

I'm sorry, but what your edits are obviously trying to do is to indicate that Harry Truman was a communist sympathizer. As to a Time magazine article from 1953 as a reliable source, please. Time magazine was a McCarthyite source in 1953! See Henry Luce (although our article on him isn't very good). Beyond that, surely there must be some recent sources on White that establish what people think about it now. Forgive me for not having much faith in a Time magazine article from 1953. john k 16:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry if that is the impression, and I will be happy to work with you to achieve a NPOV vis-a vis Harry Truman. However this matter relates to the entire period of American history, basically from 1921 onwards (see History of Soviet espionage in the United States). Clearly, Truman was no communist symapthizer, witness Truman Doctrine, Containment etc. However, the primary source to gain proper perspective is FBI Venona file pgs. 61-75, where we see Venona project evidence was kept secret from President Truman himself, which explains why he went ahead with the appointment of White. (See also Talk:Whittaker_Chambers#Psychiatrist for the basic thesis, that while it was true a large Soviet appartus existed in D.C. in the 1930s & 40s, McCarthy began with a half truth and went after the wrong people. Most probably because in his perception, the FBI wasn't doing anything about it. Hence the real significance of the FBI Venona file pgs. 61-75). All this information needs to be inserted properly throughout a host of articles). Trust me, I am no defender of McCarthy and not a critic of Truman, but it seems while McCarthy persecuted innocent people, many of the truelly guilty have been able to hide & escape on the cloak of being McCarthyite victims. For now, until you have had time to examine the documents, to achieve a NPOV, I propose removing the McCarthyism reference in the Harry Dexter White article to where it can be reinserted later after the pre-McCarthy Venona material is properly handled. Thanks. Nobs01 17:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you want to remove stuff, that's fine. That being said, I will admit a considerable lack of knowledge about the Venona files. In particular, I don't feel that I have enough specific background in this stuff to be able to read the document you give me and have any understanding of what it means in context. I would greatly appreciate a scholarly secondary source from the last decade or so that discusses the question of White's involvement with the communists. john k 17:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't like that version, either. Among other things, it implies that it is uncontroversial to say he was involved in espionage. Given the link you sent me from cooperativeindividualism.org, which I am in the process of reading, it seems to me that this is questionable. I think the minimum that that article admits about White should certainly be put in - that he employed a good number of communists in the Treasury, and was friends with various known communist spies; that he was almost certainly very loose with his tongue, and didn't see any problem with telling his communist underlings about his work; that he is mentioned in the Venona dispatches. Beyond that, it seems to be disputed - certainly, Boughton and Sandilands dispute it, and they seem to be relatively reputable sources. I think it is absolutely key that the various different explanations for White's behavior be brought in, and that we not just say he was a spy. john k 18:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nobs, the question is not what you or I or the NSA think (obviously you and the NSA think that White is guilty; I don't really feel like I know enough to say one way or the other.) The question is if there is a legitimate dispute over whether or not he is guilty, or if it is generally accepted that he is guilty. Again, I don't feel that I am necessarily up on this enough to say for sure, but the existence of an article by seemingly serious people which argues that he isn't guilty suggests that there is still some dispute (Could one at this point find similar articles about Alger Hiss, for instance?) As to the IMF, considering that, per our article, they moved his bust to the basement, I don't see that they would necessarily be likely to defend White. Once again, the existence of a relatively non-partisan account of this would make deciding this much easier. john k 19:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, the Alger Hiss is the sore point of partisan dispute in the United States now for two generations. Watergate, indeed can be seen as a political vendetta by Hiss defenders against Richard Nixon, who rose from an obscure congressman to the Presidency by sending Alger Hiss, the first Secretary General of the United Nations to prison because of his Communist espionage activities which resulted in the Western betrayal at the Yalta Conference. All those issues can be dealt with there when the time comes. What is particularly dispicable about some of these characters (like Hiss), is that rather than admit to his own complicity, he was willing to cast aspersions upon people around him & subordinates who trusted him until he died in 1992. These questions are all actively being debated on those talk pages. The question of Harry White giving Soviet intelligence stolen templates to conterfeit US currency is indisputable, and doesnt pass the anti-fascist test. As to separating White from Truman, because Truman truelly was in the dark about his complicity, which led to 50 years of lies and distortions, and partisan bitterness in the United States (see VENONA_project#Significance), again let me refer you to the FBI Venona file pgs. 61-75, which needs to placed in Wikisource. Nobs01 19:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here's another source , a book by R. Bruce Craig, which also seems to suggest that White has not been proven to be a communist spy. As to the counterfeit US currency thing, what is your source for this? (And the Nixon and Hiss thing - well, I think I'll do best just to pretend you didn't say that). My point about Hiss was that you will not find scholars today who are willing to defend Hiss. This does not seem to be the case with White. john k 19:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This guy, an official State Department/CIA historian, seems more convinced by the Venona stuff that White is guilty, but he doesn't seem to think that Craig's argument is beyond the pale, and generally seems to respect Craig's work, even while disagreeing with him. The Washington Post review reprinted on Amazon is much more negative, but I don't know anything about Ted Morgan. Some of the points, though, seem pretty specious. The Library Journal also gave what appears to be a favorable review, and there are quotes from various luminaries on the back praising the book. It seems to me that this suggests, at least, that there is still a legitimate dispute on the subject of White's guilt. john k 19:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This, by the way, seems to interpret Craig's book completely differently from Ted Morgan and the State Department/CIA guy, saying that Craig accepts that White was a spy. So now I'm confused. john k 19:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We have an article at Harry Dexter White. Please stop working on a competing article, and work with other editors to make that single article acceptable. RickK 23:29, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

History

copied from Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Rangerdude

Case seems pretty clearcut; it must have taken hours to assembly this type of work. I myself encountered such activity as this when I was a newbie on the Talk:Russell_Tribunal/Archive1 page , where the Archived reference material had repeatedly be reworked to where User:Willmcw reverted his own signature, then some anonymous poster assumed my personal name (Rob) that a mediator there used onetime, and applied to all User:Willmcw postings on that page. The intent was clear, CYA & confuse the discussion, especially since User:Willmcw/(Rob) demonstrated no real interest in the facts under discussion. And that's not half the story. As a newbie, I was amazed such conduct was possible among Wiki Administrators, and still am. Thank you. Nobs01 18:44, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As a historian, I'm hoping you can help me get the history of the Talk:Russell_Tribunal straightened out. In re-reading this comment and the talk page, it occurs to me that you are confusing me with user:KC9CQJ, who had also been manually signing his posts "Rob" for parts of the discussion. See Talk:Russell_Tribunal/Archive1#Discussion_clarity. Could you please do me a favor and check over that page and see if you can discern which editor you are thinking of? My involvement in that discussion was mostly limited to some issues about Nobel Prizes. Thanks, -Willmcw 04:53, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

It is confusing. Actually it appears that user:165.247.204.55 was "Rob". Is that how it looks to you? -Willmcw 04:55, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Well, shooting from the hip from memory, I requested mediation through user:KC9CQJ and communicated with him via private e-mail, at which time I told him my first name in real life is "Rob". During a three way conversation between you, myself & user:KC9CQJ he referred to me as "Rob", not "nobs". Shortky thereafter, Anon:Rob joined the conversation, who was not myself. I tried to insert that into the record, and even for extensive lengths of time refrained from inputting into the discussion between user:KC9CQJ & "Rob", so as not to confuse things even more. Then a series of reversions were done, plus archiving etc., and frankly it got all fucked up. I don't think it's possible to restore the original (beyond my limited talents), but 97.8% of the substance of the issues as relates to the article is there, minus some useless bullcrap. I looked at it a few days ago, and like I said, while it doesnt reflect 100% of the sequence, it's not that badly butchered. I'm still a relative newbie, and one of these days I'll have to take a few hours to learn how to archive myself. But frankly, I don't know what I can do for you now, not without instruction. Thanks. Nobs01 05:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What I'm looking for is how you think I got involved in reverting signatures, CYAing, etc. You've made a bunch of characterizations about my behavior and it appears to me that you are confusing me thinking of other editors. Can you clarify what it is that you think I did improperly on that page? Thanks, -Willmcw 05:19, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I can go back and look in all the archives, but I made a posting during that exchange that declared I beleived there were only three participants in that discussion. I didn't see that posting during a cursory viewing of it two days ago. I can go back and look again, but that might not be til morning. Nobs01 05:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am prepared to make a statement on the matter and wil do so, however it might have to wait to tomorrow or Monday cause I'm just a little pressed for time this weekends. Thx. Nobs01 03:58, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No rush. Thanks, -Willmcw 05:54, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

However, if you're not going to find the edits that you are saying I made then I'd appreciate it you'd remove the assertion or indicate that there was a mistake. Thanks again, -Willmcw 03:56, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

I am prepared to make a statement on the matter and will do so, however it might have to wait to tomorrow or Monday cause I'm just a little pressed for time this weekend. Thx. Nobs01 03:58, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cool. There's also that thing about the hacking of passwords...can you cover that too, please? Thanks, -Willmcw 05:13, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Now you're asking me to review more than the Talk/Russell Tribunal page. I get $35 an hr for my time, you know. Nobs01 20:33, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm just asking you to explain and support (or remove) your accusations. Thanks, -Willmcw 19:57, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Causes célèbres

I notice you added Elizabeth Bentley to this category. It's been voted for deletion but I am trying to save it. Please come to Votes for undeletion to express your view. David File:Arms-westminster-lb.jpg | Talk 17:29, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

comintern affiliates

I don't really think this category will be useful, for two reasons. First; there were 4 cominterns, and quite different, too. Second; IMO a category is better thought as a search tool; it is convenient when you group things whose number is unknown. If you know them all, it is easier jus to av a list of them (in our case, 4 lists). In any case, I am afraid you are mistaken if you think I am an expert in communism. I have no idea who were comintern members. mikka (t) 03:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yalta rollback

I am sorry but I rolledback your last edit. People have no plural number in English, and wikipedia article should link wikipedia, not wikisource articles. I added the wikisource template to Atlantic Charter article itself. Take care, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 09:11, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am not a native speaker and thought people had no plural, but I stand corrected now. Tnx. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Carl Hatch

I've been trying to write the Carl Hatch article for sometime. It's essential now, since there is an article on the Hatch Act... I should finish it eventually. If you have anything you can contribute to it, please tell me! YourNickname 19:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

While I was at it, I expanded the Hatch Act of 1939 since you requested that ti be expanded. XD YourNickname 20:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Eliot Spitzer

I've removed the following paragraph you added to Eliot Spitzer for the second time: "According to USA Today and the Washington Post, a witchhunt brought against brokers in the Mutual Fund industry, which has already cost the industry $3 billion, the only person ever charged was exonerated by a jury on June 10, 2005. "

I removed it because of the following:

• Violates NPOV: Uses blatantly loaded language ("witch-hunt") and slanting the facts (states "cost the industry $3 billion" without noting that this is restitution to mutual fund shareholders).
• Is factually incorrect: You state that "the only person ever charged was exonerated by a jury." That is just factually wrong, according to your own source (a Washington Post article). That article says the following, and I quote verbatim - "The probe yielded six guilty pleas" This means that not one, but seven brokers were charged with crimes. Six plead guilty right off the bat. One (Sihpol) decided to roll the dice on a trial, and was found not guilty. End of story.

I am perfectly willing to let the critics post criticism of Spitzer regarding the mutual fund industry investigations/prosecutions go, but not in partisan smears, nor on factually incorrect ones. --Daniel 05:48, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thanks for your support for my adminship and for clearing up that other matter. Cheers, -Willmcw 09:23, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Venona Work

I want to commend you on all the work you've been doing for Misplaced Pages on the VENONA Papers. You are adding some great valid stuff. Continued good luck. Dwain 22:47, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Photographs and Permission

Hi Nobs01, The pictures I have listed I have usually tagged with fairuse, however, I don't know how long those will hold up. I know photographs from US government websites if taken for the government are PD but I am not really too familiar with all the ins and outs.

You might try contacting --Kevin McManus he contacted me about a photograph I uploaded and checked it out. I'm sorry if I have been less than helpful. Dwain June 29, 2005 01:21 (UTC)

Nobs01: I reread your question and realized that you said you didn't know how to upload photos either. I uploaded the photo you showed me for you and listed it as "fairuse."

To upload a picture what you do is copy the photograph you want from some source. Perhaps rename it to something more suitable and then in the toolbox section on the left of the screen you go into "Uploadfile".

Then hit browse under the "Source file name" and go into the file which has the photgraph you want select the photo and it will show up under "Source file name". In the "Summary" box list the photo for what the rules suggest, such as "

This work is copyrighted (or assumed to be copyrighted) and unlicensed. It does not fall into one of the blanket acceptable non-free content categories listed at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content § Images or Misplaced Pages:Non-free content § Audio clips, and it is not covered by a more specific non-free content license listed at Category:Misplaced Pages non-free file copyright templates. However, it is believed that the use of this work: To illustrate the subject in question Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information On the English-language Misplaced Pages, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Misplaced Pages or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Misplaced Pages:Non-free content and Misplaced Pages:Copyrights. Fair use //en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Nobs01 true

To the uploader: Please add a detailed non-free use rationale for each article the image is used in, which must also declare compliance with the other parts of the non-free content criteria, as well as the source of the work and copyright information. For example non-free use rationales, see Misplaced Pages:Use rationale examples. Template:Non-free use rationale may be helpful for stating the rationale. This tag is not a sufficient claim of fair use. To patrollers and administrators: If this image has an appropriate rationale please append |image has rationale=yes as a parameter to the license template.

" in the brackets then press "Uploadfile"

If you don't kow how to add a photo to a page just go to a page that has a photo and copy the line that has the photo info and replace the name of the picture with the one that you want. I hope it makes sense. Dwain June 29, 2005 17:42 (UTC)

Mary Jane Keeney/Temp

copyvio at Mary Jane Keeney

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Mary Jane Keeney, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text borrowed from web sites. For more information, take a look at our policy library. Happy editing! Bovlb June 29, 2005 06:05 (UTC)

Scientist X

The once mysterious "Scientist X" was identified by the House Committee on Unamerican Activities as Dr. Joseph Weinberg, a University of Minnesota staff member. In its report on atomic espionage issued September, 1949, the Committee told in detail how Weinberg went to the house of "Steve Nelson," then a member of the National Committee of the Communist Party, and volunteered to give him information on the atomic bomb, and how he later evidently carried out his promise in a furtive meeting with a vice consul of the Russian embassy. The House Committee determined is birth name was Mesarosh.

One night, long after midnight, Scientist X read a complicated formula on the construction of the atomic bomb to Steve Nelson, alias Mesarosh, who handed it to Vice-Consul Peter Ivanov, who handed it to Secretary of the Embassy Vassili Zublin, who promptly took off for Moscow. And when, in the middle of 1943, Major General Alexander Ivanovich Belayev, after an unauthorized nonstop flight from Washington in a radar-equipped plane carrying several thousand pounds of secret data on American aviation arrived in the home of the socialist world revolution, Joseph E. Davies -- millionaire and Roosevelt's trusted special ambassador -- as Victor Kravchenko testified, "with 99 per cent certainty," kissed him in the by then customary affectionate manner.

Structure

• (1) Intro, "Can the Republic survive?"
• (2) Personal finances, tax matters

detailed discussion of income, deductions & taxes paid from 1961-1971, ending with famous "I'm not a crook quote".

• (3) milk price supports, a discussion of current D.C. legislation & politics (Raising the milk price}
• (4) conversation with John Mitchell, the beginning of the "Watergate" section of the press conference
• (5) the tapes
  • (a) Cox and the federal prosecution
• ((b) Executive Privelege, or The Jefferson Rule
• (6) Haldeman & Ehrlichman
• (7) other foreign policy mattters regarding China & the War
• (9) Brother's phone tapped

Facts on File

• 9/11/73 "NYT & Baltimore Sun claimed Nixon paid no federal tax in 1970, 71 or 72" -- a false report based on an illegal IRS leak

Associated Press Managing Editors Association
The President's Remarks in a Question-and-Answer Session at, the Association's Annual
Convention in Orlando; Florida. November 17,1973

THE PRESIDENT. President Quinn and ladies and gentlemen:

When Jack Horner who has been a correspondent in Washington and other places around the world, retired after 40 years, he once told me that if I thought that the White House Press Corps asked tough questions, I should hear the kind of questions the managing editors asked him. Consequently, I welcome this opportunity tonight to meet with the managing editors of the Nation's newspapers. I will not have an opening statement because I know, with 400 of you, it will be hard to get through all of the questions you have. And I understand the President has a prerogative of asking the first question. Mr. Quinn

Q Mr. President, this morning, Governor Askew of Florida addressed this group and recalled the words of Benjamin Franklin, when leaving the Constitutional Convention he was asked, "What have you given us, sir, a monarch or a republic?" Franklin answered, "A republic, sir, if you can keep it ". Mr, President, in the prevailing pessimism of the lingering matter we call Watergate, can we keep that republic, sir, and how?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, Mr. Quinn, I would certainly not be standing here answering these questions unless I had a firm belief that we could keep the republic, that we must keep it, not only for ourselves, but for the whole world. I recognize that because of mistakes that were made, and I must take responsibility for those mistakes, whether in the campaign or during the course of an administration, that there are those who wonder whether this republic can survive. But I also know that the hopes of the whole world for peace, not only now but in the years to come, rests in the United States of America. And I can assure you that as long as I am physically able to handle the position to which I was elected, and then reelected to last November, I am going to work for the cause of peace in the world, for the cause of prosperity without war and without inflation at home. And also, to the best of my ability, to restore confidence in the White House, and in the President himself. It is a big job, but I think it can be done, and I intend to do it.

The President was asked about his personal financial matters.

When he had left office as vice president in 1961, he said, his net worth was $47,000, but he "made a lot of money" in the next eight years: $250,000 from his book, Six Crisis; between $100,000 and $250,000 a year practicing law; selling all his stock in 1968 for about $300,000; his New York apartment for $300,000; and another $100,000 due him from his law firm.

The President was asked about a press report he paid $792 in federal income tax in 1970 and $878 in 1971 and whether public officials should disclose their personal finances. Nixon said he had disclosed his personal finances and would make another report available "because, obviously, you're all so busy that when these things come across your desk maybe you don't see them."

In reply to the query, he said he paid $79,000 in income tax in 1969 and "nominal amounts" in the next two years. Why the nominal amounts? he asked. "It wasn't because of the deductions for shall we say a cattle ranch or interest or you know all the gimmicks that you've got where you can deduct from." But because his predecessor Lyndon Johnson "came in to see me shortly after I became President" and suggested he take a legal deduction from his income tax for his vice presidential papers, as Johnson had with most of his Presidential papers. He did this, Nixon said, his papers being appraised at $500,000, "many believe conservatively, at the moment," he added. He would be glad to have the papers back, he said, and pay the tax, "because I think they're worth more than that."

"I want to say this to the television audience. I made my mistakes, but in all of my years of public life, I have never profited, never profited from public service. I have earned every cent. And in all of my years of public life, I have never obstructed justice. And I think, too, that I can say that in my years of public life, that I welcome this kind of examination because people have got to know whether or not their President's a crook. Well, I'm not a crook. I've earned everything I've got."

Nixon raised the issue of the 1971 increase in federal milk price supports. "I want the fact out because the facts will prove that the Presidnet is telling the truth," charge that an increase in milk prices came about as a "quid pro quo" because of promised campaign contributions from milk producers were "just not true" "Democrats in Congress put a gun to our head" among others Senator George McGovern, demanding a price support increase, so the Administration put one into effect.

The President was asked about gas rationing. ""

The President responded the public would "resent" gas rationing. "Our goal is make it not necessary." "I'm not going to pledge to the television audience that rationing manever come. If you have another War in the Middle East, if you have a complete cut off and not a resumption of the flow of oil from the Mid East, or some other disaster occurs, rationing may come."

"I came down here in a plane here today—Air Force One—I asked them if I couldn't take the Jetstar. They said, "No", it doesn't have communications. So I've had to take the big plane. But we did one thing that saved half the cost. We didn;t have the backup plane. The Secret Service didn't like it; Communications didn't like it; but I don't need a backup plane. If this one goes down, it goes down--and then they don't have to impeach."

Nixon reminded them he was the first President ever to an send energy message to Congress.

"Now I'm not saying here Congress is to blame, the Presidnet should have done something. What I do say is that the President warned about it and the Congress did not act, even thought we warned two years ago. The President warned in April. The Congress did not act. And now it's time for the Congress to get away from some of these other diversions, if they have time, and get on to this energy crisis."

Q Mr. President, I am George Gill of the Louisville Courier-Journal Would you please tell us, sir, when did you personally discover that two of the nine subpoenaed White House tapes did not exist, and why did you apparently delay for a matter of weeks disclosing this matter to the Federal court and to the public?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, the first time that the fact that there were no recordings of the two conversations to which you referred—that they did not exist—came to my attention on approximately September 29 or September 30. At that time, I was informed only that they might not exist because a search was not made, because seven of the nine recordings requested did exist, and my secretary, listening to them for me and making notes for me, proceeded to go through those seven tapes I should point out, incidentally, that the two which did not exist, in which there were no tape recordings of the conversations, were not ones that were requested by the Senate committee, and consequently, we felt that we should go forward with the ones that were requested by both the Senate committee and the others. When we finally determined that they could not be in existence was on October 26 of this year. And we learned it then when I directed the White House Counsel, Mr. Buzhardt, to question the Secret Service operatives as to what had happened to make sure that there might not be a possibility, due to the fact that the mechanism was as not operating properly, that we might find them in some other place. He questioned them for 2 days and reported on the 27th that he could not find them He then, having had a date made—and he asked for the date sooner with Judge Sirica, he asked for a date on Thursday, you may recall I pointed that out in my press conference on the 96th—Judge Sirica saw him on Tuesday in camera. The White House Counsel reported to Judge Sirica that the two tapes did not exist and gave him the reasons for it. The judge decided, and I think quite properly, that the reasons for the tape not existing should he made public and those involved with access to the tapes and those who operated the machines should be questioned so that there would he no question of the White House, somebody around the President, or even the President himself, having destroyed evidence that was important even though the Senate committee had not, as I have alreay pointed out, subpoenaed either of these two tapes. And since we ale on this subject, and I do not want to he taking all of the time on it except that I know there is going to be enormous interest in it, not only among this audience here, but among our television viewers, let me point this out; I have done everything that I possibly can to provide the evidence that would have existed had we found the tapes: First, with regard to the tape of June 20, as you may recall, it was a 5-minute telephone conversation with the former Attorney General, John Mitchell, who had just left as campaign manager or was planning to leave as campaign manager at that time. I have a practice of keeping a personal diary—I can assure you not every day—Sometimes you are too tired at the end of a day to either make notes or dictate it into a dictabelt. On that particular day I happened to have dictated a dictabelt, and on the dictabelt for June 90, which I found, I found that I had referred to the conversation to John Mitchell, and I think it is fair to disclose to this audience what was there because it will be disclosed to the court It has already been offered to the court and eventually I assume will he made public. It said, first that T called John Mitchell to cheer him up because I knew he was terribly disheartened by what had happened in the so-called Watergate matter Second. He expressed chagrin to me that the organization over which he had control could have gotten out of hand in this way That was what was on that tape. Now, turning to the one on April 15, I thought I might have a dictabelt of that conversation as well Let me tell you first why the telephone conversation was not recorded. not because of any deliberate attempt to keep the recording from the public, hut because the only telephones in the residence of the White House which are recorded—the only telephone, there is only one, is the one that is in the office, the little Lincoln Sitting Room right off the Lincoln Bedroom The call I made to John Mitchell was made at the end of the day at about 6:30 just before going into dinner from the family quarters, and no telephones in the family quarters ever were recorded. That is, why the recording did not exist. Turning to April 15, the conversation referred to there was at the end of the process in which Mr. Dean came in to tell me what he had told the U. S. attorneys that day. He saw me at 9 o'clock at night, Sunday night. There should have been a recording Everybody thought there probably was a recording The reason there was not a recording is that the tape machines over the weekend only can carry 6 hours of conversation and usually that is more than enough. because I do not use the EOB office that is, the Executive Office Building office rather than the Oval Office over the weekend to that extent. But that weekend I was in the EOB for a long a with Dr. Kissinger on foreign policy matters I was there for 9 other hours, or 9 or 3 other hours, and the tape ran out in the middle of a conversation with Mr. Klein- in the middle of the afternoon, Sunday afternoon. And a later conversation I had, the rest of Kleindienst's conversation, a later conversation I had also with Mr. l'ctcrse n, and the conversation at 9 o'clock at night with. Dean was not there. So I tried to find whatever recording whatever record that would help the prosecutor in th is instance to reconstruct the evidence, because it was the evidence that he was after and not just the tape. What I found was not a dictabelt What I found was my handwritten notes made at the time of the conversation I have turned those over to or have authorized my counsel to turn those notes over to the judge, so that he can have them checked for authenticity, and I understand there are ways that he can tell that they were written at that time. Those handwritten notes are available. And then I did one other thing which I think will also he helpful The next day I had a conversation with Mr Dean in the morning at 10 o'clock That conversation was recorded, and in that conversation there are repeated references to what was said the night before, and when compared with my handwritten notes it is clear that we are discussing the same subjects. That entire tape as well as the conversation I had in the afternoon with Mr. Dean for about 20 minutes will he made available to the court even though the court has not subpoenaed them I would just simply say in conclusion you can he very sure that this kind of a subject is one that is a difficult one to explain It appears that it is impossible that when we have an Apollo system that we could have two missing tapes when the White House is concerned Let me explain for one moment what the system w as This is no Apollo system I found that it cost—I just learned this—$2 500 I found that instead of having the kind of equipment that was there when President Johnson was there which was incidentally much better equipment but I found—-and I am not saying that critically—hut I found that in this instance it was a Son a little Sony that they had and that what they had are these little lapel mikes in my desks And as a result the conversations in the Oval Officel, the conversations in the Cabinet Room, and particularly those in the EOB, those are the three rooms, only those three rooms where they recorded—for example, the Western White House had no recording equipment and my house in Key Biscayne had(l none—but as far as those particular recordings are concerned the reason that you have heard that there are difficulties in hearing them is that the system itself W;1$ not a sophisticated system I do not mean to suggest by that that the judge by listening to them will not he able to get the facts and I would simply conclude by saying this, I think I know what is on these tapes from having listened to some those before March 21. And also from having seen from my secretary's notes the highlights of others And I call assure you that those tapes when they are presented to the judge and, I hope, eventually to the grand jury, and I trust in some way we can find a way at least to get the substance to the American people, they will prove these things without question. One, that I had no knowledge Whatever of the Watergate break-in before it occurred. Two, that I never authorized the offer of to anybody and, as a matter of fact, turned it down when it was suggested It was not recommended by any member of my staff but it was, on occasion, suggested as a result of news reports that clemency might become a factor. And third, as far as any knowledge with regard to the payment of blackmail money, which, as you recall, was the charge that was made, that Mr. Hunt's attorney had asked for $ 190,000 in money to he paid to him or he would tell things about members of the White House Staff, not about Watergate, that might be embarrassing. Testimony had been given before the Senate committee that I was told that before the 21st of March, actually told it on the 13th of March. I know I heard it for the first time the 21 st of of March, and I will reveal this much of the conversation—I am sure the judge wouldn't mind—I recall very well Mr. Dean, after the conversation began, telling me, 'Mr. President, there are some things about this I haven't told you I think you should know them'. And then he proceeded then for the first time to tell me about that money. Now, I realize that some will wonder about the truth of these particular statements that I have made I am going to hand out later—I won't hand them out, but I will have one of our executives hand out my May 22 statement, my August 15 statement, and one with regard to these two tapes You can believe them if you want—I can tell you it is the truth because I have listened to or have had knowledge of from someone I have confidence in, as to what is in the tapes.

Q Mr. President, Richard Tuttle, Democrat and Chronicle, Rochester New York. Could you tell us sour personal reaction and your political reaction—and within that word I mean your credibility with the American people—our reaction to the discovery that the Dean and Mitchell tapes did not exist?

THE President. Well, my personal reaction was one of very great disappointment. Because I wanted the evidence out, and I knew that when there was any indication that something didn't exist, immediately there should be the impression that some way, either the President, or more

likely, perhaps somebody on the President's staff, knew there was something on those tapes that it wouldn't be wise to get out. But let me point out again, while I was disappointed, let me say I would have been a lot more disappointed if the tapes that had been considered impeachabele by both Mr. Cox, the Special Prosecutor and the Ervin committee, if any one of those had been missing because I should point out the tape of September 15 when as you recall, has been testified that I was first informed there was a coverup—that, of course, is there the tape of March 13, where it has l)been testified, as I pointed out in the answer to the Louisville Courier-Journal where it has been testified that l was informed then of the demands for money for purposes of blackmail, that is available And the tape of March 21, where we discussed this in great detail, as well as three other tapes in which Mr Dean participated, three other conversations, are all available. But as far as these two tapes are concerned, even though they were not considered by the Ervin committee to be an indispensable part of their investigation, the fact that they were not there was a great disappointment, and I just wish we had had a better system—I frankly wish we hadn't had a system at all, then I wouldn't have to answer this question.

Q Mr. President, John Dougherty Did you tell Mr. Cox to stay out of the Ellsberg case, and if you did, why and do you think that the new Special Prosecutor should be kept from investigating the Ellsberg case?

THE PRESIDENT. I have never spoken to Mr. Cox at all; as a matter of fact, however I did talk to Mr. Petersen about it, before Mr Cox took over I told Mr Petersen that the job that he had—and I would have said the same thing to Mr. Cox—was to investigate the Watergate matter that national security matters were not matters that should be investigated, because there were some very highly sensitive matters involved, not only in Ellsberg but also another matter so sensitive that even Senator Ervin and Senator Baker have decided that they should not delve further into them I don't mean that that we arc going to throw the cloak of National Security over something because we are guilty of something. I am simply saying that where the National Security would be disserved by having an investigation, the President has the responsibility to protect it, and I am going to do so

Q Paul Poorman from the Detroit News. Are you personally satisfied sir, that the investigation of the Watergate matter is complete, to your satisfaction, and if so, could you tell us what your plans are to tell the American people about the facts of the case with regard again to your credibility on this matter.

THE PRESIDENT: First with rEgard to whether the investigation is complete. As you know, there is now a new Special Proscutor, Mr. Jaworski. He is a Democrat. He has always supported the Democratic ticket. He is a highly respected lawyer, former president of the ABA in the year 1971. I have met him. I have never talked to him personally, and certainly have never talked to him about this matter. I refuse to because I want him to be completely independent. He cannot be removed unless there is a consensus of the top leadership of both the House and Senate, Democrat and Republican, the Speaker and the Majority and Minority Leaders of the House and the President Pro Tem, the Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate. And the ranking two members of the Judiciary Committees of both the House and Senate, which, incidentally, gives you, as you can see, a very substantial majority, as far as the Democrats are concerned. The second point, and the point I am trying to make is, one, he is qualified; two, he is independent and will have cooperation; and three, he will not be removed unless the Congress, particularly the leaders of the Congress, and particularly the Democratic leaders who have a strong majority on this group that I have named, agree that he should be removed. And I do not expect that that time will come. As to what I can tell the American people, this is one forum, and there may be others As to what the situation is as to when it call be done, it is. of course necessary to let the grand jury proceed as quickly as possible to a conclusion and I should point out to you, as you may recall Mr. Petersen testified before the Ervin committee that when he was removed from his position—you recall he was removed in April and a Special Prosecutor was put in—that the case was 90 percent ready For 6 months, under the Special Prosecutor who was then appointed, the case has not been brought to a conclusion. And I think that now after 6 months of delay, it is time that the case I c brought to a conclusion If it was 90 percent finished in April, they ought to be able to finish now. Those who are guilty, or presumed to he guilty, should be indicted. Those who are not guilty at least should get

some • x iden c of being cleared because in the meantime, the reputations of men, some maybe who are not guilty, have been probably irreparably damaged by what has happened in the hearings that they have appeared before publicly. They have already been convicted and they may never recover find that isn't our system of government. The place to try a man or a woman for a crime is in the courts and not to convict them either in the newspapers or on television before he has a fair trial in the courts.

Q Mr. Presidents I'm Bob Haiman from the St. Petersburg Times in St Petersburg Florida When Mr. Ehrlichman and Mr. Halderman left your administration you said they were guilty in the Watergate affair, and they were, quote, 'two of the finest public servants you had ever known' end quote. After what has transpired and been revealed since then, do you still feel the same way about both men and both, statments.

THE PRESIDENT First, l hold that both men and others who have been charged are guilt! until l have evidence that they are not guilty and I know that every newspaper man and newspaper woman ill this whole audience would agree with that statement That is our American system Second, A[r Haldeman and Mr. Ehrlichman had been and were dedicated, fine public servants, and I believe, it is m! belief based on what I know now, that when these proceedings are completed that they will come out all right On the other hand, they have e appeared before the grand jury before they will be appearing again, and as I pointed out in answer to an earlier question, it probably does not make any difference, unfortunately, whether the grand jury indicts them or not, whether they are tried or not, because, unfortunately they have already been convicted in the minds of millions of Americans by what happened before a Senate committee AIR. QUIN 5. 3,I'r President, may I suggest that you may have misspoke yourself when you said that you assumed Haldeman and Ehrlichman are considered guilty until proven not guilty THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I certainly did, if I said that— thank you for correcting me Q. Richard Smyser, from The Oak Ridger in Oak Ridge, Tennessee Senator Mark Hatfield said recently that we demand so much of a President, we ask him to play so many roles that no man can hold that kind of responsibility without having to share that responsibility with all Americans To what extent do you think that this explains possibly how something like Watergate can occur? THE PRESIDENT I could stand here before this audience and make all kinds of excuses, and most of you probably would understand because you are busy also '7'7 was a very busy year for me It w was a year when we had the visit to China, it was a year when we had the visit to Moscow and the first limited nuclear ban on defensive weapons, you recall, as well as some other very significant events It was a year too when we had the very difficult decisions on May! 8, the bombing and mining of Hai- and then the negotiations and then in T)ceemher of course, the very very difficult—perhaps the most difficult— decision I made of the De( c mber bombing, which did lead to the breakthrough and the uneasy peace hut it is peace with . all of the Ame( ricans home, all of our PO\ N"s home, and peace at least for a w while in that pe riod Now, during that period of time, frankly, l didn't manage the campaign I didn't run the campaign People around me didn't bring things to me that they probably should have because I was frankly just too busy trying to do the Nation's business to run the polities My adv ice to all new politicians, incidentally, is always run your own campaigns I used to run mine and I was always criticized for it because you know whenever you lose you are always criticized for running your own campaign But my point is Senator Hatfield is correct, whether you are a Senator or a Congressman, you are sometimes very busy, you don't watch these things When you are President, you don't watch them as closely as you might And on that, I say if mistakes are made, however, I am not blaming the people down below The man at the top has got to take the heat for all of them Q May I ask one other question, sir? T111. PRESID)FNT. Sure Q DO ^,ou feel that the executive privilege is absolute? TIIE PRESIDENT XT. 1, of ( course do not I have c waived C(I ex- privilege with regard to all ( f the( members of m! staff who have any knowledge(dg( of or who have had(l an! charges made against th(m in the( Watergate';wterg;lte matt r I ha x of course voluntarily! waived((l privilege(".,t' with regard(i to to ning OVUM the tapes, and so forth Let me point out it was voluntary on m! part, and deliberately so to avoid a precedent that might destroy the principle of confi(lentialit) for future Presidents, which is terribly important. If it had gone to the Supreme Court—and I know many of my friends argued Why! not carry it to the Supreme Court and let them decide it?"—that would, first, have had a confrontation with the Supreme Court, between the Supreme Court and the President And second it would have established very possibly a precedent a precedent breaking down constitutionality that • would plague future Presidencies( not just President I could just say in that respect too, that I have referred to what I called the Jefferson rule It is the rule, I think, that we should generally follow—a President should follow—with the courts when they want information. and a President should also follow with committees of Congress, when they want information from his personal files Jefferson, as you know, in that very!, very famous ease, had correspondence w hich it was felt might bear upon the guilt or innocence of Aaron Burr Chief Justice Marshall, sitting as a trial judge, held that Jefferson, as President. had to turn over the correspondence Jefferson refused What he did was to turn over a summary of the correspondence, all that he considered was proper to be turned over for the purposes of the trial - And then Marshall, sitting as Chief Justice, ruled for the President Now, why did Jefferson do that? Jefferson didn't do that to protect Jefferson He did that to protect the Presidency And that is exactly what I will do in these cases It isn't for the purpose of protecting the President; it is for the purpose of seeing that the Presidency, where great decisions have to be made—and great decisions cannot be made unless there is very free flow of conversation, and that means confidentiality—I have a responsibility to protect that Presidency At the same time, I will do ev erything I can to cooper participation I will come to you next, sorry

• * * * * * * *

Q Mr. President, Larry Allison from the Long Beach, California, Independent Press-Telegram Back; to Watergate Former Attorney General John Mitchell has testified that the reason he did not give you details on the Watergate problems was that you did not ask him Now,, I realize that you were very l)usv at that time, as you said, but there were reports in newspapers that linked people very high in your staff with Watergate problems l Could you tell us, sir, why you did not ask; Mr. Mitchell wh at he knew? TSIE PRESIDE:NT. For the very simple reason that when I talked to Mr. Mitchell—and I saw him often in that period—that I had every reason to believe that if he were involved, if he had any information to convey, he would tell me I thought that he would As a matter of fact, when I called him on the telephone, what did he say—he expressed chagrin that anything like that could have happened in his organization Looking back;, maybe I should have cross-examined him and said, "John, did you do it?" I probably should have asked him, but the reason I didn't is that I expected him to tell me, and he had every opportunity to, and decided he wouldn t, apparently At least—nosv, that doesn't mean to tell me that he was involved, because you understand that is still a matter that is open The question is Whether he could have told me about other people that might he involved where he had information where members of my staff did not have information Yes, sir 9 Presidential Documents 1345-53

Wikibug

Hi, I think the developers have become aware of the editing conflict bug(s) as they are affecting the thursday's london bombings page quite badly. ~~~~ 9 July 2005 13:11 (UTC)

There are a few other bugs as well. For example, this signature here Nobs01 9 July 2005 13:14 (UTC) if you don't change it, but just sign a response below, you will discover the bug.

~~~~ 9 July 2005 13:13 (UTC)

Re: Request

You are welcome. While I believe it is possible to have legitimate differences over the substance of the material for the page, I do not believe that 172's claims so far have either been accurate or appropriate. I will certainly take an interest in helping to resolve this matter and hopefully compromise on the actual article. I would also be very glad to assist you in particularities but would prefer for this more substantive and longer correspondence to be over e-mails. I believe I have elsewhere seen you refer to being new or unskilled as far as technology, so I hope it won't be too condescending to describe to you how to add an e-mail address to your account. Go to the link which should be on the top right of your screen called "preferences". The preference section "User Data" should be highlighted; enter the e-mail in the space for it and click Save at the bottom.

If you do this I will get onto the matter tomorrow, as I will be distracted today (from this website I usually am). Hopefully nothing drastic happens until that point. Attempting constructive engagement with 172 is of course a good first step. --TJive 20:03, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, and I have replied as well. --TJive 16:49, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

And you in turn. --TJive 17:36, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah this is getting more than a bit ridiculous. Will get back on it tomorrow. --TJive 18:32, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

If it's dated as the 20th (today), I don't see it. Resend, perhaps? --TJive 20:10, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Incontrovertible

I just removed the link you added to Mathematics because I don't agree that incontrovertible evidence (as discussed in that article) and the kind of "incontrovertible truths" the math article is talking about are the same thing. As a result, I think the link is a little misleading... - dcljr (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Senate

I'm going to expand the post-1945 section on the US Senate as soon as I have time. Dinopup 11:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Totallydisputed/NPOV

Nobs, if you didn't place the tag, you can't change it without a consensus of editors or the person who placed it originally changing it him or herself. · Katefan0 19:36, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Email

Thanks for your email and time. Let me know if I can be of any help. Ultramarine 13:14, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Espionage-related articles

Due to professional obligations I lack sufficient time to participate effectively in the dispute over espionage-related articles. You and TJive no longer have to concern yourself with my objections, at least for several months. 172 | Talk 22:17, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

RfC

Greetings - as an active participant in the ongoing edits to the Ludwig von Mises Institute article, I wanted to inform you that I have started a "Request for Comment" (RfC) proceeding over this article in light of continued disruptive and abusive editing behavior by two other participants there. The RfC is located at the link here . In case you have not participated in an RfC before, it is the first step after the talk page in Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution process for articles in which an agreement cannot be easily reached (outlined at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution). I decided to initiate this RfC over the actions of two users who I believe to be seriously impeding the constructive development of this article into an encyclopedia-quality description of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. In one case the editor's behavior was long term. In the other, the editor responded to negotiation efforts I initiated with him on the talk page with unprovoked personal hostility against me, which in turn led me to first warn him of the potential need for an RfC and then follow through as his belligerence continued. I am hopeful that this process will assist in working out the differences that exist on the LVMI article and help to direct the responsible editors toward making their future contributions in compliance with the neutrality mandate and with other Misplaced Pages standards and policies.

You are also welcome to contribute to this RfC, and as a participant in the LVMI article development your participation here may be beneficial. To those who are unfamiliar, participants may contribute by endorsing (or declining to endorse) the RfC case regarding the problem users as stated. Endorsements should be placed here per the RfC page's instructions and entail the use of a tilde signature in the normal fashion. RfC participants may also contribute by way of discussion of the RfC case and all pertinent materials here . A formatted area is also provided on the RfC for the named editors to respond to the complaint. Thank you for your continued work on the LVMI article and for your patience during this process, as it is my hope that we will be able to produce an agreeable quality product upon its conclusion. Rangerdude 00:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda → Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda conspiracy theory - name change vote

Hello, there is a vote to rename Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda to Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda conspiracy theory. The voting is here: Talk:Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda#poll on changing the name of this_page. I would appreciate it if you could vote. Thanks. ObsidianOrder 06:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

vote req.

Hi,

Thanks for letting me know about the vote. Unfortunately, I really don't know anything about the subject. I'd like to do a bit of reading and then cast a vote, but I'm quite busy and may not get a chance. I apologize if I don't get around to it on time, but I'll be glad to help out if I get a chance. --Daniel11 14:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The Nation

Since the word is out about how The Nation is a "Kremlin-directed Stalinist mouthpiece", you might as well put that information on the article page for the Nation. There's no reason to hide your light under a bushel. Ruy Lopez 18:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Mediation Request

See: Requests_for_mediation#Cberlet_in_dispute_with_Rangerdude_and_nobs Cberlet_in_dispute_with_Rangerdude_and_nobs - Request for mediation--Cberlet 20:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

No problem

I am opposed to the use of this forum for political barnstorming either way. Though I consider myself a moderate, being from the Rocky Mountain region probably means that as that compares to the Northeast and Europeans, I am conservative. Regardless, the number of articles that I find that have nothing to do with an encyclopedia is surprising...and most of them are so far off the track to the left it bewilders me.--MONGO 07:33, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Chip Berlet article

Nobs - thanks for your input on this article. As you are probably aware, the Horowitz material I added (which, at least in my opinion, I drafted in a very neutral, reasonable, and thoroughly sourced manner) is under direct assault by both the article's namesake and a small clique of his defenders. Cberlet's own note to his friends tells it all - "Help! Giant Blob of Horowitz hit my page." Note his phrasing "my page" in particular - as if he thinks he owns the thing and gets to decide what to exclude from it! The editors clique in which Cberlet travels is unfortunately doing everything in their power to insulate him from this criticism and bully anybody who challenges their tactics into submission. This is a disturbing development for wikipedia as I have seen this same little clique of the very same editors using collaborative tactics to insulate and sheild their own from criticisms - even when one of their own is clearly in the wrong - in at least three distinct disputes now. I believe it harms the site as a whole because it allows them to get away with things that other editors are rightly prevented from doing. When one of them gets called out for a policy violation on an RfC or something, the rest flood the place in his/her defense no matter how bad the violation was. When critical material gets put into an article about another, they rally to expunge regardless of the proper sourcing. The result is to basically allow each other to get away with breaking the rules!

Right now the Horowitz material is under heavy assault from this clique. Cberlet put out the call and the exact same circle of usual suspects - Willmcw, SlimVirgin, Jayjg, and El_C - responded almost instantaneously. SlimVirgin unilaterally took it upon herself to not simply revise but completely gut the paragraphs on Horowitz. She removed over 2/3rds of the material and chopped down Horowitz's many criticisms of Berlet into a single unrepresentative half-line out of context quotation of him only mildly criticizing Berlet. As you have seen, she not only made this edit but is now - with the help of the same clique - attempting to enforce it upon the article by revert warring any attempt to restore a version that isn't hers. The only thing I know on how to handle clear bullying and POV enforcement such as this is to stand firm and keep citing the applicable Misplaced Pages policies. Thanks Rangerdude 06:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)