Talk:Edwin Black/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Questions Resolved by Updated Neutral Entry

This entry appears to be a PR piece on behalf of Edwin Black. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.79.90.62 (talk • contribs)

Apparently it was just a copy of his own web page. I have reverted it to the previous version. --Grouse 14:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone keeps removing the discussion on this page. I'm not sure why they want to suppress it, but I think the original poster makes a valid point. The article is unscholarly, has no references ("Newsweek said..." is not a reference), and contains dozens of peacock words. I'm sure Mr. Black is capable of tooting his own horn. If he's an important writer, I'd like to hear impartial evidence of that.ubiquity 15:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)ubiquity.

This article as it now stands is accurate, updated to include the activities since 2001, and before, and does not rely upon copyrighted information or superlatives. It is drawn from public sources, including the third-party interviews and Q-As archived on his sites but also reachable independently by anyone on the web. It has been supplemented by materials discovered at the JTA, C-SPAN, and the American Society of Journalists and Authors. He has written about more than IBM, so why not include that. 21:03 2 July, 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.182.17 (talk • contribs)

The current revision, while not as egregious a copyright violation as previous revisions, is still a copyvio of Edwin Black's web biography. Sections have quite clearly been lifted wholesale from that page. Some sentences have been rephrased to hide their origin (although I still find it pretty obvious) while others have not. Additionally, while the tone has improved and is somewhat more encyclopedic, it is still not quite there yet. For example, while I think awards and nominations are notable and encyclopedic, small out-of-context quotations from reviews in popular magazines are not. --Grouse 08:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The above comment is incorrect. There is zero copyright violation in the updated entry. The article as updated is derivative, but rephrased as requested above, and new material added. The few sentences lifted for precision and accuracy constitute "fair use" by any measure, which uses a standard of percent of original to percent of new use. There are only so many ways to rephrase a summary statement. Some material in the new updated entry does not even appear in the web bio. Moreover, the web bio, as all such author bios on the web from official sites, is **intended** to be cloned, copied, become the basis for derivative citation and so forth. Once again, no copyright infringement because the material is knowingly not being protected and intended to be reused. In fact, you will find bits and pieces of that bio scattered throughout the web by organizations that host the author's events. A comment above asked for "impartial evidence" which is provided in awards by distinguished organizations, such as World Affairs Council, American Society of Journalists and Aurthors; and also by reviews by noted publications such as Newsweek. That said, Kirkus Reviews is hardly a "popular magazine." It is an elite almost obscure subscription-only librarian's literary review source that is respected in publishing circles. Once again, for "impartial evidence" one can quote the historians, the awards, or the reviews, which was done. The prior entry that was updated contained opionated, charged language such as "bitterly" and that was removed. For some reason the earlier entry also refused to include in any data since 2001, namely the work on eugenics, Iraq, and Ford. An article on "Jupiter" or "nylon" can draw from numerous sources. But bios of living authors that are web-verifiable, non-libelous and non-infringing, and are accurate, are often derived from the official bio and supplemented with additional information. That was done using a variety of sources short of a live interview with the author. Therefore, the entry stands as minimalist, non-pr, accurate, encyclopedic, and reflective of independent sources. 6:33 3 July, 2006.

This article is improving. I am still concerned about the extent to which it aggrandizes Mr. Black, citing only raves (is Mr. Black's work totally uncontroversial? Are there NO responsible journals whose reviews were less than laudatory?) and NOT citing any references. Again, this is the difference between a scholarly article and PR flack. If the NYT said "chilling", why is there no reference to the issue and page on which they said it? With a reference, I can, if I wish, verify that not only did they call the book chilling, but that they meant it in a good way (for instance, how do I know that the NYT didn't say "this book had a chilling effect on my digestion"?) There are at least six magazine articles mentioned in this article, it should be simple to add the references. On a more sinister level, I am wondering how the author of this article knew certain things, such as who nominated Mr. Black for the Pulitzer. Was it in a press release? If so, a reference would help. Or was it in Mr. Black's website? Again, a reference would still help -- I need to know whether the author has done research on his own, or is just accepting Mr. Black's word for things. Please add references where you can. If you don't know how to do this in wikipedia i will be glad to help. And please keep toning down the article. Things like "Undoubtedly, Black is known most for..." still sound like PR, not neutral research.ubiquity 14:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Very few people know the norms and standards of Wikipedia. I am among the millions who do not understand your moving and evolving standards. This is all being made up along the way indeed all of it is very new, according to Wiki's own materials. The notion that adding the word "undoubtedly" he is best known for IBM is not pr, it is a scholarly qualification. It seems Black's various other books all says, "by the author of IBM..." As do his author blurbs on the JTA and in newspapers. I believe every sentence of the entry is now reasonably third-party sourced. Undoubtedly there are instance of negative reviews as in every author's work, but from the dozens shown, the cited ones seem a representative sample. It is always easy to prop up an unrepresentative review, but that is intellectually dishonest and a feature of the kind of bias supposedly being avoided. I suppose if someone were willing to go chapter and verse, they could add the exact page of the review in Newsweek. Perhaps that can be done. As for the difference between PR flack and academic content, this comment is hardly rooted in academic persepctive. There is no way an unverified, constantly evolving community-sculpted information article could be considered in the least way "academic." To do this, on say the subject of Saturn, you would need an actual excerpt from a true academic piece with footnotes and the entry author's identification. For an author bio, an interview is required. Maybe you should just list his titles and nothing more. Make it a five line entry. But if you want to rise about skeletal information that seems wrong in some places, the inmformation provided has depth. This matter should now be closed as every line is sourced and the issue of each publication will be added. If you want to beat a dead horse, that is always possible as well. 11:37 3 July 1996.

Further to the above: A reflection of the situation is shown by Wikipedia's own recent announcement: "Wikipedia has been a subject of media coverage recently over a complaint in USA Today by retired journalist John Seigenthaler, who discovered insinuations in his Wikipedia biography that he had been involved in the assassinations of both John and Robert Kennedy. Seigenthaler contacted Jimmy Wales about the situation two months ago and this version of the article was immediately removed from the site. The article has since been rewritten. Like many of the problematic contributions to Wikipedia, the offending version of the Seigenthaler article was written by an unregistered user. Wikipedia volunteers patrol a large volume of contributions in an effort to catch such problems." For this reason, it makes sense to base author bios on "established, vetted sources." The Seigenthaler debacle--just months ago--just underscores earlier remarks about the necessity of relying upon vetted sources in the absence of an interview. Indeed, it can be said that in the case of a living author, or a news topic such as September 11, the skills of a seasoned journalist not an academic are needed. 12:41 3 July, 2006.

To the question: "I am wondering how the author of this article knew certain things, such as who nominated Mr. Black for the Pulitzer. Was it in a press release?" It is on the author's website and confirmed with some actual nominators, which anyone can do. 13:08 3 July 2006

I also think the editing and writing rules of Wikipedia are being made up as we go along. Who decides, who knows, everybody all at once? When is enough enough? This entry now seems very well cited, quite neutral, instructive and useful. It should stand as is, case-closed unless someone can do the intelligent thing and interview the author. That, however, would require a journalist. Assuming that does not happen, further discussion to me seems to be much ado about nothing and completely arbitrary with an agenda. VictorP 13:27 3 July 2006

I disagree that the rules are being made up as we go along. Please see Wikipedia:Citing Sources for information about citing sources. Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for information about neutrality. I am sure that the author is trying to be helpful when he "adds sources", but so far all he has done is dropped names. A reference is a citation -- who said it, when did they say it, where did it appear. Please do not continue to remove the "unreferenced" tag when it is absolutely clear that there are no citations AT ALL in this article -- except the one that I supplied as an example. And please do not remove that citation either -- it comprises one small step towards making the article more neutral.ubiquity 20:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)ubiquity

How does this work, Ubiquity? Who decides? Do you decide by yourself imperially? You are an IBM programmer on Websphere with an obvious agenda on IBM and the Holocaust. Each of the publications such as Newsweek and Esquire are cited by specific edition EXACTLY as you requested. The attribution and organizations are cited by name often with web citations as they would be in any proper report. You asked for sources precisely in that fashion. When they are given, they are not enough. It is never enough for a publication with a very very short track record as encyclopedias go. Britannica 1911 was excellent. Did Wikipedia exist in 2002? Maybe you can't be satisfied? So since nothing will satisfy you, let us reduce the whole thing down to the barest entry as someone previously suggested. Let us know if that will satisfy you. Oh, and yes, of course the rules. IMHO, are indeed being made up en route. What kind of an encyclopedia uses unsigned, unvetted material that anyone can anonymously modify at the flick of a wrist, right or wrong. Wikipedia is a relatively new invention that most people do not know how to use although all are invited to use it. I admit I do not know how to use it since I cannot grasp your rules. The project received a major change in editorial policy just months ago after libelling the USA Today reporter. amd thisd announced by a press release. Apparently, your project cannot even agree on the founder of the project, based on a cursory reading. Wikipedia does not have years of track record so some of us are understandably confused. I am among them. We thought that factual information was enough. Tell us, are you the editor in chief? The boss? Fine if you are Ubiquity. Just tell us. If so, then you have the final decision. We can accept that. But let us know so we know the ground rules. In the meantime, I am reducing this entry to an indisputable fraction. Then no references will be needed and you will not have to worry about too many words and facts cluttered up the entry. 16:45 3 July, 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.182.17 (talk • contribs)

The 1911 Britannica was excellent but it didn't have an entry on Edwin Black, so it's obviously imperfect. ;) Please remember to assume good faith, anon user. I'm sorry you are finding the changing nature of Wikipedia's rules frustrating. Personally I think the newer rules only serve to make Wikipedia better. The new version of the page is also an improvement. While I would prefer a longer article, I think it's more important that what is there is NPOV and verifiable. --Grouse 22:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you tell us the ground rules. "Ubiquity says: I disagree that the rules are being made up as we go along." You say, "I'm sorry you are finding the changing nature of Wikipedia's rules frustrating." Do you, Grouse, or Ubiquity or IBM have the deciding vote on censorship or editing or determining what makes a factual and neutral story. No one knows. I don't. Who is charge? That would help people befopre they spend the time in good faith to help improve as page only to discover someone claims they have a governing right. Just tell us. 18:30 3 July, 2006.

Further to the above, Wikipedia policy on neutrality POV asserts: "There is no clear definition, but don't ignore your intuition." So reasonable people can disagree. The question that some of us do not understand is what is the hierarchy of decisionmaking? Is it you, or IBM? I did notice that "corporate bias" is not permitted. Does that include IBM? Moreover, posters are simultaneously told NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH in the policy, and then as above chastised "I need to know whether the author has done research on his own." The rules for posting as so vague and fluctuating as to permit a wide spectrum of posts or objections to posts. Who came up with these rules and what legitimizes it? For centuries, since the first reed impressions near Babylon, experts, scholars and later journalists have been sharing their research, experiences, and findings to create a body of knowledge. Wikipedia does not permit original research. Academic standards are requested by non-academics. So it is all just unverified, unvetted, and susceptible to the type of libel published against Seigenthaler from USA Today. Right about now, I think this is not the place for serious contemporary biography or scholarship. I guess I made a mistake in trying to help, a mistake I freely admit to. Ubiquity and IBM can make this entry read anyway they choose, and censor any facts or remarks. 17:12 3 July, 2006.

I tend to agree that the prior article by anonymous user was a usable reference. I agree with the objections to Grouse and ubiquity. I don't understand the ground rules either - who has the right to overrule who, especially when the article was as well-cited as the one just deleted. 19:35 - 3, July 2006 (cinquaterra)

It seems like "ubiquity" and "Grouse" seem to to have censorhip rights and are the determining factor on what is and what is not factual and neutral. Not a shining example of Wikipedia should stand for,especially since IBM is involved. July 3, 2006 Alley Cat

First, I'd like to make clear that I never changed a single word of this article, so I'm not sure how I can be accused of censorship. I merely asked, repeatedly, that the article conform to accepted Wikipedia standards of citation and neutrality. I believe that Wikipedia can be a powerful information source if we all stick to the rules. I also believe that there is much information that does not belong in Wikipedia. This is not the same as censorship (and again, let me stress that I never altered a word of the text, or asked the author to remove any piece of information). I believe that Wikipedia is a place for neutral, objective, well-documented facts. I only asked the author to provide this. Did I mention that I never altered a word of the article? I did add a fact of my own, with a proper citation. In fact, 69.251.182.17 removed my fact when he reduced the article, so I'm wondering who, technically, is guilty of censorship here. (In keeping with wikipedia traditions, I will assume that the removal was done in good faith to reduce the size of the article, and not simply because 69.251.182.17 found my contribution uncomfortable).

Second, I would like to say a word about my association with IBM. It is true that I am an IBM employee; I announce that in my User page so that people may know that I might not be a neutral source when it comes to IBM. I am also Jewish, so I have strong feelings about the holocaust. However, neither of these associations has anything to do with my desire to see this piece become a useful, conformant, fully-cited article. I will point out that 69.251.182.17 appears here anonymously, with nothing at all to spell out his potential biases or associations.

By the way, the ground rules are here: Wikipedia:Five pillars. Please notice that I did not make them up.

ubiquity 12:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your remarks. Ubiquity, pls understand that you are anonymous, no one knows your first and last name or location or whether you have even read any of the works you are writing about or instructing others about. Wikipedia encourages anonymity and states that people with registered psuedonyms such as yourself have more anonymity than the others posting here who are clearly identified by IP forever. Look at the statement at the top of this box. Everyone on this page is anonymous to a degree because the very nature of your project is so disorderly and chaotic and self-admitted as such. For my part, I thought that I could make a small contribution on a dozen narrow topics from Latin America to the American Indians, to Europe and also including this one bio. I see I made a mistake. I cannot retrain my mind to ignore documented facts, nor should anyone. Everything here is third hand and changes by the moment, an intellectual free-for-all that does not advance knowledge but serves mainly as an exercise that I have no time for. An example of the Internet malfunctioning. Nor do you need my contributions. You say you did not censor, but it sounded like you were giving me and others orders and instructions from on high and imposing characterizations on well-grounded, well-established information that was fair and balanced. That is how it felt to me and obviously others who commented. Fair and Balanced it seems are not part of the Wikiopedia mandate. You refused to answer" who decides? You? IBM? Anyone? By the way, when you state as you did above, "the ground rules are here: Wikipedia:Five pillars," please check out Rule 5: "Wikipedia does not have firm rules." That rule 5 links to a further explanation: "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia's quality, ignore them." Sounds like intellectual anarchy to me. Or should I say a vainglorious attempt at intellectual utopia. Just remember what the Greek word "Utopia" means.... it means a place that is nowhere. 9:51 4 July, 2006.

Could not help but share this as a flavor of the Wiki enterprise with respect to the issue of anarchic conduct, mentioned above. I guess the term "Wikistalking" has been invented to describe the kind of conflict which can be seen here. Be advised that Websters will not recognize "Wikistalking" as a new word unless 40 independent users can attest in writing that the word has been used. I guess prospects are good for Wikistalking to be admitted to the dictionary. I must admit I have today been amazed, and continue to ask whether this sort of intellectual brawling is good or bad for settled knowledge, and further wonder who was imbued with the right to establish this type of newthink for educated and informed thought. Now see the wikilinks below. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-07-03/Arbitration_report and this one case which is hardly isolated http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Locke_Cole#Statement_by_Netoholic

Updated Entry Fully Sourced

New External Link for Internal Combustion has been opened, and so was added.

This new external link seemed useful to me, I've explored the various sites and those sites create a good resource in and of them selves 11:53, 24, July cinquaterra

On whole this entry seems right because the problem comes in when people try to comment and color the history of his work, which involves IBM and genocide, eugenics, the history of Iraq, and his many investigations. That is too broad. Just look at the breadth of topics involved, Ford Foundation funding of hate groups, AIPAC, oil in the Middle East, the history of energy, all sorts of corporate corruption, alternative fuels, the Holocaust, forced sterilization, Arab nationalism, automotive history...you can see that so much spin from so many commentators can pack such an entry with wrong information so, once more, I think the entry is fine because the links lead to hundreds of additional resources. Just one more thing, I noticed that the latest link for Internal Combustion is, as of today, only beginning to build. It says the book is not coming out until September 15th. 10:12a29Jul06 VictorP

Since this latest book, Internal Combustion is now releasing, I have updated the sentence as a 2006 event. The first chapters are already up on the website [1], and according to a web search, the review copies are now out and libraries have the first copies. 10:09 July 31, 2006\

I agree that the article the Wiki article as it now areads is probably the best and least biased version. I found relevant information not only on the website www.internalcombustionbook.com but that referred me to an intersting rewiew in Publishers Weekly and a video on Your Tube. http://youtube.com/profile_videos?user=robotjustin allycat August 6, 2006 2:56

Actually, the video has been updated. That old URL mentioned above is no longer active. The new URL is at >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9scQ6078TU. It appears the new video is about a half minute longer. 8:08 PM August 10, 2006

More than one launch date is given. The video says Sept15, but the tour page on the webiste says Sept10. 1:53 PM August 14, 2006

The new book Internal Combustion seems to be a new topic for Black who previously concentrated on genocide, oppression and various forms of misconduct. It appears the emphasis in the new work is corporate misconduct and collusion. 9:13 PM October 07, 2006

Just the Basics in the Entry

Someone here seems intent on misportraying the nature of the current entry. The current entry on Black lists the barest of information. Eseentially, most of the eight sentences merely cite the name of the book and year of publication. No awards are mentioned, no descriptive content or reviews. Nothing beyond the basic indisputable facts. Why someone would try to mislead anyone into thinking that was a PR Piece, and place that subtitle on the entry, is not clear. Perhaps ulterior motives related to the content of the books. But the entry itself is neutral in the extreme. It now appears the discussion is being recast and labelled to inject a lack of neutrality to counterbalance the decidedly neutral tone of the entry. The entry utself follows and I think it would be hard to make it more neutral or accurate.

Edwin Black is an American author and journalist. He has written 50 editions in 13 languages in 60 countries, and published a number of newspaper and magazine articles throughout the United States, Europe and Israel, according to Books in Print, Books out of Print, and the author's own websites. Black's first book, published in 1984 was The Transfer Agreement. In 1999, Black published a novel, Format C:. In 2001, he published IBM and the Holocaust. In 2003, Black published War Against the Weak. In 2004, Black's published Banking on Baghdad. In 2006, Black released Internal Combustion, How Corporations and Governments Addicted the World to Oil and Subverted the Alternatives.

Therefore, the entry stands. What cannot be achieved by biased entry writing, should not be achieved by biased discussion. October 9, 2006

I am not sure why Grouse or anyone else wants to mislead readers, and burying the latest updates at the bottom. Typically, the most recent post should be visible at the top, and show the oldest at the bottom. To do otherwise seems to violate neutral point of view and common sense. Apparently, what Grouse cannot achieve in the entry, solidly written in a neutral point of view, he wantsz to inject in the discussion.

Sorry, that is incorrect. It is a long-practiced custom at Wikipedia that new information on talk pages goes at the bottom, not at the top. You can see this on most talk pages. Also, if you start a new section with the + tab (located next to edit this page), it goes to the bottom as intended. Grouse 12:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

There is an Edit feature next to the biased section head that was renamed PR Piece? That renaming was itself an edit of the original by Grouse. After Grouse used the Edit feature, I also just now used that same Edit feature. Wiki policies state that unless you wish to be mercilessly edited, do not submit. Is there an exemption for Grouse that prohibits making section head more precise, and closer to the principle of NPOV... or is the Edit feature a mistake? If one cannot improve it, why is the Edit feature there? All the the original misleading historical debate is untouched but the headline more informative and closer to NPOV, that is IMHO. Is that okay, Grouse? We totally respect your opinion and realize it has more weight than others. Let us know if we helped. 2 PM October 10, 2006

Glad you understand. --Grouse 20:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Just as a guidance to the future, do you hold a formal position with Wikipedia, that is, are you an editor, foundation vice president, arbiter, censor, style chieftain? Are you the one who personally sets official policy and can override the other policies? If anyone disagrees with you, are they allowed to make a suggestion? Knowing this would help us use your guidance as a beacon to improving the content of Wikipedia, and essentially defer to your wisdom on any issue. 9 PM October 10

Anon user, please remember to assume good faith. Grouse is not doing anything untoward or claiming to be a policy maker. Policies are developed by consensus. Grouse is not trying to mislead others; quite the contrary, he is trying to prevent others from being confused. While you might find it somewhat confusing to have discussion added to the bottom, most Wikipedians are used to it that way and would find your convention confusing. Another convention---again, not decided by Grouse, nor by me, but by a rough consensus of Wikipedians---is that other users' comments on talk pages should generally not be edited. Talk pages should be civil, but they are not held to the NPOV standard that articles are. To make them so would be a lot of effort, limit useful discussion, and be virtually impossible to achieve anyway. It is therefore not necessary to change the headings, even if they no longer apply to the article. (They still apply to the discussion.)

I should also point out that, as you may notice from the dates, the "PR Piece?" discussion was based on an earlier revision of this article that most certainly was a PR piece (because it was copied directly from his homepage). I don't think anyone feels that way about the article as it now stands. I realize that you are only trying to help, but accusing other people who are also only trying to help is not the way to go about it. I hope you won't let this little misunderstanding keep you from contributing to Wikipedia in the future (and please consider registering.) Babomb 23:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Babomb for your gracious post. Some questions to help us understand what you wrote. 1) When Grouse left a Wiki warning to me that if I edited further, I might be labelled a "vandal" was that "assuming good faith" on Grouse's part. 2) Why is there a tabbed and line linked edit feature on discussion which Wiki policies encourage people to use if they are not to be used. 3) Who decides? Grouse. Is Grouse the boss? Does his decision outweigh everyone else's. If Grouse and a hypothetcial Poster Person disagree, does Grouse always decide. The aforesaid notwithstanding, Wikipedia is a new invention, with made up policies that very few people even cromprehend, including its users and posters. It is NOT an encyclopedia which requires learned and verified thought. Anyone can post or modify an article on the say... the history of Omaha, or IBM & the Nazis, or Aztec poetry... and validation can be nil or nonexistent and constantly evolve thgrough trial and error. This is not an encyclopedia, this is a learned discussion group. It is only by an accident of Google that Wikipedia has any currency at all. Apparently, the only real rule is change the rules (see above)as you see fit. Stalking and acrimony arose regularly (see above). And if the several people looking at this are correct, Grouse always decides. Anything here in error? 9:28 October 11, 2006

As a point of clarification, the warning at issue was left after repeated edits that had the effect of hiding the older conversations. At no point have I called User:68.33.193.207 a vandal. Grouse 13:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak to the first point as I don't know the details. As for your second point, there are multiple reasons. The first is that the same engine is used for all pages and it doesn't know when a discussion is finished. The second is that we'd then have to find a consensus on how to decide when a discussion is finished. Third, and perhaps most importantly, is that you can use those edit links to add to a discussion without changing or removing the comments of other users. As to your third point, Grouse does not decide. Ubiquity does not decide. 68.233.193.207 does not decide. As a group, we decide. You seem to be attempting to paint yourself as the victim of the cruel tyrant who has roughly the same power as about 2.5 million other registered users and only slightly more power than non-registered users like yourself. I don't buy it.Babomb 20:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

In reply to Babomb... among those 25 million people are some who only visit once in a while such as me and others such as yourself who seem to be more frequent a contributor. If it is a constantly evolving discussion--over apparently at this point NOTHING--and if legitimate good intentioned additions to the discussion are called "vandalism" and considered efforts to "hide" the prior discussion (which are there for the entire world to see), then Wiki is really as anarchic as its system seems. 25 million cannot jointly decide on an editorial entry. When 25 million people shout different messages, none are heard. It is only through an accident of technology and Googling that Wiki has become a potent billboard of information. But so much of it is wrong, slanted, ommissive, no wonder that libel is so prominent a worry. That worry is not unwarranted. December 8

BTW your post was chronologically out of place, and this one of mine is next to yours but also above a prior one, so is all this vandalism in this technocracy without rules? Or just typing a message? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.33.193.207 (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Sigh. Firstly, my post may be chronologically out of place, but it is not topically out of place. It was placed below the message to which it was replying, as is generally the custom on Wikipedia. While (again) this may be different from what you're used to, it's easier to understand this way once you get used to it. So, no, that is not vandalism. I'm sure that you had good intentions, but it was based on a misunderstanding of Wikipedia conventions. I recognize that it can be confusing for newcomers (and we could probably do a better job with that), but just because the rules seem strange to you doesn't mean they don't exist or are applied haphazardly. Also, you have to understand that every day, people do intentionally vandalize Wikipedia in similar ways, so perhaps you can understand how people might think you were vandalizing. However, to my knowledge, nobody ever actually called you a vandal. The template messages left on your talk page are very carefully written to be polite and not actually accuse you of being a vandal or malicious. It merely asks you to please refrain from that behavior that could be considered vandalism. Please do not take it personally. Finally, if you have a beef with Wikipedia (and it seems to me that you do), this really isn't the place for it. Try the village pump. -Babomb 02:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Just curious... Who invented all these rules, procedures ands protocols? You? Anyone? Who is in charge of revising them? You? Anyone? December 18, 2006

What happened to assume good faith. Who knows all these rules. From what I see, you make up the rules as we go along. Your hyperlink was from October 10. Why is is the edit feature tabbed and linked if no editing is permitted? Answer that one? And more importantly, why should obsoleted, misleading information be left on discussion. Anyone could put anything in a discussion that then becomes misleading. It could be libelous, false, it could claim George Washington for sure for sure was born in Ireland or South Africa... editing means editing. What happened to "relentless editing." Are subheads above editing? Are you the boss of Wikipedia. You never answer that question Grouse. Moreover, since virtually no one knows these rules, should you have informed someone nicely or gone straight to threats of labelling someone a vandal? I assure you, Wiki edges closer and closer to defamatory conduct every day if a knowing eyes reviews the content. Since you keep changing additions, I wonder who the real vandal is? Who do you think? Bear in mind we are no longer talking about an article which is now NPOV, but your desire to taint that article in the discussion as a PR entry because it was taken from the web sites of the publisher and author as was sensible. Many people would not call that a PR entry, but a factual one. In any event, since your judgment prevails, our opinion does not count. BTW, who was the vandal again? 11:23 October 11, 2006

This bio should refrain from libel, poorly sourced information, slanted POV, and those with an agenda, or IBM fronts. I have removed the reference that someone added about a gypsy lawsuit against IBM because that has nothing to do with the author. He did not file the lawsuit. Nor is this a place to debate IBM's uncontroverted involvement in mass murder.

Advertisement links removed- Disputed Links Restored After Found Appropriate

According to the section "Links normally to be avoided" in the "External links" guideline, one should avoid (#4):

Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services.

Now it is abundantly clear that the purpose of the sites linked to from the six book titles is to advertize the books in question. All six sites are copyright Edwin Black and contain sales copy, book excerpts, praise for the books and their author, etc. In accordance with the guideline quoted above, I have removed the links to the ad sites.

Edwin Black's official website, accessible through the external link at the end of the article, has links to the six book-advert sites on its front page, meaning that interested parties can easily access the sites through those links.

I kindly remind (unregistered) editors of Wikipedia's "Conflict of interest" guideline. --Bwiki 00:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I must disagree with the additions and deletions of Bwiki. With all due respect, the information in the editing is incorrect and misleading in several respects. Feature Group was listed as “the publisher of Edwin Black's books”; public knowledge knows, that is incorrect. The publishers of Edwin Black's books are such well established, independent publishers as Crown Publishing, Wiley Books, Avalon Press, Temple University Press, and others throughout the world. I cannot see why such an error was injected into the page. Someone had the sense to remove it before I did in accordance with the policy on top of this page which says that controversial material must be removed immediately. However, I have now found similar errors in Bwiki's removal of the links to the book sites of Edwin Black's books. He calls these "advertisement links" and quotes the Wiki policy adverse to "links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services." Bwiki adds, "...now it is abundantly clear that the purpose of the sites from the six books is to advertise the books in question." Excuse me, but it seems patently clear that these sites do not NOT “primarily exist to sell products or services.” First, no services are being sold and that is clear. Second, the purport of the sites seems to be overwhelmingly informational, providing informational excerpts, good, bad and mixed reviews...often in their entirety...(although hardly comprehensive in listing them all), independent evaluations by dozens of historians, leaders, eye witnesses and readers, interviews pro and con...often in their entirety..., articles...often in their entirety, including good, bad and mixed, schedules of Edwin Black's appearances past, present and future where people can learn more, excellent photographic documentation on the topics whether involving ancient Babylon, modern American eugenics, or future alternative fuel sources, and many other relevant groups of sourced and externalized information. A cursory check of these sites shows literally more than a thousand pages of sourced documentation and content. Now it is true, each book site has a single page among the hundreds on the site that allows people to order a copy from Amazon or Barnes and Noble by a link to those which are external sources. The NY Times does the same thing. It seems clear that 99.9% of these books sites are filled with sourced externalized information providing a range of data for readers to learn more. And the single pages going to Amazon or Barnes and Noble do not sell directly, but refer people to those other sites. Therefore, these book sites are not primarily advertising sites, and it seems to me that to denigrate them as has been done and create a false light about them may actually violate the policy about potentially libelous information. I, for one, have no clue as to whether the policy of immediately removing potential defamatory information is restricted to the actual article or also to the online discussion as well.

Interestingly enough, Bwiki may have unintentionally accompanied his misleading edits with a threat. When one reads Bwiki’s link to "conflict of interest", the policy threatens "embarrassment." I am not a frequent Wikipedia user. You cannot expect me to visit and reply. But, in view of the facts, fairness and a so-called desire for neutral point of view, I have restored these external links which the history shows were established by someone long ago and seemed to work well for many months. In addition, I have removed the biographical paragraph about Edwin Black's parents and his IBM book, because that oversimplification is a misstatement of what his book is all about and misfocusses a spotlight on his family that is clearly irrelevant to his other works on energy, oil addiction, Iraq and so forth—all of which is clearly shown from public sources. With that removal, I have removed the 2 links, one of which is extremely controversial although admittedly complementary to Edwin Black (the object is neutrality), and the other of which has a conflict of interest with IBM since they have a well-known business partnership with the company opening selling their products and other commercial ventures. The article on Edwin Black, as it stood some days ago, was neither pro nor con, very informational and adhered to neutral point of view, something very difficult when Edwin Black has tread on so many toes in the establishment, including IBM, General Motors, Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie, and others, on a variety of topics from energy to eugenics, and with so many with an agenda out to inject controversy, false information, and set up launch pads for the type of negative slant that I have seen elsewhere and which the Wiki policy abhors. I hope no one will think that my attempt to work within the policies of Wikipedia is an endorsement of those policies. Wikipedia, in my humble opinion, should not exist in its current form. The idea is potentially brilliant but these online contributions allow false, misleading, incomplete and erroneous information to be posted in real time by anyone, thus violating the very concept of refereed intellectual content. If a thousand editors could combine their collective intellects offline, as they have done in every encyclopedia ever published, and only go public after informed consensus, Wikipedia would be a blessing. If the world's greatest experts on "ants" or "spiders" were allowed to inject their original original research into ants and spiders as they do in every other encyclopedia, what a valuable service Wikipedia would be! But that is not the case, which is why Wikipedia has become so famous in recent times for academic fraud, libel...including false charges of murder, and simple sloppiness. This is why colleges and universities are quickly banishing Wikipedia as a legitimate source. Why not let the world’s best expert on ants write about ant hills. Why insist on tertiary and perhaps erroneous info on the topic. In addition, it seems that all the textual politeness is a bit disingenuous for a system whose policies are rife with reference to such combative notions as Wiki-stalking, edit wars, punitive blocking, embarrassment tactics, and other devices which can be wielded successfully by devoted, online but anonymous editors in a fashion that would overwhelm fleeting visitors such as myself who are intent on correcting errors, adding insight or injecting clarity. Bwiki has identified himself as a journalist. That's a lot of errors for a journalist. I know the first impulse will be to start one of your famous Wiki wars with me over something as simple as linking to an author's book site, which according to those author sites are all volunteer projects. Indeed, one of the pages lists web volunteers from New Zealand to Missouri to Poland. Why is the work of all these outside sources being undone and replaced with slanted exclusion of the real information? That is rhetorical. No need to answer It is clear. I hope this has been helpful. Please do not expect tit for tat responses. I'm sure I'll be interested in this and some other entries for a day or so. Then, like others, I will move on with my life and the stalkers and edit warriors can revert the entries. Larry

I tend to agree with everything Larry said about the article and Wiki. 75.132.39.237 21:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)wheel

It's hard to disagree with the remarks of Larry and wheel. I respectfully submit that the article has now been reverted its NPOV. I suggest further tinkering by people who may or may not have an agenda will not be useful. Orange - July 3, 2007, 17:09

Isn't it interesting the way several anonymous users with apparently poor understanding of Wikipedia policy come out of nowhere at the same time, undo recent edits (citing NPOV), and attack Wikipedia in general? Again? I'm not saying they're necessarily in cahoots or have a conflict of interest; I'm just saying it's suspicious. I have restored the sentence about IBM and the Holocaust because it's well-sourced, not apparently biased, and without it the article is little more than a list. (It's little more than a list with the sentence, but it's better than nothing.) I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and leave the links to the book websites for now because even though their primary purpose seems to be to advertise the books (and even though they are quite biased; I haven't found a single one of the negative reviews Larry claims it contains), they don't sell the books directly. And I think that's pushing it, to be honest.-Babomb 05:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Some of us have just seen edits over recent weeks or perhaps months and some other Wikipedia entries elsewhere which are factually incorrect and biased. After looking around, I think the misleading part of the sentence about IBM and the Holocaust is the phrase "questioning how the Nazis managed to obtain their names." That is incorrect. The book, the references and all the information available indicates that the purpose of the book was to chronicle "IBM's strategic alliance with Nazi Germany -- beginning in 1933 in the first weeks that Hitler came to power and continuing well into World War II. As the Third Reich embarked upon its plan of conquest and genocide, IBM and its subsidiaries helped create enabling technologies, step-by-step, from the identification and cataloging programs of the 1930s to the selections of the 1940s." Now that is from the website but also from news interviews with the author and so forth. The book did not seek to question but to document a 12-year criminal involvement. Inasmuch as the sentence inserted tries to define the author's mental inspiration and journalistic intent and state of mind, it should be accurate. Babomb, with all due respect and deference, what is suspicious is not the various people who come out to revert NPOV, but the various people who come out of nowhere (almost all of whom are anonymous even if they are registered and stand behind one word nicknames) who some might believe seem intent on pushing IBM's agenda to diffuse, distract and muddle the uncontroverted information. Moreover, nothing in the extra inserted sentence addresses the books on oil addiction, history of Iraq and the news articles and so forth. Admittedly, Wikipedia is in the news lately because many people are saying the same thing, albeitly mostly in newspapers, TV and in the halls of academia. Complaints about fraud and misuse from wrongful allegations of murder to something to do with a recent wrestling suicide abound. I also agree with Larry and others that Wikipedia could be a great institution if it were vetted by recognized before posting and not sculpted by amateurs and the uninformed afterwards. The idea earlier posted by Bwiki that a news service published Black's book, is a bit absurd, since the names of the publishers are everywhere available from Amazon to websites... someone removed that the edit history shows. Admittedly few of the fleeting visitors like in our office know the rules except we are reminded that there are no rules, that axiom being one of the pillars. Sensible suggestions should not be taken as "attacks." Please permit people to suggest improvement. Always presume good will is one of the mandates. But Wikipedia for all its fraud and abuse does leave room for improvement, as does everything on the Internet, TV and newspapers. As I understand it, no one editor is more important than another--and comments are invited. Although certainly we could be wrong. Therefore, I am going to agree with the consensus, especially in view of all the lawyers that have been involved in prior publicized matters, and especially in view of the request to avoid potential libel, libel per se, libel by implication, false light and so on, as is instructed at the top of this page. And because the best article entry is one that hugs the straight and narrow of NPOV, and does not slant anything pro and con, I am going to agree with the several other posters and revert the text to that of a few days ago. Now if there is some violation in several people from across the country judging from their IPs, agreeing, I do not know it, and hope we have not violated. BTW, cruising thru the list of attacks, counterattacks, alleged vandalisms, wars, this and that--from topics as diverse as Hungary and music forms, it is a indeed a strange way to construct an intellectually good thing. How strange as Larry put it that the world's leading expert on ants is prohibited from writing about ants, but all those who have watched them from afar get to chime in. Pity the expert on ants who keeps trying to revert text to its factual or more balanced level only to be denigrated and excluded from doing so. I repeat, Wikipedi policy and product can be improved. Please forgive the typos and incomplete words and sentences of this post.

Just a respectful additional remark from one of the additional people reading from here. Like my office mates, I have browsed through the many pages of Wiki policies and found them absolutely mind-boggling. I am not sure who could become acquainted with them all except a devoted person. Common sense might prevail and that might cause some accidental infraction. But look at all the blocked IPs for excessive reverting--all the fights and nastiness. Please do not revert the article and believe that your viewpoint is superior to that of several others, or even one other. In that vein, I agree with the prior posters as to the existing restored article entry and ask Babomb whether there is a pecking order. There may be, but where is that written. Tell us? With all respectfulness, why is this so important to you. Does one person or two people have a rank above five other people? Is is seniority? No one really knows how this works. The way I understood it, consensus and fairness weighted the matter. Plus plus, who has the edge in a reference to a Holocaust book? An art student in Alabama, someone in the California computer industry or computer game industry, a British Holocaust scholar, a high school geography teacher in Iowa? Who should be the dominant voice on other touchy topics, say the Catholic church or even non so touchy such as Minnesota. Fairness, expertise and factuality should be given weight. Less warring please about simple things. Less accusations please. Perhaps leaving simple factual articles alone is best. After viewing the numerous online public retractions from other writers, recent experience shows that the Wikipedia rules at the top about removals are certainly apropos. Sybil.

I agree with Sybil, Laurie, Wheel and others that the article should be left the way it is, and I think it's a good time for Babomb to leave things alone. I've read Black's books, and it's unclear whether some of the negative posters have. 216.254.68.24 14:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Jones

I disagree. I think Babomb's changes made sense, and were well-referenced. I have indeed read Mr. Black's books, by the way. --ubiquity 15:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Babomb and ubiquity -- Bearcat.

Oh, definitely! Right on, Babomb -- BillyJo.

I seem to recall Babomb raising a question "Isn't it interesting the way several anonymous users come out of nowhere at the same time. Now here we have a question about Babomb, and an apparent speed record may have been set today. Ubiquity answers a query of sorts to Babomb at 15:16. Two Minutes Bearcat comes in to agree, and two later BillyJo further agrees, the later two being from the same IP. That's three concurring statements from three ostensibly different users within 4 minutes, with the later two apparently sharing the same office assuming they are different individuals--of course such a thing is certainly possible. But the velocity and proximity are certainly impressive. With all deference, what I am guessing caused some people to believe the edit was inappropriate was because Babomb, who is in the California computer industry, seemed to soft pedal the nature of the IBM book, saying "questioned how" the Nazis got their names instead of "documented how IBM worked with the Nazis" in projects far exceeding name listing, this is a common tactic of those with an agenda to support IBM, but but hardly one we can ascribe to a computer gaming industry enthusiast such as Babomb. No one knows his devotion to the topic. Ubiquity's comment also raised an eyebrow. He says he has read Mr. Black's books. Is that correct? All 6 of them? Which ones of the six? What about the different editions with different content? The contributions to other books which actually relate to those? How about the dozens of articles related and not related? I think it is like Sybil said... unless Babomb or Ubiquity has some rank that infrequent visitors do not know about, and unless Babomb feels that citing an IBM commercial partner is proper sourcing, and unless Babomb wants to overrule the instructions about false light and libel by implication above, my vote is that the less slanted and agenda filled the edit, the greater the NPOV. In that respect, may I offer this tidbit to all, including Jones, wheel, Larry, Sybil, Babomb, Bwiki, Unbiquity and the esteemed two-minute same locale new-comers Bearcat and BillyJo... with such volatile books and article topics as Holocaust history, eugenics, hate funding, genetics, history of Iraq, oil addiction, environmental history, future energy, the debates, agendas, and accusations would each be an endless universe of acrimony unto themselves. The current entry is devoid of praise, awards and similar accolades. Keep it simple. Edwin Black should be judged on his true work, not a tertiary assessment by anonymous posters. Ironically, just seeing a news story on TV about how a Wikipedian in CT had his computer seized by police with regard to the Benoit posting but I have no idea if the news report is accurate. Clearly, the need to vet articles BEFORE they are posted is one that has characterized man's intellectual history for centuries. I agree with those who want to improve Wikipedia by having it go private before it goes public. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.33.194.77 (talk • contribs).

The one making accusations is you. You're harping on about the fact that I'm in the "California computer industry" (which, by the way, I'm not; I'm in the video game industry, quite a different beast) as to imply that I'm trying to push IBM's "agenda". I didn't even know they had one. I program video games for a company with no IBM affiliations whatsoever, and I have no personal affiliation with IBM. I don't give a damn about IBM one way or the other. By the way, I think if you're going to (however clumsily) attack others based on their industries, you ought to at least tell us what industry you work in. Yes, Wikipedia isn't perfect. We know. But that's not relevant to the issue at hand.

Your arguments about libel and false light don't hold any water either. I'm familiar with the laws in question, having recently taken a class on the subject, taught by a practicing lawyer. I don't see any possible way the statement that Edwin Black was inspired to write the book because his parents were Holocaust survivors could be construed as libel against Edwin Black by any reasonable person. It's not saying or implying anything negative about him! I don't see how it could even be construed as biased except that it doesn't attack IBM. (And attacking IBM would NOT be NPOV. It would not be unreasonable to cite Black's claims against IBM so long as they were presented in a neutral manner. If you wish to include that, please do so, though perhaps it would be a better fit at the IBM and the Holocaust article.)

You also objected that one of the sources cited is an IBM partner. I am not aware that CNET is a partner with IBM, but you'll note that the other reference is Edwin Black himself, which should more than cancel out any pro-IBM slant CNET has.

As for your objection to the wording in my edit, I merely restored a sentence some anon user deleted and fixed the reference links and a typo or two. You can easily see this by looking at the history page. For future reference, it's a good idea to check such things before accusing others of "soft pedaling". It's fine if you think the wording should be changed, but in that case the proper response is to change the wording and/or state your objection on the talk page, NOT to delete the section entirely! However, the Edwin Black–copyrighted source cited supports the wording in question:

I was haunted by a question whose answer has long eluded historians. The Germans always had the lists of Jewish names. Suddenly, a squadron of grim-faced SS would burst into a city square and post a notice demanding those listed assemble the next day at the train station for deportation to the East. But how did the Nazis get the lists? For decades, no one has known. Few have asked.

[2], 12th paragraph. On that basis, I am restoring the edit in question. If you disagree, since you claim ubiquity and I are trying to impose our wills on this article, to avoid any appearance of impropriety, I suggest we take this to one of Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes, such as Request for Comment, Mediation Cabal, or Mediation Committee, although it seems a bit silly for an article that only contains three complete sentences. You can even pick which, if you have a preference. (And by the way, please sign your posts by typing 4 tildes.) -Babomb 05:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, having read the content, what makes Babomb's entry misleading is he has taken one buried isolated remark and magnified it to distort Edwin Black's true intention which he states manifestly in many places. The Nizkor cite for example opens with these words in the second sentence: "It tells the story of IBM's conscious involvement-directly and through its subsidiaries-in the Holocaust, as well as its involvement in the Nazi war machine that murdered millions of others throughout Europe." Why reinvent the author's intention. Let him speak for himself." Lark

Be careful here. Once again, I didn't take anything and distort anything. I restored a sentence deleted by an anon user because it was well-cited. I merely noted in my above remarks that the passage in question was directly supported by material in the citation, and as such there was no reason for it to be deleted entirely. However, when you state our objection that way, I see that we are talking about slightly different things. The question of how the Nazis got their names is WHY he started researching. IBM's involvement in the Holocaust is what he found and wrote about as a result of that research. As such, I am willing to support either of the following two rewordings:

Black, the son of Polish Holocaust Survivors, was in part inspired by their ordeal to research the question of how the Nazis managed to obtain their names. The results of his research eventually became the 2001 non-fiction book IBM and the Holocaust.

Black, the son of Polish Holocaust Survivors, was in part inspired by their ordeal to research and author the 2001 non-fiction book IBM and the Holocaust, which accuses IBM of helping the Nazis obtain the names of Jews.

If you agree to either of those, I say go ahead and change it. -Babomb 03:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Babomb, I support your suggestion of dispute resolution. --ubiquity 18:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

IBM employee Richard Hoffman and Babomb Combine to Edit Entry on Edwin Black

Here’s the problem with Babomb’s entry as I see it. First of all, Babomb seems to want to construct the Bio page on Edwin Black not chronologically with his first nonfiction book, but second non-fiction book. It would seem that if you were building such a biography, you would work in chronological order. Can’t imagine what the agenda would be. Second, Babomb is insistent upon explaining Edwin Black’s inner mind as opposed to what Edwin Black actually wrote. If Edwin Black had written a book about the Incas of Peru, would you write that Edwin Black, prompted by a horrible meal in a Peruvian restaurant, decided to write about the Incas of Peru? Third, there seems to be a complete disconnect between a properly sourced reference as understood by Wikipedians and most of the world…especially those engaged in assembling the world’s body of knowledge. There is a missing word in this whole discussion of sourcing: verification.

Just using the concept of repeating Internet material is insufficient to establish a knowledge base. For example, Babomb may believe that quoting from one of the world’s most prestigious publications, Nature Magazine, or the computer world’s revered Annals of the History of Computing, or the well-established Jerusalem Report are quite adequate to prove a point. Yet, each of those publications has issued a public retraction and apology for their writings regarding Edwin Black. So has the Journal of American History, and numerous other organizations, individuals and publications. Some of retractions and references these have recently been thrown up on the web and, in this regard, I am openly borrowing from another poster, but I would like to cite it for all to read…and read very carefully…the retractions by top-rated historians in top-rated publications.

• http://www.edwinblack.com/retractions/LarsHeideRetraction.pdf
• http://www.edwinblack.com/retractions/BaumelRetraction.pdf
• http://www.edwinblack.com/retractions/AnalysphereRetraction.pdf
• http://www.edwinblack.com/retractions/MiriamKahnRetraction.pdf
• http://www.edwinblack.com/retractions/SegalRetraction.pdf
• http://www.edwinblack.com/retractions/CSSRRetractiononWAW.pdf
• http://www.edwinblack.com/retractions/JournalofAmericanHistoryRetraction.pdf

Clearly, looking at those retractions, a lot of libel lawyers have been involved with these retracted published reports. It points up the necessity to verify. Anyone who looks at Edwin Black’s works will see that virtually every sentence is verifiable from public sources and that is why he commonly and openly invites anyone, anywhere, to find any error he has made with regard to any of his books. What I have written here is in the public record and I have written it elsewhere.

Now, Babomb emphasizes that he knows libel law because he took a libel course. I’m so happy. I took a biology course once and, to this day, regret I cannot perform brain surgery. Just dipping around Wikipedia pages about libel law shows that Wikipedians are relying on out-of-date case law such as Sullivan v. New York Times, and out of date platitudes about the nature of libel. Just to be helpful, let me give an example. Babomb and most others looking at this post probably believe that “truth is an absolute defense for libel.” That is wrong. There are numerous examples. Moreover, that the innocent Construction Rule still applies. Babomb is in the gaming industry. I salute you. I am part of a group which does not treat historical truth as a game. You have asked what industry we are in. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I am part of a group of people, many of whom share an office and the same IP address, who are like-minded and dedicated to establishing fact about historical injustice and correcting others who have the facts wrong. We never make errors. We are bulletproof. Our record is flawless and that is because we keep our mouths shut until we can absolutely establish facts. Therefore, I do not write about the Incas of Peru until I understand the Incas of Peru thoroughly, because words are precious, words are powerful. The Torah and Talmud say the only crime that cannot be undone is an insult, offensive words or untrue words—once uttered cannot be rescinded. A supreme court justice once wrote: “You cannot unring a bell.” And with only ten commandments at his disposal, Moses transcribed this one: “Thou shalt not bear false witness.”

Now, I understand how easy it is for people in Wikipedia to assume that people who agree with each other from different parts of the nation or at the same IP address can be denigrated as sock puppeteers. Nothing comes easier to Wikipedia than proliferating its lexicon of denigrating terms, combativeness and adverse action. In recent times, I have found an almost limitless sea of complaints by Wikipedians against each other and against outside users on topics so diverse they boggle the mind. As I have written elsewhere, everyone in the House of Representatives shares one IP. Everyone at a dormitory at Harvard shares one IP. Everyone at NOAA shares one IP. They can all be accused of being sock puppeteers if they agree. You will easily find these comments of mine written elsewhere. Here is another weapon for accusers. There are a lot of people who agree on a given topic, and that does not discredit their knowledge base of assertions.

Third problem with Babomb’s entry is that for some reason, he seems intent soft peddling what Edwin Black wrote in IBM and the Holocaust. For instance, he suggests, “questioning how the Nazi’s managed to obtain their names” or “accuses IBM of helping the Nazi’s obtain the names of Jews.” Nice verbs. Would you call Rise and Fall of the Third Reich a book which accuses the Germans of perpetrating the Holocaust? Would you describe a book about the Inquisition as one which accuses the Catholic Church of torturing people if they would not convert? This to us seems to be a soft peddle. Let’s just tell it as it is and go beyond the issue of names and describe what the book really talked about, which was names, bank accounts, property lists, train schedules, ghetto housing, tank movements, and everything else.

Wrapping it up, I doubt seriously that the 6 to 10 people who have voiced their opinions will not submit to arbitration, least of all me. I think some of the people have real jobs and lives and can’t monitor the Wiki entries 24x7. If worse comes to worse, we will all lose and you Babomb will win and you can write what you wish. Wikipedia has a record that bears witness to that. All of that in mind, I have modified the sentence to be factual and sourced based on verifiable fact. I hope we can all move on in good will. Let’s make this the last entry on this sentence.

Why must everything be an agenda with you? I have an agenda. I seem intent on softpedaling. I'm starting it chronologically out of order. How many times do I have to tell you: I was merely restoring content that was improperly deleted. To the extent that I am "softpedaling" on IBMs involvement, I am trying to avoid libeling IBM. Unlike the Holocaust and the Inquisition, IBM's involvement in the Holocaust is not to my knowledge widely accepted as fact by the general public. For my part, I've never heard any details of it outside of the context of this article. So you'll exuse me for not posting potentially libelous information about IBM based on your say so. Just as you don't write about the Incas of Peru if you don't understand them, I don't write about IBM if I don't understand it.

I don't claim to be a lawyer any more than you claim to be a brain surgeon, but that doesn't mean I don't know a fair bit about libel. (I think it is QUITE a stretch to say I "emphasize" it, and as concerned as you seem to be with precision and inventing the author's intent in this article, you seem to be not at all concerned with precision or inventing my intent on this talk page; for example, you imply that I "play games" with historical facts.) The section in question does of course meet the dissemination and identification elements, but I fail to see how a reasonable court could claim that the statement is actually defamatory, nor to prove fault (either negligence or actual malice). Nor do I believe it would be possible for Mr. Black to show actual damages from the statement as it stood when I restored it.

Truth IS an affirmative defense, at least against libel. False light cases are a different matter. While the case law in that direction is a little less clear, I don't see how the passage in question could be offensive to a reasonable person. Nor do I believe that, to the extent that the language is imprecise, it would be unreasonable to apply the Bose v. Consumer Union decision, even though that is a libel and not false light case, to allow me a little "breathing room". (You see, I do know about post-Sullivan cases.)

I do not find your recent edit unreasonable, and so I will drop the matter here, but I do think your attitude is unreasonable. If in the future you remember to Assume Good Faith and act cooperatively instead of accusing people of having agendas and posting anti-Wikipedia tirades, it will be a lot better for all involved.

By the way, regarding your query, if Edwin Black wrote a book about the Incas of Peru and Dean1970 wrote that Black was inspired to research them after a bad experience in a Peruvian restaurant, backing it up with a citation from Black's introduction to the book, and I checked that source and verified that it did in fact say that, then I would certainly support its inclusion. -Babomb 05:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: At no point did I accuse anyone of sock puppetry. I did check the IP address assignments and they appeared to be from different locations, so if you were sockpuppeting, you did a good job of disguising it. I did assume and imply, though not directly accuse, that the several anon users were related in some way, such as part of the same organization, as this group you say you are a part of that is "dedicated to establishing fact about historical injustice". -Babomb 06:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Babomb, I did not imply you "play games with historical facts.” Re-read the words. I stated, “Babomb is in the gaming industry. I salute you. I am part of a group which does not treat historical truth as a game.” If maybe you took that comment by as personal; please don’t I was really just reflecting on us, not you.

Now then to libel: I wrote: “Babomb and most others looking at this post probably believe that ‘truth is an absolute defense for libel.’” I quoted from the erroneous Wikipedia policy page on the topic. You are correct when you change the phrasing, “truth is an affirmative defense.” So who has the gumption to go up and endure all the arguments and correct Wiki’s erroneous policy page. Naturally, those of who know and breathe libel law every hour know that case law is every day evolving which is why Bose sought certiorari when it did. But the standard has changed since the early 1980s and is changing still. The new standard is what a reasonable person could reasonably be expected to conclude when reading or listening. Actual malice and reckless disregard has changed a great deal. Now simultaneous rebuttal and context are as important as absent actual malice. That is why truth is no longer an absolute defense. Here’s an example of a libelous but true statement. “Joe Blow did not rape a girl last month. He has not raped any women this year.” You see, Babomb... true... and libelous to Joe Blow. Moreover, the same Bose article in the local neighborhood penny saver or even a mass circulation publication such as Glamour magazine would not be as damaging as one in Consumer Union because that publication (CU) is held to a higher standard than Glamour on its topic. Ipso fact, Wikipedia which holds itself out as an encyclopedia would be judged by the highest standard because it implies vetted reliability. In fact, Wikipedia falsely portrays itself as an encyclopedia when in fact it is a knowledge bulletin board of uninformed amateurs who do not verify facts, who lack credentials or who conduct no original research except through tertiary files. Through an accident of Google and other search engine algorithms, Wikipedia has becomes a highly visible cheat sheet or lead sheet for many which should never be taken as factual but often is. Let me leave the libel alone now as it is esoteric here.

Now Babomb, look me in the eye. I am speaking from the heart. You have said some things that fascinate me. I have 4 questions: You wrote: “For my part, I've never heard any details of it [IBM and the Holocaust] outside of the context of this article.” Tell me Babomb, if you don’t have any knowledge of this topic or the book outside the article, why did it becomes so compelling for you to write something and then fail to defer to those such as Larry and others who had indeed read the book and no something on the subject. This is from the heart. I want to understand Wikipedians. Why did you choose this subject and this book as opposed to Edwin Black’s fourth book Banking on Baghdad or perhaps another author altogether such as Neil Baldwin (not asking you to write an entry on him). Help me understand what motivated you. You already know what motivated me and perhaps Larry and Sybil and many others who have chimed in.

I have this page on my watchlist because I did a bit of cleanup work a while back. I noticed the recent edit in which a user deleted the sentence in question. As noted in WP:REVERT, on Wikipedia, sections that contain valid information should be rewritten and improved, not deleted. As the information was backed up by sources, I undid the deletion. As for why I failed to defer to others more knowledgeable (presumably; for all I know they haven't read it either), why did they fail to defer to me on Wikipedia policy? Were this purely a factual discussion completely, I would certainly defer. However, the sentence is supported by sources, so (while, as you pointed out, sources can be erroneous) the verifiablity is not the issue; removal of verifiable information is. As I have explained several times in this discussion, I did not choose this subject to write about; I merely restored text another user had written that had been improperly deleted. I will also note that my failing to defer to others more knowledgeable in the subject has resulted in a better, more informative article. If you want to add similar information about the other books, please do so! Just don't delete any relevant and cited info.-Babomb 05:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Question 2: Again in good faith. You wrote: “I do not find your recent edit unreasonable, and so I will drop the matter here.” Babomb, what if you had NOT found it reasonable. Tell me what happens. It is okay for Ubiquity to back you up over 6 or 7 other people or even just one person who knows more about the topic. Help me understand? Again, from the heart and in good faith.

If I had not found it reasonable, I would have attempted to move the discussion into some sort of conflict resolution, as mentioned previously. Consensus is not purely a numbers game; it is that we are more correct on the Wikipedia policy. Or perhaps I could say that on ubiquity and I are backed up by a policy decided on by a large number of Wikipedians. That doesn't mean we have absolute power over the article, but I believe that if we got a larger sample of Wikipedians to vote on this, the end result would either be that the information would be kept and reworded or moved to the article on IBM and the Holocaust.-Babomb 05:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Question 3: What if 10 or 20 people network to correct a factual imbalance, misleading or incomplete or total error as is done every day on the Internet. Say the topic is correcting the definition of Zionism, or Mormonism, or giving the facts about the Viking exploration of North America. Is that sock puppetry or just the combined intellect of a group? Is that bad? Or good? What if anti-Mormon posters from Christian fundamentalist groups insist on coloring the Mormon religion negatively and they network legitimate objections? What if they color Islam? What if they color the entry on France?

There's nothing necessarily untoward about working with other people, but in some cases, I think this information should be disclosed. For example, if you called your friend to and said "Hey, this guy's screwing up the Edwin Black article.", that's one thing. But if you're part of some kind of Holocaust awareness group or Edwin Black's publisher or IBM, that sort of information should be disclosed. Without this kind of disclosure, a group of people (especially anonymous users) acting in concert can give the appearance of acting with some kind of impropriety, not that I'm accusing you of such. That's part of the reason I list where I work in my profile. Granted, anyone could lie about that sort of thing.-Babomb 05:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Question 4: Can anyone tell me the commercial relationship between Wikipedia and Answers.com. Your posts and mine are being mirrored there verbatim and generating lost of advertising revenue? Ironically, on answers.com a disclaimer exists that does not exist on Wikipedia and I wish it did. It invokes the disclaimer that the information is not vetted?

Answers.com mirrors Wikipedia content. There is no commercial relationship between them. Anyone can copy the content on Wikipedia as long as they follow the provisions of the GFDL.-Babomb 05:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope the Wiki Inquisitors won’t come out because I am asking a few questions. But this is a new and mushrooming phenomenon and maybe like other aspects of the Internet, it needs to be regulated, restricted or placed into context. Maybe it can be improved by moving it private until vetted and becomes like the rest of organized human knowledge. July 9 4:15 PM

This isn't really the place for this, but there has been talk of requiring users to register before making edits or holding back edits by anonymous users and newly registered users until approved by a trusted user. I doubt anything like what you're suggesting will ever happen. Besides the logistical problems of determining who is an expert in what subjects, different levels of expertise, and so on, I think Wikipedia would cease to be Wikipedia. There are problems with its approach, and it can be improved, but making it work like normal encyclopedias would make just another encyclopedia, losing what made it unique. -Babomb 05:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Babomb, you wrote, "But if you're part of some kind of Holocaust awareness group or Edwin Black's publisher or IBM, that sort of information should be disclosed." I'm intrigued, and learning about the nature of Wikipedia. Permit me to comment. Virtually every Jew in the country probably feels he or she is part of some sort of formal, informal, cohesive or non-cohesive Holocaust awareness group. So Wiki policy would require some sort of Nazi-like gold starring where a Jew would have to write, "I am a Jew and would like to post a correction about Buchenwald." Or I am a Mormon and would like to post a correction about Moroni." Hmm, I guess some Wikipedian could then declare--oh he is just a Mormon. He has an agenda."

That incorporates and leads me to my next question Babomb? Once more, "But if you're part of some kind of Holocaust awareness group or Edwin Black's publisher or IBM, that sort of information should be disclosed." Earlier you asked why I always have to imply an agenda? So I suppose if one of the posters who decides to add portions of an IBM press release is a long time employee of IBM in the Syracuse office specializing in Websphere, that should not be questioned by you. Now mind you, I have no objection to IBM stalwarts (including brilliant ones with numerous patents) devoted to IBM using IBM email servers and other company resources to advance its agenda. That is what they do. IBM has been hoisting and dispensing distraction misinformation for years on the this topic. But I wonder if the IBM legal department is aware of this discoverable activity? I also wonder if all our comments are being distributed throughout the company to gather up a combined company strategy? What's next for the IBM promo team? Dig out some negative reviews that were then retracted after a legal conflict? How predictable? Maybe this is why it was better to keep the original Edwin Black very very bare and neutral to avoid IBM employees and other allies from doing what they have done elsewhere... distract the issue from its genocide for money program to undermining those who document it? July 10

Although the above remarks don't seem to be addressed to me, I'll mention that I am the IBM employee in question. However, my connection with IBM (which is noted in my profile for all to see) has nothing to do with my actions here. I'm also Jewish, and had relatives perish in the holocaust (not noted in my profile), and that also has nothing to do with my actions. I merely stated a fact, and provided a valid citation to support that fact. So no, I don't see why Babomb should question my contribution. --ubiquity 14:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well Richard, I was just following up on the exact words that Babomb was using and he wondered how I could think about a pro-IBM agenda, or if IBM people were posting. Now that you have confirmed you are in the IBM Syracuse office (wonderful town with beautiful homes), I wonder if you are posting your items alone or in concert with others in the company, and whether you are distributing all these messages to others at Big Blue, and whether you are using company resources, such as your email which is ends in us.ibm.com or the company server? If, technically, does that makes it a company post. Please correct if I am wrong, per both company policy and the law. Let me help you. I guess you fall into both of Babomb's categories for disclosure--Holocaust awareness and IBM supporter. You are not the first. Michael Zamcyck http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/19112/edition_id/386/format/html/displaystory.html

resigned from IBM because he could bare knowing that the company he served for decades was also the one that put him the Krakow ghetto. The actual IBM customer site that did the processing was recently discovered 22 Murnerstrasse and IBM has never denied it.

But let me switch to something else, in fact two other things... Your 17 patents are fantastic, and Websphere, which you have coded for, really rocks... it is profoundly superior even if more expensive than all the bloated code out there and as we all know leaves Front Page in the dust. So a compliment. Now something else my friend Richard... tell me what happened to your relatives in the Shoah so I can help you understand more about their situation. Were they refugees, concentration camps inmates, ghetto resistors, or forest fighters? Now let me help you, Richard. Tell me what happened to your family? I will try to enlighten you. July 10 High NOON and High Time.

When I wrote "part of some kind of Holocaust awareness group", I meant actively working for an non-profit organization, not any group so informal as simply being Jewish. I apologize if you read it as an accusation, but did not mean for that sentence to imply that you fell into any of those categories (As far as I know, you do not.); it was merely an example. I should have written "one" rather than "you". Suppose someone edited this article, and you later found out he worked for IBM, which he had not disclosed. The natural assumption would be that he was trying to hide his agenda. It is therefore my personal preference to disclose relevant direct associations, especially when involved in controversy, to avoid any appearance of impropriety; I should have made clear that that is not an official Wikipedia policy (but see Declaring an interest).

I'm not sure I understand your second question correctly, but if you mean to ask whether I would question edits by an IBM employee less than from one of the other groups I mentioned, no. I have no reason question an edit at all unless it asserts information without citing sources, it says something I know to be false, it seems to me to present information in a biased way, or it vandalizes or deletes information (as in this case). Only then might I bother to check if the person has some kind of bias. I do look at the edits of non-registered users more closely because a higher proportion of them are vandals or unaware of Wikipedia policy. Also, a correction: I didn't "wonder[] how [you] could think about a pro-IBM agenda". I wondered why a few editors including me were being accused, implicitly or explicitly, of pro-IBM bias when we did not make any edits that seemed (to me) to betray any bias (and I'm quite certain I don't have one on this topic). As the dispute has been resolved and this discussion is now only tangential to the subject of this page, this will be my last post here. If you feel the need to follow up, please do so on my talk page.-Babomb 05:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Following up on Babomb's final comment, a further review of the involvement of Richard Hoffman of IBM Syracuse aka Ubiquity and the Talk page Babomb was kind enough to point us to. was most indeed illuminating. Ubiquity's profile nowhere mentions that he is a long time employee of IBM, merely a aficionado of Websphere and quite talented in that regard if I do say so. However, it seems from Babomb's Talk page that Hoffman of IBM and Babomb worked in tandem, thanking each other for mutual support. That seems like nice cooperation, and quite delightful... although I did try to reconcile that with Hoffman-Ubiquity's unexpected allegations on the Talk page against several other named and unnamed individuals whose IPs criss-cross this nation but who agree on factuality issues. I wonder if Ubiquity might want to delete those open allegations from the Talk page, using the Edit process, as perhaps those accusations are not in keeping with the always assume good faith doctrine. In any event, I think this discussion has run its course, I agree with Babomb, and while I and undoubtedly others will try to post facts to the article itself if germane, I think the tremolo of this discourse has served it purpose is shining light on a few issues. July 12 8:40 AM

I really don't want to continue this discussion either, but I would like to respond to specific items in the previous paragraph. My profile makes it quite clear that I work for IBM, and has done so ever since I joined wikipedia. Furthermore, I see no evidence on Babomb's talk page that he and I ever worked in tandem, just an expression of support from me with no response from him. In fact, Babomb and I do not know each other and have never communicated directly. I see no reason to edit my remarks on Babomb's talk page unless he asks me to. My UNDOCUMENTED OPINION of whether or not sock-puppetry has occurred here is not supported by fact, and I would not bring it into this discussion. --ubiquity

Seems to be clearly a case of an IBM Employee, Richard Hoffman, combining with Babomb, to slant the edit on Edwin Black specifically on one of his books, IBM and the Holocaust. I have read the book. The facts speak for themselves and IBM's refusal to deny the specifics over recent years speak volumes. Let's move on, but lesson learned as to IBM's reach in matters of Internet information.

This is Wheel. That ubiquity aka Richard Hoffman implied I did not exist or was the same as other names operated by one person is wrong. Before you go accusing people of not existing such as a linked talk page, know this: My name is David I live in Greater St. Louis area and have been using the handle wheel since 1975, and my profession is computer programming and HTML. < Div id="findThis" > < /div >

I humbly suggest you apologize to everyone you said did not exist and delete your comments. And let face facts, you are focusing on IBM and the Holocaust because you are an IBM employee. You conveniently ignored all his other work. I'm familiar with Edwin Black's books as are probably a million others, and I am very familiar with IBM and the Holocaust. Big Blue knowingly engaged in genocide for money for 12 years. Nothing you write here is going to minimize that.

Wheel 7-16-2007 PS I am not going register and live in your world.

Wheel's point speaks for itself. These Wiki terms, "meatpuppets" and "sockpuppets" are basically Wiki derogations for people collaborating intellectually. I am not sure it would be correct to infer that Wheel and others have stated that the IBM employee Richard Hoffman in Syracuse and Babomb of High Impact Games in Burbank are basically classic meatpuppets. I prefer to think that although being on opposite coasts they have corresponded in simple coordination and collaboration as is commonly done in the world of intellect and knowledge. But I am having a harder time understanding why it is so important for them to report, denigrate and marginalize others who do the same thing, simply agree even if they live in separate parts of the country and have never even met each other. I have never met Wheel in St. Louis, and I am in Washington as both IPs reveal. Larry showed the Midwest, I saw another from the northeast and one from Minnesota somewhere. Might Richard feel Wheel is correct in asking that his existence as an independent human not be sneered at and negated by Hoffman aka Ubiquity in a public forum. BTW, I have personally lifted whole sections of one Wiki entry to place here and there assuming that nothing was safer than to transplant consensus material. I have seen others do the same thing. For this act of good faith, I and others are reported as a sockpuppets. Quite a system. Any room here for improvement in mindset and methodology?