User talk:John Smith (nom de guerre)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Discussion Page - User Talk

I, the creator of this work, hereby grant the permission to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
Subject to disclaimers.

This link is a template for links to the talk page for this user
(link to editing the talk/discussion page):
^{(return fire)}

[edit] Propaganda from the Middle of the Road

Propaganda from the Middle of the Road
The Centrist Ideology of the News Media

(a five paragraph exerpt from a 29 paragraph long 1989 fair.org article By Jeff Cohen)
the original article at www.fair.org:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1492

"There is a notion -- widely believed in the mainstream media -- that while there is propaganda of the left and propaganda of the right, there is no such thing as propaganda of the center. In this view, the center doesn't produce propaganda, it produces straight news. Mainstream journalists typically explain: "We don't tilt left, we don't tilt right. We're straight down the middle of the road. We're dead center."

When mainstream journalists tell me during debates that "our news doesn't reflect bias of the left or the right," I ask them if they therefore admit to reflecting bias of the center. Journalists react as if I've uttered an absurdity: "Bias of the center! What's that?"

It is a strange concept to many in the media. They can accept that conservatism or rightism is an ideology that carries with it certain values and opinions, beliefs about the past, goals for the future. They can accept that leftism carries with it values, opinions, beliefs. But being in the center -- being a centrist -- is somehow not having an ideology at all. Somehow centrism is not an "ism" carrying with it values, opinions and beliefs."

[...]

"Another hallmark of centrist propaganda is to affirm, no matter what the evidence, that U.S. foreign policy is geared toward promoting democracy. Journalists are not unaware that the U.S. helped overthrow democratic governments, for example, in Guatemala in '54, Brazil in '64, Chile in '73 -- but these cases are considered ancient history, no longer relevant. (In centrist ideology, since the system is constantly fixing and renewing itself, U.S. abuses -- even against democracy -- become distant past overnight.)

Mainstream journalists respond to such criticism by explaining that articles for the daily press are not history texts and cannot include everything. That's true, but centrist propaganda finds space for certain histories and not others.
[..]

from a www.fair.org article by Jeff Cohen

from www.fair.org
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1492 --Nunamiut 09:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, John Smith (nom de guerre), and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Golden Wattle ^talk 09:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Style

I think you need to consider your communication style. On Talk:Indonesia you have pasted reams of information and it is not at all clear what is an article or your own words.

we usually expressly say so dont we?

Furthermore, the sheer volume of stuff means that no one is likely to read it,

no? so if you take the trouble reading the discussion pages on

indonesia you're not really interested in a thourough discussion

on indonesia??

Well, ok, granted the volume is big and most people might not

read one of the most controversial issues concerning the recent

history of Indonesia and one of the worlds top ten massacres.

Even if it's debated here for a while.

I too skip info I'm not interested in.

but I'm not sure I see a great big problem here.

let alone reply (have you thought why you have such a lack of response?). To readers - others have confirmed - it really appears as ramblings. Try and make your points more succint and to the point if you want your message to register with readers. Also, editing passages written over a week ago, is probably wasting your time. It's the age of the short attention span. No matter how much material you can post in the talk page, alleged CIA involvement is not really going to be featured in an article with as broad a coverage as Indonesia. History, is only one section of the article, and this is only one part of a 6000 year history. We are NOT looking to lengthen the article. --Merbabu 01:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

None of the last posts are my words. I am not looking for replies,

I am looking to put serious credible information _with_ all it's sources out there, for any future readers who _actually_ wants to understand the why and how wiki reads as it does, and for them to see what the previous discussions were all about.
And precisely because this is the age of the short attention span, I have quoted the most important parts of the articles at length, since it seems that very few (not even you) will bother to follow a link to check the sources or their validity and credibility.
As to wether or not it "appears as ramblings" to someone who is not really interested in the real history of Indonesia at all...
go figure.
The "alledged" CIA involvement is so thouroughly documented by now, (at _length_), by what must be more than a hundred, if not thousands of official sources, including historians and scholars worldwide, books, National reports, major newspapers, the CIA themselves, former operatives, a dozen documentaries, the BBC, former UK ambassadors and half a dozen investigating journalists or more so you border on the ridiculous still using your "alledged".
I'd really suggest you'd actually start read some credible and deeper ivestigative history instead of posting _your_ own opinions, or even the mainstream misconceptions.
But I'll grant you this, that changes should primarily be made to the wiki page "talk/discussion - History of Indonesia", but since Indonesia was were the discussion started the "correct opportunity to move it never materialized." but feel free to move the last "rants" there if you wish. I'll move my comments to those pages.
I actually care about honest reporting, sources and credibility. don't you?
-John Smith (nom de guerre) 02:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, given that we appear to have some agreement on at least the need to avoid going into great detail on the Indonesia page, and also the need for in depth discussion on the more specific articles based on GOOD sources, then maybe my (well-intentioned) advice is for you to be bold and make those changes to the History, Suharto, etc, articles. I've said before, it wasn't really the content of the material that I was disputing. I would add your info but my limited time at the moment is going into other articles (Indonesian architecture - which is also lacking in sources which will take a lot of work). Once you make edits, myself and others can edit them - if everyone is reasonable and sticks to facts and not opinions, chances are we and our edits will generally get along. regards --Merbabu 02:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Update: In summary Be bold. You have spent considerble time collecting and writing up these sources, why not put the information into the more specific articles? As for the main Indonesia article, what do you think of the changes to that section now? Is it a good compromise? If I get a chance, I will go through the sources you provided and see if anything else should be used - but word count is of the essence. --Merbabu 02:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I think the last changes to the main Indonesia article makes it a whole lot better,and yes it's a good/better compromise.

The citation needed for the claim to a million dead is almost take your pick, I cant remember any article that didn't claim that it was possible if not very likely that the killings could have reached such heights. That aside, the former CIA officer Ralph McGehee,I think, is considered among the greatest experts / closest vitnesses on the subject, so his article should be at least one of the more credible sources for the "one million killed" claim (as in "some people still _claims_"). This is as far as we get, since it will never be possible to actually _prove_ that close to a million people were killed.
I do of course understand that word count is important for the introductory main article on Indonesia, I only felt it should reflect a bit fairer version of history than we've been used to for the last decades, even if they are the official versions. And since we do have something called the internet these days and sources may be checked even if we have to go to great lengths to find the more correct,valid and credible ones, I feel it's only fair to give it a try at least. Perhaps in a few years we'll be able to compare the Britannica with Wiki and understand why it was important. Or even better; we'll have influenced Britannica to "gain a level"...
-sincerely. John Smith (nom de guerre) 03:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop

Talk pages are not for the dumping of large amount of info (regardless of the source or the veracity). Admins on wikipedia might be a lot harsher than Merbabu or I - please stop now, before an admin spots what you are doing and gives you the third degree on such behaviour! If you have such a problem - maybe you should create a blog. SatuSuro 07:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up, since I thought the discussion pages were for exactly this, and since it seemed it never helped asking people to read the links I provided, I thought it was ok to let people who felt history important enough, to let them verify the links on their own. I find it hard to believe that people actually follow up on checking sources, since noone have been interested in providing more source material or discussing it indepth until I started a heated debate with Merbabu. but thanks again, I'll shorten down my posts considerably and expect people (admins also) to actually read the sources before they summarily delete them. If you are better at cleaning up pages to comply with wiki standards than me,better at that than providing reliable background material and sources and you have no interest in the actual content, I would hope you (the admins) would be able to do that, as I am no expert in neither graphical presentation, nor the wiki HTML-like shorthand. I see people archive longer and more unserious(?) debates and subjects than mine, so I would have hoped such a serious issue would deserve indepth discussion at least. Anyway, I'll shorten it down considerably. Thanks again. Sincerely. John Smith (nom de guerre) 10:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

No problems - just take it easy - when in doubt - dont type it or save it - come back later - remember what I say in the indonesia talk page thing - everything saved on wikipedia stays there - its ffor all to see - viz a warning template that I have for some situations: -

This is an example only"' !!!!

As they say in the movies, "oh be-have". Seriously, though, we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so don't make joke edits, as you did to Albany, Western Australia. Some readers looking for a serious article might not find them amusing. Remember, millions of people read Wikipedia, so we have to take what we do a bit seriously here. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write whatever you want (as long as it's not offensive). Maybe you should check out Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense.

02:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

So - this issue is that there are a whole lot of principles and norms of wikipedia that keep it from falling into chaos! What you need to do is to assume that your are not the only person to have been excited about revelations of CIA involvement in anything - that is a whole industry in itself- regardless whether you or anybody else believe things that might or not constitute evidence - the thing is that very spuriuous claims have been made (and laughed out of court) in Wikipedia - in its current form anybody can edit - so dont feel that your work is 'sacred' or speccial - anyone can zap it for a whole lot of reasons...SatuSuro 10:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Another thing - sometimes the person you have found who have done edits on the subjects you wish to enthuse your knowledge about (a) have left (b) lost interest (c) are low users (d) are so imbued by their sense of privacy they will not necessarily answer on talk pages outside of their own !? . Then - some articles lie dormant for up to a year or even longer - and they even drift off watch pages - so never ever assume you will get an easy and quick reply on anything... Patience, slowness and coolness are basic requirements. If you cannot handle that - it is possible you need to simply work on an article rather than attempt to raise some editors from their dormancy . :( SatuSuro 11:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but when a issue previously considered a "conspiracy-nut" case becomes "mainstream" because of new historical material, whole groups of former CIA case-officers, a dozen BBC, ITV and other documentaries, quoted, referenced, validated and even published at all levels of government and the educational "establishment" it becomes hard to ignore, and a lot harder to dismiss as "spurious". Incidentally: In fact it's the very word John Pilger critisizes Tony Blair for using when trying to discredit the whole worldwide movement for social justice, human rights and decent living conditions, in his documentary using exactly Indonesia as the prime example of how coorporations have used globalisation and the US power apparatus to gain influence and take over markets world wide. And of course my work is neither sacred nor special, which is _exactly the reason why I'd want people to read, discuss and refute my sources if they do not stand up to the test, hold water etc. But until now I've seen noone do just that, only people critisising me for bringing forward material that is almost commonly agreed / conventional wisdom in the mainstream media (i.e.:BBC, ITV, NRK (norwegian broadcasting) SVT(sweden) and German broadcasting as far as I can tell.)

I'm not sure what they are airing in the USA at this point in time, but it seems both journalism and education is going through a rough patch over there (also a mainstream point of view in europe at this point in time :) (Not really a laughing matter at all). Anyhow, thanks again for bothering. Sincerely. John Smith (nom de guerre) 11:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

To your last comment, (you're too quick :) I thought as much myself earlier on, wich is why I created an account, and have continued using my own page after my first brief encounter with Merbabu and one other post on someone elses home talkpage. in short I think (hope) I've got it!John Smith (nom de guerre) 11:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The New Rulers of the World

John Smith (ndg), I tidied up the above article as it no longer complied with our standards of style and citation after your addition of the film details (and thanks for providing those BTW). Would you mind reviewing my changes to make sure I haven't removed anything important or changed the meaning. Can I also suggest you have a read of our style manual at WP:MOS. It is important that editors maintain a consistent look-and-feel throughout wikipedia to make the journey for our readers more enjoyable.

I noticed you frequently adding <br /> throughout your comments. There's really no need to do this: just press the Enter key and the wiki software will do the rest. Please also sign your talk page edits by typing 4 tildes ~~~~ after your edit (see WP:SIG). This makes it easier for other to follow the flow of the conversation by knowing who said what.

And finally, I noticed the comments from several other editors above and on Talk:Indonesia regarding your addition of large volumes of text into discussion and talk pages. If you wish to engage other editors, I suggest you summarise your arguments into succinct points (and by all means add links to external sources as appropriate), else you will end up being ignored or dismissed. If you need any help please ask on my talk page. — Moondyne 09:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sandbox

I created one for your testing (although you can create more easily). See: [1]. Alternatively, just be bold and edit the article. --Merbabu 11:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I'm still a bit cautious about directly editing the articles, since I've noticed my wiki-HTML-like notation style isn't up to scratch yet, but I'll try. I've used the sandbox everyonce in a while to try to get the hang of it, but a lot remains to be desired(?)"leaves a lot to be..."?):) hard line breaks here seem to mess up the indentations, and sometimes a lack of end paranthesis messes up a lot and takes a while for me at least to find out is the source of my mess. But I'll try, hoping I wont be scolded for not having the greatest presentational skills.I have no excuse really, since I used to be able to write HTML in notepad, but there you have it.

[edit] From Indonesia Talk Page

Sorry about that, but it was an honest mistake, I lost my internet connection and forgot to log in to my wiki account again and just started responding since I was ancious to explain my view and stand on the issue. Also, I am behind a firewall in a network wich gives me and at least five other users the appeareance of having the same IP-adress. I'm no sysadmin in this wireless network but there it is. What is the significance of my IP numbers above having the coulor red?

It's happened to most of us at one time or other - there is stuff about the cache/ reloading - which I cannot explain - we think we are still in but somethings logged us out and we end up editing from an isp number. no big deal - just try re-logging on and get on with it.

And again, I have yet to find anyone who can actually _refute_ the claims, the sources, the documentaries or have tried discrediting the BBC documentary, nor the John Pilger one, or Woodwards book on the CIA, or the south-east asian human rights and their sources or investigation, so I'm really at a loss here. help me out.John Smith (nom de guerre) 13:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

You probably need to start your own blog if you think in terms of the need for someone to refute anything. This is (a) an online encyclopedia. (b) editors contribute (most do - some spend their lives cleaning up vandalism and rubbish) (c) refutation and debate occur in the whole process - but can be over much more trivial internal issues rather than as to whether sources or stories are correct or not. Maybe you've really got a misconception here about what we do.

Okay fair enough. But if wiki admins can summarily dismiss all these sources without informing the general public why _their_ peer reivewers can dismiss all conventional wisdom, it gets really hard to take it seriously. a hint, a url to a source of theirs could then prevent a thousand others from making the same mistake I then must be making in believeing that these BBC documentaries and mr Pilgers one is done in the utmost good faith and with thourough and indepth investigation.

I cannot understand why one does not properly discuss an issue simply because it's not the old official story or last years conventional wisdom. The Pilger documentary has been out there for close to five years, there's even a wiki page on it it and a long one on his work.

for the BBC documentaries on the close to endless list of CIA's covert operations I'm simply give up on trying to quote or even give a reference to since its available for previewing throughout the net.

But all that is beside the point. The point and the crux here is that if you do not give reasons as to why and how what common beliefs are are bogus, false and should not be submitted to wiki, then people like me will continue to submit it, simply because we do not have the information your peers and admins have and are holding so close to your chests. You must in some way be able to explain why certain "facts" are not accepted as facts in wiki, for the reasons I am trying to outline above. - John Smith (nom de guerre) 15:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I suppose one question is have you ever lived there? Do you speak any of the languages?

In my case I lived there doing post-grad fieldwork - and have met people who either did not want to talk about those times - or I picked up things from an over long duration in academic life - and as a result, I have a very skeptical view of any person who claims authority over any subject relative to Indonesia. One of my mentors was deeply involved in Javanese mystical groups - and had a PhD in the subject and is highly regardedd by many Javanese as an ahli - expert in the subject - but that does not give him sufficient expertise when it comes to the totality of the broader Javanese religious experience. Geertz had his territory - my mentor did - and there are many other aspects of the variation of life in Java - let alone Indonesia - Ron Hatley's 'Other Javas away from the Kraton' was an important work because it tried to show the diversity of life in the heavily populated Java. Beatty's book on Religion in Java is not far from Geertz's territory - but again it is time and space away from Geertz original work.

I do not live there I do not speak the language neither does 99% of the historians studying south-east asian history at universities throughout the world, nor does it keep the BBC, the ITV or journalists like Pilger from making investigations into what really happened in Rwanda, Darfur or Indonesia for that matter. I dont catch your drift here. help me out a bit further when you get back over the weekend please.- John Smith (nom de guerre) 15:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Why I am sharing this (remembering that everything in wikipedia is recoverable when you push 'save page') - is that on something simple as religious experience in Java in the last fifty years - is sufficiently complex for even experts to necessarily have a complete picture on a subject for the whole Island. Similarly the academic experts on terrorism in Java appear on TV about the phenomenon - and yet I am sure they are never necessarily capable of having a very complete picture in reality. There are some people who claim to be experts on Indonesia or parts of its history - you should always ask yourself before being swept up with enthusiasm - what are their sources? might they have an axe to grind? why are they choosing to look at this this way?

Wich is precisely why we are questioning the old official versions, trying to put them to the test, investigating,providing sources, asking people like you, submitting it all for your peer reviewers, asking for some kind ov verification or at least som information on why our information are being dismissed. It cannot be too much to ask? can it? Who are the ones who've had an axe to grind? who have benefited the most? those who stuck to the official story or those who just wanted their pain to be known? -John Smith (nom de guerre) 15:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

If you are unable to sit back and take stock - maybe you need to ask - why is this argument so appealling? Sometimes it has nothing to do with what actually happened on the ground.

I'm just as capable as anyone else to ponder long and hard upon most questions of the day and some that are even older, which is why I'm having trouble swallowing the official version when noone will tell me why and how all its critics and their sources should be so hard to accept despite all their work,investigation and sources, while _noone_ can verify the official story in order to disprove all the investigative journalism that's been done through more than 40 years now.Yes I am finding it really hard to swallow. not to mention believing the "official" story.-John Smith (nom de guerre) 15:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

You are asking editors of wikipedia to actually refute or debate issues relating to interpretations of a particularly complex subject.

Perhaps it's not nearly as complex as one would like to think... but that's a side issue perhaps. I think I've laid out pretty clearly why it's nessesary to give people a hint on why some information is considered bogus and false and should not be submitted. If that is impossible, then the scientific method of falsification and occhams razor should give us all the more reason to believe that a better theory has been stumbled upon. again, that is perhaps just an opinion, but it _is_ the one being taught at _all_ universities across the planet as far as I'm able to tell. - John Smith (nom de guerre) 15:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not necessarily something that any one editor might even be completely au fait with - many editors on this encyclopedia have neither the educational/experiential/linguistic capacity to undertsand the finer points of the debates over the finer details of a whole range of subjects - sometimes you might be lucky enough to find someone who is an enthusiast. Sometimes.

You have to make a bold decision - look at the current articles that are impacted by your enthusiasm (why dont you check the articles about the CIA and consipiracies associated or attributed to it as well - there may be issues there that might clarify how wikipedia is created) - and decide whether you are prepared to offer edits.

I will.

If you cannot do that - maybe you need to think very carefully about what you might do for with your enthusiasm. To simply look for articles to take your enthusiasm and place general positions in the talk pages is not very helpful - its a point of thinking about what you have found to date - can it be edited into an article or not?

I'm working on it for hours on end today. Patience as you say. but some things I really wish I could discuss _before_ I started editing what someone else has worked dilligently on for months and years on end. Presisely because there might be things I do not know all about in spite of all my efforts to keep myself informed on all the latest findings.

-John Smith (nom de guerre) 15:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Take care, I'm gone - literally, I'm off wiki and email for a week! SatuSuro 14:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Cheers!Have a nice holiday(?).
-John Smith (nom de guerre) 05:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] comments to Indonesia CIA Suharto discussion

Not looking for replies

I believe that the large scale placing of raw data on wikipedia talk pages or article talk pages can be only provocative and asking for considerable angst from certain types of admin persons - there are considerable constraints upon wikipedia servers if every editor loaded all their source material verbatim onto the talk pages - the servers might well collapse. I believe if smith seriously investigated creating his own blog - he might save himself and wikipedia from some serious bandwidth and server load issues. (SatuSuro 08:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC))

this somewhat implies that wiki editors and moderators actually bother to follow the links and sources provided... which I cannot say I've had the luxury of experiencing too often. All too often new information provided that is not in sync with "the official" version of history is summarily dismissed as POV and deleted no matter how many sources provided. And as to verbato citing and sourcing each sentence... I think a serious interest in history "commands" people to actually be _able_ to browse through huge amounts of information.

John Smith (nom de guerre) 14:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

As someone who has delved into the 65/65 and soeharto era - all the material presented to date is only a small part of a larger and more complex tapestry of events - regardless of the emphasis of whether foreign intelligence service involvement might be a good start for Smith:

the "alledged" CIA involvement is so thouroughly documented by now, (at _length_), by what must be more than a hundred, if not thousands of official sources, including historians and scholars worldwide, books, National reports, major newspapers, the CIA themselves, former operatives, a dozen documentaries, the BBC, former UK ambassadors and half a dozen investigating journalists

if this the case maybe smith should create a bibliography of this marvellous horde - and indeed it could possibly be the corner-stone of an article The CIA and Sukarno - and if it was done as a proper wikipedia article - perhaps all the energy expended into doing it properly might give a good lesson on the discipline of creating a good article - rather than dumping material on talk pages! SatuSuro 08:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

hm. talk pages without content. what a novel idea! history debates with minimal material, content and as short cites as possible. hm. "dumping material".

Fascinating.

I was hoping the Talk pages, or "discussion" as they are called some places, were just that. Places for discussing not just old established "facts" but also discussing new information,their degree of veracity (?) how well documented things are and informing each other of new and old information that should modify the official version of history.

Having apparently reached some possible agreement on the need not to make the Indonesia summary page a long-winded POV (even if "accurate") rehash of a John Pilger documentary, "John" and I seem to have agreed that some of this stuff could find a home in more specific articles (ie, History of INdonesia, Downfall of Sukarno, Suharto, etc). I just hope he is as bold using his sources to contribute to these articles, as he is pasting reams of info (and then continuously re-editing the formatting) into talk pages. ;-) I was also a little resentful of the implication that we are all plebs who don't know anymore than what is in a New Order era school text book (or what is apparently still in Indonesian schools). But, if he can get some of that info into the articles (so we can copy edit it) then he can be forgiven--Merbabu 08:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

"Merbabu" ;-) and I seem to have agreed on a lot of stuff after this, amongst them that much of my info belonged in the "History of Indonesia" talk pages and the "Owerthrow of Sukarno", Suharto etc. pages. I will use all the credible sources I've been able to find ,verify and cross check. I do however still not understand how and why one should be ridiculed for taking a serious interest in history, questioning the "winning side's" version of history, providing material ( this is nothing compared to the amounts real historical research requires). that aside I never "implied" anything, I merely pointed out that if one did not want to _sound_ like one didnt know anymore than the New order shool text books one would have to enter into a serious , thourough and indepth debate on sources, study sources, accept having to go through somewhat "larger" amounts of material. But declining to enter into such a debate on serious terms has to seem like one is either not interested in the subject at hand, has a POV that presses one not to accept such a debate, or simply lacks the knowledge and refuses to assimilate or even consider "alternative" versions to the winners story. My long winding language not withstanding, you _do_ understand what I mean and meant. I'm happy to accept faults I make.Please. Don't stick to yours just to avoid losing some kind of imaginary, misplaced unnessesary falce sense of honour, consealed false pride is the only thing it will seem like.John Smith (nom de guerre) 14:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

as to ridiculing people for trying to make a page more readable, or not being adept in the fine art of wiki's html-like markup style...it's just not very worthy of discussion is it?

John Smith (nom de guerre) 14:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note On the CIA involvement discussions

Note On the CIA involvement discussions, on "history of Indonesia", and "owerthrow / New order" pages. (to whomever it may interest):

Its difficult to get anywhere serious if one discredits what has become the new, recent, and current, mainstream version of events by calling it "POV". We are not talking about Gossip magazines here. The sources provided are from the BBC, The ITV, The National Security Archive, The Washington Post, The Guardian and are all very reputable and respected sources.

(somewhat paraphrasing earlier similar comments by other users, but hopefully gets the point out).
-John Smith (nom de guerre) 04:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indonesia links

For temporary quick reference and note to self during current discussions.

To be found by anyone easily after just a quick google: indonesia + massacre, gives several sources.

And if google is anything to go by with their system of putting links to the most linked to and accepted in a kind of peer reviewing system,and having them appear first these should not be to extreme for even wikipedia to swallow.

http://www.hrea.org/

http://www.hrea.org/lists/hr-headlines/markup/msg02504.html

http://www.hrsolidarity.net/mainfile.php/2005vol15no06/2463/

http://www.hrsolidarity.net/mainfile.php/2005vol15no06/2465/

http://skeptically.org/socialism/id17.html

http://www.ahrchk.net/ua/indonesia1965/

http://www.ahrchk.net/index.php

(the asian human rights commisson)

[edit] Sukarno and Indonesia

I do not understand your statement, "allegations that Sukarno needed or actively befriended the japanese to start or incite the independence movement, it's kind of hard to belive".

I do not know that Sukarno ever befriended anybody, but I would have thought his calls since the late 1920s for Japan to declare war on the United States and other "Imperial western powers of the Pacific" would have fallen into the category of befriending the Imperial Japanese war effort, or the 'Great Asia War' as Sukarno called it. Have you read the fundamental references: Dahm, Bernard. Sukarno and the Struggle for Indonesian Independence; C L Penders. Life and Times of Sukarno (1974), and The West New Guinea Debacle (2002); also some nice photos at http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=7428

it's hard to reply since you forgot to sign with four "thilde" marks at the end of your post, so I'll have to assume that you're watching this page for changes. Because of the holidays here in Europe I haven't been able to check up on your sources, but straight of the top of my head I can't see that I've read any evidence to the contrary that Sukarno did _not_ work or want to get the japanese occupiers out of indonesia after and throughout the occupation, but as I said I'll gladly check the sources if you could provide some more links to the written material you're reffering to that might correct my and others understanding of the period. My initial sources were the wiki pages on Sukarno and the history of Indonesia. I'll go back to them and try to learn some more. sincerelyJohn Smith (nom de guerre) 11:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Corporate social responsibility

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. --Rkitko 17:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry if the link added was interprated as some sort of promotion for any commercial product, or inappropriate in any way. I will discuss it in the talk pages as you suggested. I just felt I had to give a short explanation: the three part documentary called the Corporation, is perhaps the most comprehensive documentary (and Docu. series ) ever made (on Corporations and their role in society, hence / therefore directly related to their social responsibility in society (cause and effects)). it is currently in the public domain (freely downloadable) and it is not a commercial product as such, even though one is able to buy it ( just as any book referenced as source in any given wiki article. on joining the url/page for the documentary, there is a short flash introduction with voice where the creators authors of the documentary explains that their work is freely downloadable but that they encourage you to support the work, much like amnesty or any other creator of any given freely available work would and does in any other area or line of work. The Corporation analyses thouroughly the modern Corporation and interviews "both sides", with representatives such as Milton Friedman and Noam Chomsky and many others. I suggest you take the time to at least watch 15 minutes of the documentary, much like you would browse through any book or link given as a source. Sorry to add this but it seems to me and I feel, that much of wikipedia have become overzealous in its attempt to become more narrow and somehow "mainstream" , by refusing anything and everything that isn't as "official" and centrist in much the same way as the Encyclopedia Britannica. This is in my opinion a terrible loss. If I wanted Britannica's conservative comercial POV's I'd buy it. This is not Britannica, and if Wiki is supposed to have any credibility in the future or indeed be of any significant value for future generations it also has to carry dissent from the official, the government version and the "winners" side of the story. Now how one achieves this in a satisfactory way I am not wise enough to suggest, but somehow believeing that a totally centrist "objective" view of the world tells "the truth" is both far from honest or accurate.

Wikipedia itself shows in a very appropriate way that "even" Britannica cannot avoid being biased. (For a better(?) "explanation" of this point see: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1492)

Well that (this) became a bit long-winded and english is not my mother tongue but perhaps some point gets across even so. Bear with me if you can. There's a lot more ( and a lot more precise things) to be said on the subject, and its an important debate for either side of the political spectrum to be aware of and to try to come to terms with. I feel that in a democratic world and spirit "both"(all three) 'sides' should be granted some space, since it's a fairy tale that some kind of objective centrist truth exists "in the middle". Jürgen Habermas springs to mind now for some reason. Anyhow. that's enough said. For now. Cheers, and dont let yourselves be offended. It's not worth it. Cheers. John Smith (nom de guerre) 13:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] return fire test

return fire test

[edit] Leave a new message

[edit] Eustache Mullins

The only place where we know of his involvement with Ezra Pound, is from his own mouth. That's a problem. We can't say these are facts, because he could be simply self-aggrandizing in order to get attention. We need third-party sources who can identify the relationship. That is, they can't rely ultimately on his word that he knew Mr Pound. I hope that's more clear.Wjhonson 18:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects

See WP:REDIRECT for instructions on creating these. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How the Fed is controlled

Question: Doesn’t the fact that the President appoints the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System make it a quasi-governmental sort of entity?

Answer: Yes, but how “quasi” is quasi-enough? The Board of Governors of the System consists of 7 members, one appointed every two years (one term begins every two years, on February 1 of even-numbered years, a full year after inauguration day) by the President and confirmed by the Senate for 14 year terms. Wow…those are really long terms. Why? Let’s see: if a new President comes into office pledged to reform the Fed, end its independence from effective government oversight, throw the rascals out and replace them with his own appointees, he had better be very patient, as he can only replace one member every two years. So in his four year term (10 years less than Fed Governors’ terms) he can replace only two of the 7 members. Of course, he had better be able to sustain the ire of the remaining Governors (almost all connected to financial institutions indirectly in various academic and think-tank institutions financed by banks and bank grants or loans, or which they hope to join in revolving door relationships after their single terms are up), who can run the economy up, down or sideways, in the interim.

But assuming the President can sustain the fight with the Fed, its bank-PAC financed cheerleaders in the Senate, voters upset over a suddenly sinking economy, the banks who control the Fed and the media giants they also own, then all this brave but foolhardy President has to do is get elected to a second term, and hang on long enough to appoint two more Board members. Thus, assuming all of this goes well, in the span of seven years (a glacial pace in American politics), near the end of his second term, he can finally begin some reform – if he manages to get his four appointees confirmed, is still in office and has any allies left – even in his own party. We think the prefixed word quasi-governmental is a good one, if you understand quasi- to mean pseudo.

Keep in mind also the distinction between the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, and the Federal Reserve System as a whole. The private ownership of the 12 Federal Reserve banks we addressed above. "Federal Reserve System" usually refers to the entire framework established by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, including those 12, privately owned Federal Reserve Banks, and the Board of Governors of the system, which meets in Washington D.C. The Fed Board of Governors was also established by the Act of 1913. These are the 7 members with 14-year terms, also mentioned above. Two of them are appointed by the President to 4-year terms as Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Board (largely nominal positions - no extra votes). They, of course, are not owned like corporation stock is owned. So when someone is trying to mislead folks by denying any private ownership of the Fed, they will inevitably refer to the Federal Reserve System (rather than to the Federal Reserve Banks) and declare it is not privately owned (which is partly true [the Fed Board of Governors is not "owned"], and partly false [the 12 Federal Reserve banks are]). We have addressed these two elements in detail, above. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.144.240.250 (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC).