Talk:L. Fletcher Prouty/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled thread

This page is biased to the right. For example, the use of scare quotes around the "global elite" phrase. I am thinking about editing this page.

How are those scare quotes? Reference to a global elite is ridiculous, and it's obvious Prouty wasn't the brighest bulb in the circuit (if you've read his JFK assassination book you'll know what I mean). I don't see it biased towards either side of the political spectrum, but biased towards the side of logic and rational thought. By the way, if it were biased to the right, it would be a glowing article talking about Prouty's examination of the truth behind certain events (as Prouty and his ilk are extreme right-wing). Prouty was not a man who took Occam's Razor to heart. Sign your comments in the future. GreatGatsby 21:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

"...as Prouty and his ilk are extreme right-wing..." Look, the Chipster (who is the source of all the bilge about Prouty being right-wing) thinks Ralph Nader and Ramsey Clark are right-wing. Prouty wasn't right-wing either. The only problem is the Chipster and those who take his Enver Hoxha worshipping ultraleftist dogma seriously. Such as yourself, for example.

Jim Garrison did meet Prouty, but not until well after the trial.

It's a disgrace that wikipedia has linked this page to Shinley and McAdams. These two "experts" are merely experts in the area of character assassination. Prouty was a man experience and knowledge, inventivity and honesty, and above all: somoene with an open mind. Yes, Prouty had an open mind about many ideas that differ from what is commonly accepted as true. Unfortunately, the simple-minded conformists among us will always characterize people as crackpots. If you want to know who Prouty was and what he truly represented, go out and read his works. His record is impeccable. To those who truly knew him, his credibilty is beyond question. Shame on the author.

It's a disgrace that wikipedia has linked this page to Shinley and McAdams. These two "experts" are merely experts in the area of character assassination. Prouty was a man of experience and knowledge, inventivity and honesty, and above all: someone with an open mind. Yes, Prouty had an open mind about many ideas that differ from what is commonly accepted as true. Unfortunately, the simple-minded conformists among us will always characterize such people as crackpots. If you want to know who Prouty was and what he truly represented, go out and read his works and study the man's career. His record is impeccable. To those who truly knew him, his credibilty is beyond question. Shame on the author.

---

Prouty details the formation and development of the CIA, the origins of the Cold War, the Vietnam War, the John F. Kennedy assassination and other conspiracy theories. The CIA, the origins of the Cold War, the Vietnam War, and the John F. Kennedy assassination are conspiracy theories? Hmmm...

I worked for Col. L. Fletcher Prouty for 10 years. I knew him very well while I take the time to correct lies and slanderous links "wikipedia editor Gamaliel" contiues to delete them I can only conclude he condons the character assassination Or, like wikipedia itself has no idea about Col. Prouty or truth.

The Col. L. Fletcher Prouty Reference Site is available at [redacted blacklisted link] The problem is I can't correct errors fact or opinion because Gamaliel calls this vandalization. The whole idea here of correction is backwards. If I point out that Col. Fletcher had in fact met Jim Garrison in person, and in fact spoken to him many times, written many many letters back and forth.

Wikipedia's openness raises the risk that articles may be manipulated by anyone without being accountable for it. He also argues that Wikipedia's prominence in search engine results gives those with a personal agenda a potential platform for making libelous statements with impunity. Brandt has said of Wikipedia that on Wikipedia Watch that he seeks identities of Wikipedia contributors and administrators in part because, if he decides to sue, he is unsure who to sue. Brandt also criticizes the anonymity of certain Wikipedia editors and administrators, and maintains a page where he attempts to obtain the identities of the anonymous editors with whom he has come into conflict. He says "the editors and administrators feel that they are untouchable" (as of mid December 2005) and that disclosing their identities would increase accountability of the information they write.

Below is a note about Fletcher Prouty not being the "brightest bulb in the circuit" by the user great gadsby and then has the nerve to say "Sign your comments in the future" What a joke, anyone knowing anything about Fletcher knows he is a critic of the CIA after working in the Pentagon for 9 years (1955-1964) of his 23 years in the military. He was the Focal Point officer between the CIA and the Air Force. He writes about what he experienced first hand. And he is not exteme right wing at all. That is if you knew him and I knew him very well, not this propoganda that wikipedia seems to have to allow or condon, I'm not sure which is which. Like I said if I correct or edit this page about Fletcher, User Gamaliel threatens I will be banned for vandalization.

[redacting personal attack] And if the great gadsby, and gamaliel request signing at least sign with your real name!

These are my comments, Len Osanic 70.71.5.183 20:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Your comments about vandalism are not quite correct. You are welcome to edit the article and add your comments here. What is vandalism is removing or altering the comments of others on this talk page and removing material from the article simply because you personally disapprove of it. I'm sorry you feel that those links are "slanderous", but WP articles must provide information from all sides of an issue, from both supporters and detractors. Gamaliel 05:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Disinformation links on Prouty

I agree with len Osanic that it's a disgrace that wikipedia has linked Prouty's page so prominently to McAdams and Shinley. I've noticed a tremendous effort to publish disinformation about the JFK assassination on the internet, in books and on major network programs in recent years. Here we are 42 years after the assassination and the cover-up continues. [redacting personal attack]

The McAdams page has misrepresentations of what Prouty said, which it then strikes down, such as that he claims to have bought and delivered the 3 'Bay of Pigs ships'. Wikipedia is often edited by people who want to discredit 'conspiracy nuts' such as those that want to claim that jet fuel won't burn steel, and that the twin towers falling at free-fall speed was somehow unusual, and that the 'plane that hit the Pentagon' should have been caught on tape... or that it was caught on tape but was confiscated. Those dang nutty conspiracy theorisers... User:Pedant 05:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This poorly worded sentence is hilarious.

“ Prouty details the formation and development of the CIA, the origins of the Cold War, the Vietnam War, the John F. Kennedy assassination and other conspiracy theories. ”

"... and other conspiracy theories"? This sentence needs to be reworded as the overall impression is that the CIA, the Cold War and the Vietnam War are conspiracy theories themselves. Whoever wrote this sentence needs to be slapped upside the head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.193.49.25 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Gamaliel 21:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No mention that Prouty was a West Point graduate, nor that he was a succesful tank officer in WW 2?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.126.132.34 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Gamaliel 22:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Odd sentence

Some minor disagreement seems to be swirling around this sentence in particular: "He has repeated (with apparent approval) claims that Franklin Roosevelt did not die a natural death" - I would suggest that this be edited to something similar to "He claimed..."

I am not moving to edit it right away because I'm interested to see what the rationale for "(with apparent approval)" is. I think it would also be worthwhile to edit various actions attributed to him in the present tense to past tense. --Edwin Herdman 07:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is a citation for that assertion, which I posted. Prouty cites a report to this effect, and treats it as entirely reliable, expressing no skepticism. Here is the cited page. An editor can read it and judge whether there is "apparent approval:" [redacted blacklisted link] -- John McAdams

Misleading Paragraph needs editing

The paragraph that John McAdams added:

Prouty has taken controversial positions on a wide range of issues. He has repeated Stalin's claims that Franklin Roosevelt did not die a natural death, but rather was poisoned by Churchill.[citation needed] He subscribes to the theory that oil is not derived from fossils but from carbon deposits deep within the Earth (abiogenic petroleum origin theory)[citation needed] and that the U.S. government was responsible for the deaths of People's Temple members at Jonestown.[1]

has a couple of problems. First, by saying that Prouty "repeated" Stalin's claims, it makes it sound as if Prouty was making the same claims. That is false. Prouty simply cited Elliott Roosevelt's story about Stalin's claims, which by the way, was also written and signed by Elliott Roosevelt and appeared in the February 9, 1986 issue of the nationwide Sunday supplement magazine "Parade." If anything, that story belongs on the Elliott Roosevelt biography page, not Colonel Prouty's. Secondly, Prouty did not say, "the U.S. government was responsible for the deaths of People's Temple members at Jonestown." He did however, indicate that he suspected involvement of US Intelligence. It really feels like the truth is being stretched a little to portray Prouty as a kook, and that kind subjective tone doesn't belong in the article. --Zach 23:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

External links

Somebody (presumably a Prouty supporter) removed a link to my site from the "External links" section of the page. I've put it back, and hope you can protect it against future valdalism. Maybe you should just lock the page. (John McAdams)

Sorry, Wikipedia policies prohibit us from locking the page to protect a preferred version. I will try to keep a better eye on it though. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 05:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That will be appreciated. (John McAdams) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.160.247.65 (talk) 06:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, somebody *again* deleted the link to my page critical of Prouty. It really is a problem when partisans are able to take out data and information they find incongenial. (John McAdams) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.48.30.18 (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

That was me I think. I removed it again per WP:EL. --Tom (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a perfect valid link that is in no way prohibited by EL, sorry. Gamaliel (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't be sorry. --Tom (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

What the hell is going on here?? You have a link to a pro-Prouty site, and it's left alone, but you seem not to like my link to my page critiquing Prouty? Are you aware that the standard reference books say that my site is the best JFK assassination site the web? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._McAdams

Do we have a pro-Prouty editor and an anti-Prouty editer fighting with each other? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.30.181.230 (talk) 03:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think its that sinister. This is a content dispute over which External links are appropriate for this article. --Tom (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I think there should be pretty a compelling reason to let John McAdams leave a link to his page on Prouty in the external links section. The page, is, by its own admission an attempt at character assassination. While much of its content says more about McAdam's brand of tortured logic, naive appeals to authority and bullying style than about Prouty--several of the claims are outright lies or gross distortions. On the other hand the link to the so-called "pro-Prouty site" directs one to Prouty's own writings which allows the reader to make up his own mind as to whether Prouty is as McAdam's charges, "a crackpot." (Moreover, as it is, w/o the link, McAdam's questionably-sourced vilifications of Prouty have already found there way all over the entry.)Detmcphierson (talk) 10:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm

Anyone got a reliable secondary source on his views on HIV/AIDS? John Nevard (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Something like this, for example, would probably not be acceptable. John Nevard (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of FDR death assertion

The article stated that Prouty believed Churchill assassinated FDR and cited "Who Killed Franklin D. Roosevelt?" as its source. Apart from the provocative rhetorical question in the title, however, no claim is made in the article by Prouty that FDR was assassinated by Churchill or killed in general. Prouty seems to simply cite Kermit Roosevelt's anecdote (previously published) and make the following statement as his thesis:

"We all know that there are amazing stories that can not be found in the history books. That is what I am saying here."

Prouty's piece therefore is more of a question mark. Without further evidence from some of his writings, the view that Churchill killed FDR cannot be attributed to him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heinrich66 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

See above on this talk page for related information. Talk:L._Fletcher_Prouty#Misleading_Paragraph_needs_editing--TGC55 (talk) 03:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Poorly sourced material

I just noticed that this guy is dead, so no BLP issuses, but I did remove some poorly sourced material. I will post it here. --Tom (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is the section:

He subscribed to the theory that oil is not derived from fossils but from carbon deposits deep within the Earth (abiogenic petroleum origin theory)[redacted blacklisted link/coment13.html The Fletcher Prouty Commentary], and that U.S. Intelligence agencies may have been involved in the deaths of People's Temple members at Jonestown.[redacted blacklisted link] "Revisiting the Jonestown tragedy"] He claimed that Korean airlines Flight 007 was downed by "an explosive device" planted aboard by the CIA, rather than being shot down by a Soviet interceptor.More Proutyisms

He believed that Kennedy was killed by forces allied with the Federal Reserve Bank because Kennedy was moving against them.Did the Fed Kill Kennedy? --Tom (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how in the world you consider this "poorly sourced." Each of the links leads to the exact statements I cited. The one about how oil isn't a fossil fuel got mangled, however. He is the correct version:

http://www.[redacted blacklisted link]/coment13.html

(John McAdams) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.48.30.18 (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Article has one citation?

Seems a litle slim, even by our standards :) and its from [redacted blacklisted link]? I guess the only good news is that this isn't a BLP...--Tom (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

External links section

I removed two links per WP:EL. --Tom (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• L. Fletcher Prouty: Fearless Truth Teller, or Crackpot?
• [1]

--Tom (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Its groundhog day..again..--Threeafterthree (talk) 02:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Its groundhog day..again..--Threeafterthree (talk) 02:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain why you think this link violates WP:EL criteria? Gamaliel (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I would consider #1, 2, 11, 13 of the no links section. Maybe the external links noticeboard could decide this? Also, considering McAdams past history, we can certainly aim higher than his personal web site. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• 1 - I disagree, and this one pretty much comes down to opinion.
• 2 - Can you substantiate your allegation that this website "misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research"?
• 11 - "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority." McAdams is clearly a recognized authority, as can be substantiated with the information and references in his Wikipedia article.
• 13 - "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject". Obviously inapplicable as the article is specifically about Prouty.

Thank you for spelling out your reasoning. Gamaliel (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

McAdams research is unverified at best and inaccurate at worst. Are you aware of McAdams' less than stellar history when it coms to research? McAdams being a "recognized authority" is very questionable. Anyways, I will defer to the EL board. --Threeafterthree (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with these allegations. It would be helpful if you would substantiate them in some fashion as I have asked. As it stands, the only solid references we have to his work are the ones in his article which cite repeated praise of his work. Gamaliel (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, as I said above, maybe you missed it, most of McAdams "work" is unverified, thats all. He has his opinions and theories which he is intitled to. I really don't want to turn this into an examination of McAdams, rather its about if using his personal web site as an external link for articles other than his own bio is appropriate, thats all. --Threeafterthree (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean to turn this into a hobbyhorse, but in keeping with my observations in the above (first) External Links section I am removing the link to McAdam's page because it is a fringe source. McAdam's stated agenda is to paint those who question the official JFK "lone assassin" theory crazy. In my humble opinion McAdam's work should be only used as source reference when it rises to the purely factual.Detmcphierson (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)----

Can you justify your characterization of this source as fringe under the criteria at WP:FRINGE? As I've previously noted, I believe Professor McAdams qualifies as an expert and reliable source under Wikipedia criteria, and his credentials and third party praise for his website can be found at the article John C. McAdams. Gamaliel (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm unmoved by both McAdam's collected third-party praise and his credentials. A cursory examination of McAdam's writings related to his stated expert subject, the JFK assassination, again and again shows a reliance on ad-hominem attacks and unfair labeling to limit reasonable debate. McAdams will gladly impugn a man's integrity or sanity (as he does with Prouty) if he had the temerity to question the Warren Report, which McAdams--seemingly alone in academia--views as inviolable. Indeed it would take a much more prolific wiki editor than I to blunt his voice here--which makes up for what it lacks in temperance with volume--on matters revolving the JFK assassination. This time however, since McAdams has ventured away from the JFK assassination into the realm of more general biographical matters, I'm comfortable again removing his opinion on Prouty. 98.14.147.172 (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC) I should have signed the above. Detmcphierson (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of your dismissal of those things, those things are valid criteria for weighing the inclusion of a link, while your personal dislike of McAdams is not. I don't think your comments have really added anything to our discussion here. Gamaliel (talk) 07:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I see you changed the name of the link though. I'm removing it again until you at least address my concerns, whether you "think [my] comments have really added anything to our discussion here" or not. That's an obvious bullying tactic--similar to one McAdams would use--actually. How does McAdams qualify as an expert on Prouty's life?Detmcphierson (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Bullying? Don't be absurd. If I was bullying you I wouldn't be making efforts to bridge the gap between us like changing that title or engaging you in discussion even while you level ridiculous accusations. I've already addressed your concerns about McAdams' qualifications, but you've already dismissed the ample evidence of them, so I'm not sure what else there is to do here. Gamaliel (talk) 00:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Since the last link recently added conveys much the same information (albeit in a slightly more sober style, and with a MSM clip to bolster some of its arguments) I'm wondering why its so important to you that the McAdams link stays as well. Again, I'm removing the McAdams link until you explain how he qualifies as an expert on the life and works of Prouty--as the page touches on much more than McAdams' stated line of expertise, the JFK assassination. I'm also curious to see your explanation as to what McAdams opinions add to the entry.Detmcphierson (talk) 06:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is it so important to you that the McAdams link be removed? I don't particularly care about the link, but I am strongly opposed to information from experts being discarded on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I've already laid out McAdams' qualifications and you've already dismissed them, so what's the point of insisting I go down that road again? Besides, if you were concerned about qualifications, you would raise questions about the qualifications of Dave Reitzes as well, but since you do not, then it's obvious that's not really the issue here, is it? Until you raise an issue that relates to Wikipedia practices or policies or explain how McAdams' credentials in this area are inadequate, then we're just spinning our wheels. Gamaliel (talk) 07:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know who David Reitzes is but I didn't object to the link because it seems to lean heavily on a MSM source, namely an Esquire story by Robert Anson. I wrote to you that I would stop removing the McAdams link if you would at least provide me the courtesy of explaining how McAdams expertise stretches beyond the JFK assassination into all the areas Prouty had opinions on. (Geology for example.) As others have noted on this forum, McAdams agenda (impugning those who take issue with the Warren Report) makes people take a closer look at his links. But even I would have to admit that McAdams is an expert--of sorts--on the JFK assassination. But the Prouty link goes beyond that. Detmcphierson (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything on that page which requires any special exptertise in geology or a particular field of science. The word geology does not even appear. Whatever his alleged agenda may be, his expertise clearly covers the relevant areas. Gamaliel (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, since your reverts are becoming more frequent, please be aware of the three revert rule and edit accordingly. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Since McAdams is such a controversial figure, and I have no agenda, I feel I'm on pretty solid ground with my reverts, but thanks for the warning sir. Still, I don't understand your point about the use of the term geology but I'm sure it has a meaning beyond just distraction. Again, my point: McAdams has a bit of fun with Prouty's outre opinions on fossil fuels--and several other subjects. If McAdams is not an expert on geology or these other subjects why should his taunts be allowed here?98.14.147.172 (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC) I forgot to sign the above. Detmcphierson (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

One link pointing out Prouty's comments on fossil fuels does not require a doctorate in geology. The rest of the page is all material well within McAdams' area of expertese. If this and complaints about an alleged agenda are all you have to offer, then this is what is just a distraction. Gamaliel (talk) 22:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Besides the Kennedy assassination, what is McAdams area of expertise? I'm truly curious. Has he done research on Prouty? It seems McAdams just picking out snippets from the web and wagging his finger. Hardly scholarly. Is his stated agenda really of no concern considering we are striving for no POV? In any event, you seem to have an awful lot vested in defending him here. And why aren't you contended with the Reitzes link since it conveys similar information? Detmcphierson (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

You seem desperate to make this personal, perhaps because you can find no policy based reasons for deleting the link, but sorry to disappoint you, I have no agenda here. I have an awful lot vested in Wikipedia. Eight years. That's my motivation. Do you have anything new to add? If not, I think we are done here. Gamaliel (talk) 23:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

You seem desperate to not answer the question at hand--about McAdams' expertise. And if there is a consensus here, it reads discontent with the McAdams link. I don't know what you mean by "personal," I don't know you and I never heard of John McAdams until I saw his overheated link marring an otherwise temperate encyclopedia entry. Your heartfelt salute to Wikipedia is moving for sure though. I'm glad you're "done," but I have my doubts that will hold when I delete the link again.Detmcphierson (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean that I was done inserting the link, I meant I was done talking to you. I feel that I've more than made the case for the link and addressed your concerns. I will continue to replace the deleted link but I will no longer respond to your snide remarks or stick around to be a target for them. If you wish to have a civil conversation about any new concerns which you might have that have not yet been addressed, I will gladly respond to any reasonable, civil, and non-personal comments made here or on my user talk page. Also, please remember and adhere to the three revert rule. Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Alas, poor Wikipedia. Perhaps someone with better stamina than I will take this issue up again. But for the record, I have nothing personal against you (or McAdams ((except I dislike his rhetorical style from what I've read)) and for the life of me I cannot see where you've made the case for this link except by referring to Wiki sub-rules and a list of Freshman courses in which McAdams is a rotating lecturer.Detmcphierson (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I've changed my mind. I'm going to continue to delete the link until you make your case for McAdams' expertise. Many, many other Wiki users have been angered by this link as well it seems from reading this page. I've also deleted the Reitzes link b/c it seems to be little more than a blog post comprised of an Esquire article and further character assassination. Its just not right that a man who served his country honorably has to be impugned b/c he held unpopular opinions.Detmcphierson (talk) 23:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Lastly, just for the record Gamaliel, are you the same person that wrote, "Wikipedia accepts a [small] shelf from which we can draw sources to document historical fact" to buttress your edits on the Lee Harvey Oswald entry? Seems like a very sound sentiment to me; I'm wondering why its now only being honored in the breach.Detmcphierson (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

did not read his book?

Saying he is "not the brightest bulb" is very wrong and stating that is clear because his book is wrong. His book was superbly written and very well sourced. It is not write to say that Leroy Fletcher Prouty was "not the brightest" and his book is also very good and you should actually read his book before insulting him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.97.161 (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

do you realy belive anything from a man like prouty who stated himself that the US military has captured 2 flying sourceres ? well he also could have said he saw santa clause in the sky with rendeers. hes just a jerk knowing nothing at all liking for media repr. nothing more....like oswalds so called cell mate or ed howard or people like them... its all just a big joke to belive anything people like these spread arround.

sorry - my opinion and fact. "timothy X"

Just thought I'd chime up, because I think there is overwhelming evidence of what Prouty pointed out in The Secret team, about CIA gaining the ability to place their assets into other government agencies, offices, committees, etc., covertly. In the case of FAA, this may be appropriate. In the case of FDA, it is absolutely not. In the case of the Indiana Governorship, it is absolutely not. In the case of the Presidency & VPresidency, it is absolutely not. New Boston Tea Party was here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.69.252.105 (talk) 01:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Bias in moderator constant deletions...

WP has a page on Prouty thus the first link should be to the mans own website which I run and maintain.

Now John Mcadams runs a hit site on Prouty

And at this point WP condones a hit external link Prouty Crackpot but does not allow link to official page. ?

Now I assume that you a have taken two minutes and looked through www.[redacted blacklisted link] Do you not feel any obligation to report some is wrong here If WP was neutral you should demand equal links.

my complaint in 2006 in the TALK page is follwed by many who point out mcadams slander tactics

gamaliel says he has to include the mcadams attack link so WP shows both sides.

The index at least lets people see what Fletcher Prouty wrote, answered email lectures, interviews, there etc

please don't take my word look at www.[redacted blacklisted link] and tell me how anyone would describe the website as fringe?

Is not any moderator concerned that a Prouty Crackpot link is allowed... when the index to "The Col. L. Fletcher Prouty Reference Site" was called "Fringe" as reason for removal.

Otherwise what is it that WP stands for?

I thought that after someone at WP saw what was happening they would be appalled. You don't have to read all about Fletcher Prouty to see something is really wrong here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Len osanic (talk • contribs) 21:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

You really need to explain why your web site is to be considered official. What makes it so?

You ask what makes it "fringe"? I can offer one answer: It is possible that the website gives itself an appearance of being a fringe site by hosting attack pages on Wikipedia editors, making it seem more like a personal project or vendetta than an official resource of information. Removal of such pages would likely go far toward accepting a link to it here. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

To answer, the website called "The Col. L. Fletcher Prouty Reference Site" is official because of the content. the URL is www.[redacted blacklisted link] It is where Fletcher Prouty answered personal email sent to him, articles, audio interviews, video, all one has to do is browse through it to see that. The other point made seems to lack fair play. Here WP allows a "Prouty is a crackpot" in external links. It is allowed, But "The Col. L. Fletcher Prouty Reference Site" is not? This basic point has to be addressed. A reference is made to sub folder not anything to do with Fletcher Prouty. I would ask WP moderators if they allow mcadams attack page in the external links, how can they not allow Prouty's main page which was accepted under the White Listing review process. This was the decision after all, why the white listing was granted to the "index" page. I ask anyone to look over www.[redacted blacklisted link] to recognize that it is the official resource of information on anything Fletcher Prouty. That is articles, audio interviews, letters, commentary.

Len Osanic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Len osanic (talk • contribs) 07:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Len osanic, we have a guideline on Wikipedia called Other stuff exists, which basically means that you must make your case on its own merits, not by simply referencing other things. You must make a positive case for inclusion of your website, not merely demand that we included it because we included the website of Professor McAdams. Your website suffers in that direct comparison regardless, as Professor McAdams is a professional historian with published works on the topic of the JFK assassination, while you have no similar credentials or publications that I am aware of. If you do, please reference them when you make your case for inclusion.

As I see it, there are several obstacles to inclusion at this time. Your claim that this is an "official" website is dubious, as Prouty has been deceased for 12 years. That would be like someone setting up an "official" website for Douglas McArthur or Patton. Someone making such a claim should have the credentials to do so, such as a professional historian or a published author on the topic. Also, the website seems to have relatively little material on Prouty. Prouty's books are instead links to amazon or other websites, and there are a few articles, but many are copyrighted newspaper articles which I doubt you have permission to post on your website. There are also links to purchase t-shirts and CDs unrelated to Prouty, which leaves the impression that this website is a personal venture and not an official one. Also, using the "official" Prouty website to host vicious personal attacks unrelated to Prouty furthers the impression that this website is a personal venture and not an official one. Removing these personal attack pages would go a long way to convincing Wikipedia editors of the professionalism of your website. Gamaliel (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

As I stated below, I don't think any of these are dealbreakers for the inclusion of [redacted blacklisted link] as an external link. If there were a dozen separate Prouty-oriented sites, the rather minor issues you have raised might serve to weed this one out and include others. As it is, [redacted blacklisted link] seems to be the only site even remotely interested in Prouty, to the extent of including original audio, video, and printed works either created by him or including him. While it is possible that copyright might be infringed in any of these cases, I'm not sure that it is, or should be, the task of conscientious Wikipedia editors to worry about the possibility of copyright infringement on external sites when there is simply a suspicion. Naturally, there is a different standard when photographs or audio are included on a Wiki page directly. The weight of basic benefit to the article from inclusion ought to count for more than these other minor problems.

On the issue with Prof. John McAdams -- which is in some ways irrelevant to the matter here -- it is possible to overstate McAdams' credentials when it comes to the JFK assassination. It seems true that McAdams runs a JFK-assassination-related website, and it is also apparently true that he has been interviewed on television on the JFK assassination. However, it is significant that there is a decided lack of peer-reviewed publication from McAdams on the Kennedy assassination. (Indeed, his only peer-reviewed publication history seems devoted to the death penalty.) Apart from a book in 2011, it is unclear whether McAdams has ever published on the topic. While the 2011 book seems directed at a popular audience, the fact that he has not apparently written for a peer-reviewed journal on the topic combined with the fact that his specialization is in political science and not history would suggest that his only qualifications for being an authority on the JFK assassination are that: a) he has published a single book on the topic; b) he has appeared on television; c) he is a tenured professor in a different, if related field: political science, not history. Seen in this light, a whole host of others are really not less qualified. It is highly unusual for a professor called an authority on a topic not to have a long list of publications in the academic literature on that topic. Hochichi667 (talk) 23:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Individually, these might be dismissed as minor issues, but the combined weight of them is difficult to overcome, especially considering the relatively low amount of original, non-copyright violation material on Prouty featured on the website. I do agree that the comparison to McAdams is largely irrelevant, and I only bring it up because that seems to be Osanic's main argument for inclusion. You raise some good points about McAdams but whatever you think about McAdams' claim to expertise, he certainly has more of a claim than Osanic. Gamaliel (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, it is not enough to *suspect* that original documentary evidence is in violation of copyright, is it? Here I think we should appeal to Wikipedia's own stated rules. If you could supply the relevant rules on external links and possible copyright violation, I'd be obliged. The fact remains that [redacted blacklisted link] seems like the only site currently on the Web that offers original material of Prouty's in the form of interviews, articles, and so on. Your assertion that there is a 'relatively low' amount of material of value is inapt given that no other site online seems to offer any material of Prouty's at all. In which case, the amount of content is relatively high.

Second, regarding McAdams: Regardless of whether McAdams is considered an 'authority' on the JFK assassination according to Wikipedia's standards, there is no basis that I can discover for supposing him an authority on the subject of this entry, L. Fletcher Prouty. Do you know whether McAdams has written a biography of Prouty or published on Prouty's life in any journals? If so, then I stand corrected. Prouty may be, according to this entry, tangentially related to the JFK assassination for having published opinions on it after the fact. In which case, McAdams might be referred to for Prouty's JFK-related views (and in this narrow context alone). But to include an external link to McAdams on Prouty when McAdams' credentials on Prouty are non-existent (Prouty is a step removed from JFK, for which McAdams' credentials are already dubious) while at the same time denying a link to a site that has original Prouty material seems questionable. For example: If I come to the Prouty entry seeking biographical information about Prouty, I may be totally unaware of his views on JFK. I might, for instance, simply be researching important figures at the Pentagon in the '50s and '60s. Now, when I get to the External Links hoping for more information, what would I rather see? A piece critical of Prouty in the narrow context of his JFK views? Or a direct link to material of Prouty's including articles, audio recordings, etc.? Considering also that when I do a search on 'Fletcher Prouty' essentially two sites come up -- this entry and [redacted blacklisted link] -- the article here is simply asking for someone to exit Wikipedia altogether and use another source (e.g. Google). Hochichi667 (talk) 07:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyrights: "if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work....Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States...Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors."

I wouldn't interpret McAdams' area of expertise as narrowly as you do, but if nothing else he certainly more than qualifies to comment on Prouty's views of the JFK assassination. And if we are to interpret McAdams' qualifications this narrowly, certainly we must totally disqualify Osanic, who has no known qualifications, publications, or expertise on this subject beyond an alleged personal connection to the late Prouty. You make an excellent point about the distinction between general and specific external links, and links of both types will be sought by the reader. But we should not supply this website solely because it is the only general link we have at hand. It is a low quality personal website of the sort you might have found on Geocities back in the day. It may have been the kind of external link that was acceptable for the Wikipedia of 2005, but not the Wikipedia of 2013. And certainly, if McAdams used his website to attack Osanic as "the laughingstock of the internet" and hawk his t-shirts and CDs, as Osanic does on his Prouty website, I think McAdams would lose whatever professorial imprimatur he had and we would discount his website as a resource as well. Gamaliel (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Arguably, the copyright policy might be used to disqualify [redacted blacklisted link] as a website, but I think this is a pretty tenuous justification. I note for instance that the Prouty entry here on Wikipedia as it currently stands has external links to two entire published books by Prouty. Both give Prouty as the copyright holder. Only one however states that it is reprinted with permission of the author. How to confirm this? And who holds the copyright today since Prouty is deceased? Either or both could be in violation of copyright. Yet that question has not been raised with either of the two links. Furthermore, on a closer examination of this [redacted blacklisted link] site, I am hard-pressed to find anything that actually raises any serious copyright concerns. The bulk of the material on the site seems to consist of audio and video interviews with Prouty himself, some of them with a person who appears to be Len Osanic. In the "Archived Radio Shows" section, I find over six hours of audio interviews with Prouty. These may well be covered by fair use. There are also two hours or so of video interviews with Prouty, 90 minutes of which or so are simply embedded YouTube clips, making any judgment of copyright violation harder to reasonably assert. I note also that [redacted blacklisted link] seems to carry a series of notable letters from Prouty's personal correspondence. Also there are twelve "commentaries" apparently written by Prouty himself for the [redacted blacklisted link] site. There are also a few more than a dozen e-mail communications from Prouty to various parties.

On account of the above, I am puzzled by two of your stated claims. 1) That [redacted blacklisted link] should not be listed under External Links because of copyright violation. The Wikipedia policy on this point clearly seems meant as a protection against linking to pirated music and film, books in print, etc. Unless there is something I'm missing significant enough to warrant a reconsideration, [redacted blacklisted link] seems to be what it says: a reference site for material related to, and emanating from Prouty. 2) Your claim above that [redacted blacklisted link] has a 'relatively low' amount of original material. I was surprised to find that there is, in fact, a fair amount of material on the site. The organization of the site leaves something to be desired. In less than five minutes, however, I was able to discover nearly ten hours of original interviews, etc., with the subject of this Wiki entry.

On your other points, I cannot say that I am convinced. You note that the HTML 1.0 design of [redacted blacklisted link] (duly noted) is ground for its exclusion. However, there no Wikipedia policy on this point that I am aware of, and certainly the McAdams external link is clearly also of the Geocities-era. The ratical.org links to Prouty's two books are as well. On the question as to the commercial purpose of the site, viewed in terms of the number and type of pages on the site and so on, by far the prevailing purpose of the [redacted blacklisted link] site is non-commercial. There are thirteen sub-sections listed on the left sidebar. Only one of them is oriented toward commerce -- "CD-ROM and Products" -- and that links to an external site called "blackopradio.com". Since that is a separate site, I cannot see how [redacted blacklisted link] can be excluded because of commercial purpose. I might similarly forbid an external link to any webpage that carries its own external link to something on Amazon.com.

Finally, on this issue of McAdams: I am unclear as to why a personal attack in the form of a phrase "laughingstock of the Internet" (apparently directed against McAdams) should disqualify [redacted blacklisted link] as a viable external link, when the McAdams critique of Prouty similarly seems to suggest Prouty is a "crackpot". That is, the McAdams piece can be interpreted simply as a character attack in longer form. Now, I'm not necessarily of that view, but in light of the benefit of the material offered by [redacted blacklisted link], it is still unclear to me based on the fairly weak reasons given why [redacted blacklisted link] should not be listed among the external links. Because there are audio and video interviews, along with original correspondence and texts written specifically for the website, the site seems positively germane -- whatever its site design, aesthetics, and so on. Its function as a repository of material on Prouty makes it, in fact, rather desirable from the point of view of a Wiki bio entry.

I'll note in passing that the McAdams piece critical of Prouty itself quotes and links to [redacted blacklisted link], making this whole issue a bit silly. Hochichi667 (talk) 21:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The policy does not seem to allow links if they only have a certain amount of copyright infringement. The articles from the New York Times and the Washington Post alone means this link violates the policy. We disagree on the value of what original content there is, but the fact that, as you point out, much if not all of the valuable material is available on elsewhere on YouTube makes a case that this link is quite dispensable. In regards to the issue of the attacks, your comparison of the sites is clearly a case of false equivalence. I've addressed this issue in full in my response to Greg Burnham below. My comparison to GeoCities was not one of aesthetics, I was trying to point out that this was a low-quality GeoCities-type fan page that no longer passes muster on Wikipedia. Gamaliel (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I think perhaps you have personal reasons for not wishing to see the inclusion of [redacted blacklisted link] among the External Links. On closer examination of the 'personal attack issue' -- particularly, the 'laughingstock' quote -- I find that the supposed personal attack against McAdams is really a collection of links and statements criticizing McAdams not altogether different from his own directed at Prouty. However, what may well constitute a personal attack is made on Wikipedia editor 'Gamaliel', which I can only assume is you. You did not mention this above. I can understand why in this instance you would not wish to include [redacted blacklisted link] since you seem to be on the receiving end of the criticism/attack, but all would agree, I think, that you can no longer remain objective about the site's value vis-a-vis this Wiki bio entry.

Your arguments, I'm afraid, bear this out. There is a certain amount of shifting around in your position, and had I known the true reason for your arguing against inclusion, I might simply have not wasted my time on objective reasons. The copyright claim is invalid in my opinion. The Wikipedia guideline states: "Context is also important; it may be acceptable to link to a reputable website's review of a particular film, even if it presents a still from the film (such uses are generally either explicitly permitted by distributors or allowed under fair use). However, linking directly to the still of the film removes the context and the site's justification for permitted use or fair use." Fair use is the operative term here. Does using previously published newspaper articles constitute copyright infringement? Since [redacted blacklisted link]: 1) is not re-selling the material; 2) is providing it for educational purposes, those articles are arguably covered by fair use. Certainly, to date no legal challenge has been made against [redacted blacklisted link], or if it had, the site [redacted blacklisted link] must have won. However, as mentioned, the ratical.org links include *entire books* and the issue is not raised. Moreover, and most damningly, the McAdams page reprints from the New York Daily News and Dallas Times Herald, in the case of the former, apparently using the whole article.

On the matter of the original content, it is not for you or I to judge what the 'value' of the content is, only whether the content exists. I might judge an old letter from JEB Stuart's widow to have no value intrinsically, but nonetheless as a historical item, it is of value to those interested. Declaring that some ten hours of interviews with the subject of this entry, Prouty, have no value surely indicates that you are no longer objective, probably after having been the target of the criticism/personal attack from [redacted blacklisted link]. It's abundantly clear to any outside observer, however, that the raw material of the interviews, articles, etc., are relevant to this entry. You misrepresent my point on this score as well: out of the ten hours, two consist of video interviews embedded from YouTube. Eight hours (or by far the better part of the material) appear to be original content not found elsewhere. This is of obvious value to anyone with a historical interest in Prouty.

I've examined your exchange with Greg Burnham below. The essence of your position there stated seems to be that the site ([redacted blacklisted link]) contains personal attacks, therefore it should not be included. Since you are the target of the personal attack or criticism, and since you disguised this fact above, you are hardly objective about the page. Your characterizations of the site are accordingly emotional and inconsistent. Above you pushed for its exclusion on account of its being a commercial site. Once demonstrated that this wasn't really true, you now hold that [redacted blacklisted link] is simply a fan site. It cannot be both. In fact, it is neither. No Geocities fan site would go to the lengths of conducting first-person interviews with the subject of the page that seem designed for the historical record. Moreover, Prouty himself seems to have authorized the page to the extent that it: 1) carries his name without his challenging it; 2) carries articles specifically written by him for the page's audience; 3) carries a letter from Prouty specifically on the matter of the site ([redacted blacklisted link]).

I don't make any judgment on the 'attack' part of [redacted blacklisted link]. To me, it's all rather distasteful. I suggest, however, that you recuse yourself from this particular bio entry and the subject of [redacted blacklisted link]. If you feel you have been the victim of an unwarranted personal attack (which I can understand) the proper venue of recourse is a court of law. You may well have a valid legal case for defamation. You do not appear, however, to have a valid case for excluding [redacted blacklisted link] from the External Links. Hochichi667 (talk) 06:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I did not mention this above because I assumed all parties were aware of it. I know that Amatulić is aware, and certainly Osanic is aware, and I assumed Burnham was aware, but based on his comments below he is either confused or has a strange double standard. So I'm sorry you feel this was a waste of time, but I don't think policy-based discussion is a waste of time. Nor do I have any intention of recusing myself from this discussion. It has long been a principle on Wikipedia that merely attacking someone does not get them recused from the matter, otherwise trolls could just attack everyone and no one would be left to enforce policy. You accuse me of being inconsistent, but in fact the positions I hold now on these types of links are the same I've always held, and these are the positions that have caused me to be repeatedly attacked by the conspiracy community. I would be against these types of links if they attacked only McAdams (who, incidentally, has also attacked me on his blog - so much for personal interest being my motivating factor!) or no one at all, because they are low quality resources. My arguments here have hardly been inconsistent, and your sole piece of evidence doesn't hold up to the slightest scrutiny: a low-quality fan page can also be a commercial page if it sells stuff. I don't see how the two are inconsistent at all. In fact, your arguments are the ones have applied an inconsistent standard: you constantly apply a stringent standard to McAdams' page, but you have a much more generous standard when discussing Osanic's page. For example, you've vigorously discounted McAdams' qualifications, credentials, and expertise but I don't think you've written a word about Osanic's complete lack of the same. And you ask me to recuse myself, but you do not ask the same of Osanic and Burnham, who stand to gain financially and otherwise if one of the world's largest websites features a link to their webpage. The fact that I'm willing to participate in this discussion with people who've viciously attacked me in such a manner I think demonstrates my objectivity and my dedication to this project, but if you want to make this discussion about me and not about Wikipedia and Wikipedia policy, it really will be a waste of time. Gamaliel (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Very little of what you have said is true. Your position has been very consistent inasmuch as you are opposed to [redacted blacklisted link] being included in the External Links section. That is clear. But your grounds for excluding it are inconsistent. You say that a fan website can also be a commercial site. I say: very well, but where is the commercial site? I see [redacted blacklisted link], which is a site devoted to Prouty and his views ('fan site' here is just a term of denigration). It is a '.org' site, not a '.com'. The site carries a single link to an external site, a 'blackopradio.com/products' where paraphernalia are apparently sold. Is 'blackopradio.com/products' the URL under discussion? No. The site '[redacted blacklisted link]' is the site under discussion as an external link. The site 'blackopradio.com' is another site entirely, run perhaps by another party. But even if run by the same party or by Prouty himself, that is irrelevant: you cannot exclude [redacted blacklisted link] on the basis of being a commercial site when the commerce you cite as evidence takes place on blackopradio.com.

You've also asserted that [redacted blacklisted link] should not be included because it has 'relatively low value' when it comes to its original Prouty-related material. I think I've shown that is not the case. Also, you've asserted that the site has copyrighted material and that the rights holders are not [redacted blacklisted link]. There I think you are correct, but since they are news items not being presented for profit and, arguably, for educational use, the fair-use argument is pretty strong.

I think sign that you've lost your objectivity on this is that you are conflating my position with those perhaps of others here. I have not advocated removing the link to the McAdams page. I have used it as a point of comparison, both on the copyright issue as well as the website quality. I also referred to ratical.org, which I would place in the same category as the McAdams site and [redacted blacklisted link]. I see no great difference when it comes to content between the McAdams site and the Prouty site as far as inclusion goes. I simply find it absurd that the McAdams site would be included and the Prouty site not -- especially when the McAdams site itself quotes from and links to the Prouty site. On the question of McAdams' credentials: I have no special grudge against McAdams, knowing very little about him. However, I am against knee-jerk appeals to authority. I believe that both in a democratic republic like ours as well as on Wikipedia, a collaborative online community, we must be careful what we accept on the basis of authority alone. If Stephen Hawking started to teach a course on underwater archaeology tomorrow, I would be suspicious: though he is a great physicist and considered a genius by some, I would ask what his credentials are on that particular subject. Likewise with McAdams. It is questionable to me that he be taken as an authority on the JFK assassination when he is not a professional historian and when he has not published in academic journals on that topic. The best I can find is that he is a political scientist who has written articles on the death penalty. Now, bear in mind: I am not saying remove his link. But I make the judgment to include based solely on the content of the page, not his credentials. The McAdams page on Prouty contains a fair amount of content with appropriate sourcing. It passes the minimum threshold as an external link in my view, namely: is this helpful to the reader? To me it is incidental if it is a critique of Prouty. However, one cannot with any sense of fairness exclude [redacted blacklisted link] by the same token. It contains a great deal of content that would be of service to the reader.

The only final basis you have for not placing [redacted blacklisted link] among the external links is that the site hosts a personal attack or criticism of you personally. The material related to McAdams does not constitute solely and simply a personal attack because it is primarily a set of links to other views on McAdams from a variety of articles, message boards, etc. It is somewhat mean-spirited, but so is the McAdams page on Prouty. The tone of either is unimportant, however. Now when it comes to the part where either you or someone taken to be you is the target, there's a finer line. Apparently, user Len Osanic is or was incensed by what he considers to be unfair practice on the Prouty Wiki page. I draw no conclusion about that here. If Wikipedia has a clear policy that no external site critical of Wikipedia or its editors shall be linked, well, then you have your ground. I can only say that on its face, [redacted blacklisted link] should absolutely be included among the external links for an article about Prouty. I think you should shrug off the personal attack/criticism, and the spirit of fair play may go some way to getting the [redacted blacklisted link] site to lower its weapons and perhaps remove the material directed at you personally. Hochichi667 (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

"Somewhat mean-spirited"? The only thing that could be accurately described as mean-spirited on McAdams' page is the word "crackpot", while Oscanic's page has a cavalcade of vicious juvenile insults. Your insistence on this clearly inaccurate false equivalence makes it abundantly clear that you are determined to give Oscanic a pass while subjecting McAdams to intense scrutiny and criticism, regardless of the facts. Gamaliel (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You've lost the plot. The McAdams critique page takes a variety of rhetorical questions and provocative statements made by Prouty for men's magazines (read: pornos) as statements of Prouty's final positions on this or that topic. In my opinion, that's infelicitous. Regardless: what you say is again untrue. The [redacted blacklisted link] page of McAdams is a list of links to a variety of criticisms of McAdams mainly in the context of the endless JFK assassination question. The point here, however, is still otherwise: I am not interested in the ultimate moral judgment on this or that page. I am interested only in Wikipedia thriving and being of service to people on the Internet. My own opinion on the appropriateness of the criticisms of you or McAdams is beside the point. The only question here is: Is [redacted blacklisted link] germane to the biographical Wiki entry on L. Fletcher Prouty? Undeniably, it is. Now, as I said above: if the assault on you or Prof. McAdams coming from [redacted blacklisted link] is unjust or even defamation, you may reasonably pursue it in court, and I wouldn't blame you. But that page on McAdams primarily (and you secondarily) is not even given by the main links as far as I can tell, and in any case, does not negate the value and relevance of [redacted blacklisted link] to a Wikipedia entry on L. Fletcher Prouty. I had to do a separate Google search to find the 'laughingstock' page. It is altogether separate from the extensive multimedia files containing content from Prouty. Hochichi667 (talk) 19:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Greg Burnham

Greg Burnham

Regarding the omission of relevant external link(s):

I was a personal friend of the late Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty. I first met him in the summer of 1975 while attending a lecture. I have known Len Osanic for nearly 20 years and can state, unequivocally, that Colonel Prouty was very grateful that Len memorialized his life's work through the Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty Reference Site, which Len administers to this day. Your suggestion that www.[redacted blacklisted link] not be considered the official website solely because Fletch died 12 years ago, fails to consider several relevant facts. For one, the website was established several years prior to Fletch's death! Additionally, in the mid to late 1990's Len, Fletch and I were guests on various radio programs together (such as, The Radio Detective and The Jeff Rense Show) where Colonel Prouty often suggested that the listening audience visit the website and/or obtain a copy of the CD-ROM produced by Len Osanic (The Collected Works of Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty). Indeed, in 1997, Len Osanic was the first person listed by Colonel Prouty in the Acknowledgments Section of his book, The Secret Team, "To Len Osanic ... for bringing all my work back to life..." as a direct result of Len's dedication to creating a website designed to do just that. http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ST/STacknowl.html

Colonel Prouty wrote this note to Len shortly after the website was up and running, where it is still posted to this day:

Hello to the World Wide Web,

I'm quite surprised at the interest generated from this site. Judging by the questions and comments coming in, it seems to be read by a well informed audience. Since the proposition came about, to release a number of my articles, that for one reason or another never were published, I have been going through my files, and I was surprised at the amount of writing that has piled up. So, I've been busy going through them all and trying to pick the best of each category.

Not too many people know this, but I used to write on many, many other topics besides the JFK assassination. I wrote for the Banking community, the Railroads, and I've found work I'd forgotten about during my time in the Pentagon. As it has been mentioned, between myself and Len Osanic, will try to post something new each month.

L. Fletcher Prouty

Moreover, not only was the website endorsed by Fletch, repeatedly--as he was the chief contributor of content to it--but he personally commissioned Len to create, maintain, archive, and preserve it on his behalf. That is why it is titled "The Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty Reference Site". Much of the content found there could only have been obtained by Len directly from Colonel Prouty himself. Colonel Prouty enjoyed hosting Len at his home in Alexandria, VA on many occasions where they would discuss various topics of great historical import. Even beyond the knowledge of other Prouty students or friends, including Dave Ratcliff and myself, among others, Len Osanic is more uniquely qualified to inform regarding the life, work, beliefs, and person of Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty than perhaps anyone else.

The act of failing to provide a link to a subject's own website, who is himself the subject of a Wiki page, when said website was commissioned prior to death by the deceased himself, is tantamount to censorship. Gregory Burnham (talk) 22:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Those are reasonable arguments. The fact remains, however, that the site contains attacks on living persons. We aren't talking about criticism here. That would be fine. We're talking about personal attacks. While Wikipedia does have a policy WP:NOTCENSORED that states Wikipedia content is not censored for anyone's benefit, links are another matter. Wikipedia does indeed censor attack sites. As as been suggested repeatedly now, if the attacks are removed, it would go along way toward acceptance of a link. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

As someone without a dog in the fight, I'm a little puzzled as to why the Prouty Reference Site isn't included among the links at the bottom of this Wiki entry. For one, user Len Osanic's claim to run the "official" Prouty website is in a way irrelevant. As far as I can tell, that claim is restricted to this Talk page: it appears nowhere on the [redacted blacklisted link] site. Therefore, taking the site as is, the first issue is whether or not the site qualifies as a "Reference Site" as it calls itself. It seems fairly clear that it does. For one, there is no other site of its kind that I can locate using a popular search engine. That is, no other site devoted to Prouty primarily. Second, and contrary to the comment above, there does seem to be a fair amount of original material of Prouty's at the site. While the question as to copyright might have to be asked in the case of each individual item on [redacted blacklisted link], it is not *clearly* in violation of copyright in any particular case as far as I can tell. It is hard to assert that the *possible* violation of copyright outweighs the fairly obvious benefit offered by a link to original material produced by the subject of this biographical entry. Regarding the last claim on personal attacks -- I've been unable to find the personal attacks mentioned on [redacted blacklisted link]. If they have been detailed on this talk page, I haven't spotted them yet. If the idea is that the dead man made personal attacks on some party or parties, and those attacks are quoted, one would think they have historical value as opinions expressed by the biographical subject even if they are directed at parties still living. My view is that this entry is a relatively minor entry that could gain obvious improvement by linking to a repository of original material of interest to anyone interested in Prouty. If links to pages that contain any personal attacks whatsoever are really to be avoided, half the Internet would be off-limits to Wikipedia. Moreover, the line between personal attack and criticism can sometimes be blurred, and the two can also appear side-by-side. Hochichi667 (talk) 22:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstand, these aren't Prouty's attacks, these are Osanic's. The issue is that Osanic appears to be using Prouty's name as a vehicle to promote Osanic's vendettas and merchandise. Gamaliel (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Is there a stated Wikipedia policy on linking to external sites that are either commercial or semi-commercial? At a glance the site seems partly commercial -- but then anything with a '.com' is technically commercial. Thanks. Hochichi667 (talk) 07:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe Wikipedia:External links generally discourages such things. Gamaliel (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Since you presumably researched these issues thoroughly before choosing to disallow links to Prouty's own Reference Site from Prouty's own Wiki page, then you are already aware that ad hominem attacks against Fletcher Prouty existed on John McAdams' website even prior to Prouty's death! Think about that for a moment. John McAdams was attacking Prouty's integrity, competence, and intentions without providing any basis for those attacks. He asked, under the guise of rhetoric, if Prouty was a crackpot. That is not something that should be left unanswered. As it turns out, there are several chinks in the armor of the accuser. Len simply pointed them out. As was mentioned by Hochichi667, "The line between personal attack and criticism can sometimes be blurred, and the two can also appear side-by-side." The issue therefore would seem to be: "Should Wiki arbitrarily allow external links to attack sites (John McAdams) that are critical of a Wiki subject (Prouty), without allowing a link to the Reference Site containing primary source material by the one under attack (Prouty) on his own Wiki page?" At the very least, a sense of fairness--as it is commonly understood--demands balance.

Since you allow (on Prouty's wiki page) an external link to John McAdams' page, in which McAdams attacks Prouty, isn't it only logical, by extension, that to be fair you would need to also allow the page you find objectionable on the Prouty website to be externally linked on John McAdams' Wiki page? After all, that would only be fair. Otherwise, allow the external link to Prouty's own Reference Site on his own Wiki page. It is the right thing to do. Gregory Burnham (talk) 22:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I am assuming this was a response to me so I've moved your comment and intended it appropriately. If it was a response to someone else, let me know and I will move it accordingly.

The title of McAdams' page on Prouty, "Fearless Truth Teller, or Crackpot?", may be considered a mild ad hominem attack by some standards, but the rest of the page is a quite reasonable look at specific claims Prouty has made and makes a factual assessment of each one. But Oscanic's attack page directed towards McAdams and others makes no factual points, his page is filled with vicious and juvenile slurs, comparisons to Nazis, the Westboro Baptist Church, etc., says McAdams commits "daily academic fraud", "rants and raves", is "asleep at the wheel", etc. Whether or not you think "crackpot" is appropriate for McAdams to apply to Prouty, it's hardly the equivalent of Osanic's attacks, and to compare the two in such a manner is a case of dishonest false equivalence. Gamaliel (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

You are committing several fallacies. First, you are engaging in Special Pleading, where only the evidence favorable to your own argument is being considered. Secondly, Gamaliel, you are acting as though you are qualified to judge whether or not McAdams' page is "a quite reasonable look at specific claims Prouty has made" when you are neither an expert on Prouty nor an expert on the subjects about which he has written. Moreover, you claim that McAdams "makes factual statements" about each one of Prouty's claims. But, how would you know? You don't claim to be a student of this case. And, even if you did, would you seriously claim to know more about these events than someone who was there?

McAdams regularly engages in fallacious reasoning when presenting his arguments, as well. You are not in a position to understand, unless you do your homework, that John McAdams is effectively calling Fletcher Prouty a liar in his "Proutyisms" versus "The Reality" section. That is not only inaccurate, but it is irresponsible. Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty was not merely a historian researching history, or a Professor of Political Science like McAdams. No indeed! Fletcher Prouty was there! He is a first hand witness to many seminal events in our nation's history and his sensitive positions at both the Pentagon and in the Office of the SecDef placed him in a unique position to observe the things that he has reported. If, therefore, we assume the opposite stance, that McAdams is wrong--he wasn't even there for these things--then what of his innocuous, "mildly" ad hominem page? In such a case, it wouldn't be so "mild" after all, would it? As for your argument against Len Osanic, it is fallacious for several reasons, but one will suffice. You are committing the fallacy known as: Circumstantial Ad Hominem. The following is from the Nikzor Project website, but you can find it anywhere. It is posted for research purposes only.

A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.). The fallacy has the following forms:

Person A makes claim X.

Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest to claim X.

Therefore claim X is false.

---

Person A makes claim X.

Person B makes an attack on A's circumstances.

Therefore X is false.

A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person's interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. While a person's interests will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own. It is also the case that a person's circumstances (religion, political affiliation, etc.) do not affect the truth or falsity of the claim. This is made quite clear by the following example: "Bill claims that 1+1=2. But he is a Republican, so his claim is false."

There are times when it is prudent to be suspicious of a person's claims, such as when it is evident that the claims are being biased by the person's interests. For example, if a tobacco company representative claims that tobacco does not cause cancer, it would be prudent to not simply accept the claim. This is because the person has a motivation to make the claim, whether it is true or not. However, the mere fact that the person has a motivation to make the claim does not make it false. For example, suppose a parent tells her son that sticking a fork in a light socket would be dangerous. Simply because she has a motivation to say this obviously does not make her claim false.

So while it remains prudent to employ critical thinking to both Colonel Prouty's claims and to those of John McAdams, it is proper to allow people to decide for themselves what is true. By failing to provide the link some students will be deprived of that choice. You and John McAdams will be making that choice for them. Gregory Burnham (talk) 00:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You don't even begin to address the central issue. McAdams, or anyone else, is quite free to question factual claims made by Prouty. This isn't an ad hominem attack, nor does it justify the juvenile ad hominem attacks on McAdams and others who are not McAdams by Len Osanic, which you do not even mention or discuss in your response. As long as Len Osanic's website contains this sort of vicious personal attacks, it is impossible to take seriously as a resource worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Gamaliel (talk) 00:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I just re-visited the page in question on the Prouty website. There is nothing remotely approaching "a vicious personal attack of McAdams" anywhere on the site. The site questions factual claims made by McAdams and also states facts about McAdams. In truth, the things to which McAdams has admitted are far more damaging to his reputation than anything that has been said about him. You also mentioned things said about "others who are not McAdams" -- like who?Gregory Burnham (talk) 03:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Did you look at the same page I did? In my comment above, I quoted and documented Osanic's attacks on that page. If you think comparing people to Nazis and the Westboro Baptist Church is merely an acceptable way of questioning "factual claims", but you think that McAdams' actually questioning Prouty's factual claims is a vicious ad hominem attack, then we live on very different planets. Gamaliel (talk) 03:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I am unaware of the page to which you are referring. I have apparently not seen that page or at least not seen that material. If you could provide a link here in the talk section that would help. Then I can comment directly to those issues as I see fit. But, what I have seen so far does not qualify as any more severe than what is on McAdams page. Moreover, you have not addressed the inappropriateness of McAdams' slurs against Prouty where he suggests that Prouty is just making stuff up. How is it that you don't address the double standard being employed? Do you not see it? But, rather than you and I making this issue about us (you and I) lets stay on topic. In my opinion, even if Osanic removed whatever page about McAdams that you find objectionable, Wiki should still disallow an external link to McAdams site on the Prouty Wiki page due to the nature of his attack on Prouty's integrity among other things. But that's a different debate for a different day.Gregory Burnham (talk) 16:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

On [redacted blacklisted link] as External Link

Tonight I reviewed the Wikipedia:External_links guidelines to see what policies exist in regards to some of the issues raised here. I will quote briefly from that page, but it is worth reading in its entirety to make an objective determination about whether on balance [redacted blacklisted link] should be included among the External Links section for the Prouty Wikipedia entry.

1. On whether [redacted blacklisted link] should not be listed due to copyright infringement. The guidelines state:

"Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work, or uses the work in a way compliant with fair use."

Fair use is a category that allows for use of copyrighted material within certain limits. The Wikipedia entry on Fair Use

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

gives a four-factor balancing test:

a) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; b) the nature of the copyrighted work; c) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and d) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Examining the many articles directly hosted by [redacted blacklisted link] (I do not include linked articles, for example, to ratical.org), I notice that several are listed as letters to the editor of The Washington Post. However, there is no sign any of these was ever printed except in one case: "Hidden Causes of Mideast Strife" dated March 5, 1997. The evidence given at the top is only that it says: "THis [sic] was printed in The Washington Post". Likewise in one other case, for an article called "U-2 Shootdowns" dated April 1996, it reads at the top: "The Following Letter was printed in the Air Force Magazine". Finally, in the case of a letter sent to The Washington Post addressed to "Obituary-Corrections", an effort was made by Prouty to correct details in the Post's obituary of James A. Barnes Jr., U-2 Pilot. A scan of that obituary is included under Prouty's letter. There is no sign that Prouty's correction was ever printed, however.

In the case of the various letters written by Prouty to newspapers, unless there is proof that the letter was printed, there are no grounds for assuming copyright infringement. I might declare that I have written a letter to The New York Times and upload a copy in HTML to my website, but unless it is actually printed, there is no violation of the Times' copyright. Moreover, if I am the author of a piece of writing, and it is printed in a newspaper, the issue of copyright is not altogether clear-cut. Some newspapers will have a printed release policy stating that if you send a letter to a paper and it is printed, you agree to release all rights to the content of your letter. Some newspapers, however, do not.

In the two cases of Prouty's own letters, "Hidden Causes of Mideast Strife" and "U-2 Shootdowns", their use on [redacted blacklisted link] is arguably in violation of copyright. Of course, this is mitigated somewhat by the fact that Prouty himself was the author. The scan of the actual Post obituary of Barnes is also arguably in violation of copyright.

Here we can look at the four-factor fair use test along with one or two other aspects of fair use. First, what are the character and use of these three items? We might first ask after the character and purpose of [redacted blacklisted link]. For one, [redacted blacklisted link] is a non-commercial site. It is divided into 13 sections, 9 of which consist of an abundant amount of text, audio interviews, and video interviews that are provided free of charge. One section, "Books", is commercial only to the extent that it provides a pair of links to Amazon.com and Prouty's books there. Since [redacted blacklisted link] presumably does not benefit from those book sales, those links do not change the overall purpose of the site. Another section, "CD-ROM and Products", links to an external site called blackopradio.com with a short page that sells a CD-ROM called "The Collected Works of Col. L. Fletcher Prouty" among other things. Again, this page is an external link and its presence among the sections of [redacted blacklisted link] does not affect [redacted blacklisted link]'s character as a non-commercial site.

What are the character and purpose of the use of the three items above? In the case of Prouty's own articles, they are provided free of charge and can only be meant to reveal Prouty's views on the two issues. They qualify as "non-profit educational purposes". This is especially true as the articles are not movies, music videos, or hit songs. Thus the "nature of the copyrighted work" is educational, not entertainment. That is the second test of the four given above. As to the question of the "amount or substantiality" of these copyrighted works (the third test), because the items themselves are so brief, with Prouty's Post letter under three hundred and fifty words, it would be difficult to excerpt them. As to the final test, it is hard to imagine the inclusion of the two items by Prouty on [redacted blacklisted link] impacting the sales of back issues of The Washington Post and Air Force Magazine -- if there even are such sales.

That leaves the Barnes obituary, which for not being written by Prouty and for being a scan of a newspaper directly, seems to be the only potentially meaningful violation of copyright on [redacted blacklisted link]. But even this use, however, is arguably covered by the fair use doctrine. The scan of the obituary seems to be given in order to provide context for Prouty's own (unpublished) letter. Thus, it is a quotation for the purpose of commentary, a use covered under fair use. Also, the overall effect is *transformative* which is one of the criteria often used for fair use: the juxtaposition of the Prouty letter side-by-side with the original Post obituary in the form of a visual scan results, arguably, is a different piece overall.

Conclusion: [redacted blacklisted link] is a non-commercial site with a primary educational purpose. It has no commercial purpose, and its external links to commercial sites do not change its overall character into one of commerce. Most of the material mentioned in the earlier discussion of this Talk page cannot be presumed to be in violation of copyright (viz. Prouty's letters to newspapers) unless there is clear proof those letters have been published. In two cases, if the HTML headings are to be believed, they were previously published. But since Prouty himself was the author, and combined with the four-factor fair use test, an objective view would maintain that the two Prouty letters being hosted by [redacted blacklisted link] could well be covered by fair use. Likewise the scan of the Barnes obituary.

2. Is [redacted blacklisted link] an official site? I was surprised to see this among the Wikipedia guidelines on external links:

"What Can Normally Be Linked: 1. Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site [...]"

The guidelines go into more detail. But I think it has been established here that [redacted blacklisted link] is not a "fan site", but rather meets the criteria of an official site. The site was begun with Prouty's permission and assistance before his death. It contains a dozen or more "commentaries" written by him specifically for [redacted blacklisted link]. It specifically serves the purpose given in the Wikipedia guidelines:

"Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself."

[redacted blacklisted link] hosts ten hours or more of audio and video that chronicle his positions on a variety of issues. It is undeniable that by internet standards, [redacted blacklisted link] provides an abundance of first-hand material related to the subject of this Wiki bio, L. Fletcher Prouty. Moreover, referring back to the Wiki guidelines, this material is not behind a paywall on [redacted blacklisted link]. No membership is required to access the material: it is easily accessible from the dozen or so internal links on the left sidebar of the [redacted blacklisted link] homepage.

As one of the editors noted above, the [redacted blacklisted link] site's appearance is very basic, even outdated. But this if anything argues in favor of its being an official site since it appears not to have had any major updates since Prouty's death. Thus, not only was the site begun by Prouty, but his vision of it has been maintained and not significantly altered.

Conclusion: The grounds for including [redacted blacklisted link] in the External Links section on Prouty's Wiki bio page are overwhelming. The copyright concerns in this instance are weak and do not merit exclusion: all are arguably covered by fair use. The site itself was begun with the participation of Prouty, contains texts written specially for [redacted blacklisted link] by Prouty himself, and provide a direct window into Prouty's own views via historical raw material. Not including this non-commercial educational site which contains audio and video of Prouty is impossible to justify.

3. Personal Attacks. The only final reason for excluding [redacted blacklisted link] from the External Links section after scanning the arguments above seems to boil down to a personal attack or criticism of Wiki editor 'Gamaliel' -- with it being a baseless attack or a justified criticism depending on your point of view. The 'attack' on McAdams seems entirely beside the point: apart from calling McAdams a "laughingstock", which is rather mild name-calling, all things considered, the McAdams material on [redacted blacklisted link] consists of links to other sites with other people's criticisms. Thus, [redacted blacklisted link] cannot be faulted for conducting a "personal attack" on McAdams.

As for personal attacks in general, I still have not seen the Wikipedia policy on personal attacks among external links, i.e. what constitutes them, etc. One would think that any Wikipedia policy against personal attacks would protect the *subject of the article* and not extend to irrelevant parties. Concerning a Wikipedia bio of L. Fletcher Prouty, whether a site contains personal attacks against John McAdams, 'Gamaliel', or Abraham Lincoln is irrelevant. This is especially true considering that the page in question apparently cannot be found from the [redacted blacklisted link] homepage. Thus, readers following the link to [redacted blacklisted link] are not able to encounter it; they only find it (as I did) through a search engine. It is very easy to understand why Wikipedia would seek to limit links to pages that are essentially a mindless screed about the subject in question: if I buy an XBOX 360 that is defective and write a long rant about how much I despise it, then try to put a link to my blog on the XBOX 360 Wiki page, it might be reasonably excluded. However, if I am an accomplished marine biologist, and on my website I have a number of articles written by me that are presently included among the external links of a variety of Wiki entries, the fact that elsewhere on my server I have this publicly available rant and "personal attack" on Bill Gates should not mean links to all my articles on marine biology should be deleted because I engaged in a "personal attack".

Conclusion: Unless there is a clearly stated policy saying that Wikipedia does not tolerate links to external sites where attacks/criticisms of Wikipedia or its editors take place, [redacted blacklisted link] should be included in the section External Links. Hochichi667 (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

That conclusion is bogus. There is no requirement that Wikipedia guidelines and policies must be completely comprehensive. They aren't. It's like saying "Unless there's a clearly stated law that I cannot vomit in public, I should be able to vomit in public." Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

It has been stated before, and bears repeating. The [redacted blacklisted link] site was blacklisted, and still is, due to [redacted blacklisted link] representatives attempting to link to those attack pages. Such pages serve no purpose other than to attack and malign. They are not criticism, they are attacks. Removal of such pages, as has been stated before, will go a long way to acceptance of this link. No valid objection to removal of attack pages has so far been presented here. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The absurdity of your position should be obvious to you. The reason why Wikipedia has guidelines is precisely so that something of an objective standard exist, and that decisions not be undertaken willy-nilly by editors imposing a thousand separate sets of standards. Wikipedia is a public website, and its stated guidelines are a sort of promise made to the public that *if* people invest the time to contribute and to help Wikipedia grow, their work won't be arbitrarily trashed by this or that peevish editor who has an ax to grind.

In your case, and in the case of Gamaliel, you have no arguments to support why [redacted blacklisted link] should be "blacklisted" other than that you don't like the fact that Gamaliel is attacked/criticized on a certain page on the site. As you have basically just said, this is your whole point. Evidently, you don't feel you need to justify this "blacklisting" by referring to Wikipedia policy. You do it because you want to. Likewise, it has nothing to do with the obvious value of [redacted blacklisted link] and its relevance to a Wiki bio entry on Prouty. So what we have here is a situation where two Wikipedia editors decide for personal reasons that a Wikipedia article should suffer because of a personal grudge against the owner of a certain site.

It should go without saying that this sort of thing is why Wikipedia is on the decline (see the MIT Technology Review for a good analysis). If you both had simply maintained this position by itself from the beginning, that would be one thing. However, reaching far for specious arguments about copyright violation, about [redacted blacklisted link] being a 'fan site', and so on, show that you know you are being intellectually dishonest. You know that you are wrong because strictly on the basis of whether a link to [redacted blacklisted link] would be of benefit to people studying Prouty, the site should be included. It's a simple matter.

The wounded feelings argument really doesn't stand up though. Why have you not mentioned the fact that the reason why there is an 'attack' against Gamaliel on [redacted blacklisted link] is precisely because of the shenanigans on the Prouty wiki page and others? Should Len Osanic be favorably inclined to 'Gamaliel' and Wikipedia when the Prouty article is a site of constant mischief? When in the Talk section for example, the site [redacted blacklisted link] is said to contain material of 'relatively low' value when it is the only site on Prouty on the Internet with ten or more hours of recorded interviews with Prouty?

I think Gamaliel should man up. Your own weak effort to make a point notwithstanding, not only is there no justification for "blacklisting" [redacted blacklisted link], there are several separate reasons among Wikipedia guidelines for its inclusion. Thus your statement about the conclusion above being bogus is 'bogus'. Is the point here to provide a valuable service to the readers? Or is it simply to have online pissing contests? Imagine if someone new to Wikipedia comes to the Prouty entry, and thinking he/she is doing good, does the obvious and puts the official Prouty site under External Links. A day later the link is removed. The person new to Wikipedia finds that at some point in the past, a page critical of a Wikipedia editor was put up, and now the site is "blacklisted". Why would that person spend any more time trying to help at Wikipedia? Hochichi667 (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

You don't get your way, so you resort to taunts and insults. Regardless, it's good that you've finally admitted that this isn't about Prouty at all, it's about the agenda of you and Osanic. Look, Wikipedia is about collaboration and compromise, not attacking people when you don't get what you want. I've seen this time and time again on Wikipedia, when conspiracy theorists arrive and are frustrated because they can't get their way and have to follow Wikipedia's rules. So they personalize the issue and make it about someone, me or somebody else, standing in their way, when it is their own inability to understand and follow the rules that is the real obstacle. If I was your obstacle, why would I be discussing this with you at all? It's very simple, if you or Osanic or Jim DiEugenio anyone else wants to contribute or have a certain point of view represented, they have to do it within the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia, period. We can discuss how Osanic can do that, or you can attack me, your choice, but the rules aren't going to change just because the conspiracy theorists have tried to make me the scapegoat for your inability to grasp this. Gamaliel (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Where are the taunts? Where are the insults? I've admitted what is obvious to anyone who wades through this discussion: you are taking it upon yourself to exclude [redacted blacklisted link] on the basis of what you take to be a personal attack against you. To appear objective, you have brought in another Wiki editor who naturally backs you up. I asked above: where is the Wikipedia policy that states external links should be excluded when they feature criticism/attacks against Wikipedia editors? Amatulic states that no such appeal to policy is necessary. And I said in return: when you can't point to a clear Wiki guideline that is being violated, all you have then for a reason is a personal dispute. Period. I've taken my own time to examine [redacted blacklisted link]. Despite your attempt to inject the 'conspiracy theory' buzzword into the discussion, no conspiracy theory has anything to do with Prouty's bio article; nor even [redacted blacklisted link]. I also neither know Len Osanic nor have any great investment in any particular 'conspiracy theory' -- so it's ironic what you have advanced is a conspiracy theory. Regardless, when you say the 'rules aren't going to change' and then cannot cite any guidelines or policies, then you are simply being dishonest. Again, period.

The Prouty bio article is a relatively unimportant article on Wikipedia. So it is significant that even here on this article, a pair of editors can exclude an obviously relevant and germane external link for purely personal reasons. You exclude [redacted blacklisted link] whatever its value to Wikipedia visitors simply because it hosts a page that 'attacks' you. I don't think it is an insult to state that this is the case; it is a fact. You have said as much. Further, since the other arguments previously raised (copyright, fan site) are weak, and the opposing reasons for listing [redacted blacklisted link] are strong, you do a disservice to Wikipedia here by being intransigent, but you also do a disservice to yourselves. Surely you must see that your latest comment here -- saying that it is not you but Wikipedia policy that excludes [redacted blacklisted link] -- is emotionally-driven and only serves to obfuscate the issue. For example, you raise the names of 'Jim DiEugenio' (who?) and 'conspiracy theorists'. Who are these people and what do they have to do with a Prouty bio entry? It suggests that you are no longer objective. Whatever disputes you have had with these people in the past are irrelevant to the Prouty bio entry; moreover, if Len Osanic or other parties in the past tried to link to the 'attack' page on you, that is also irrelevant. It is not your responsibility to 'punish' them by excluding a useful link. You can ban users for vandalism, but not ban the site from mention on Wikipedia if it contains useful information.

So you can see, no deep insult was conveyed by my comment to 'man up' What I meant is something I am sure you know: editors at Wikipedia get involved in all sorts of disputes. Many different controversies unfold in and around Wikipedia entries and editors get cursed daily -- again, as you know. Thus, an 'attack' on you should be old hat. I fail to see why you'd pay the fairly weak attack at [redacted blacklisted link] any special attention. As an editor, you get to play the adult. What we should be focused on here is providing the best possible research material to the reader, not punishing those who conduct an 'attack' on you. Hochichi667 (talk) 11:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

For the record, Amatulić came to this article at the request of Len Osanic, not me, and I've had no contact with him before his involvement in the issue following Osanic's repeated requests. But let's not let a little thing like facts get in the way of the conspiracy community's constant attempts to blame everything on me. You say that we should be focused on "providing the best possible research material to the reader" after spending three paragraphs complaining about me. Go ahead, I would prefer you focused on that instead of me. Nobody's stopping you from practicing what you preach. Gamaliel (talk) 18:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It's possible that I've misrepresented Amatulic's position; I'm going mainly by the impression given by his one-paragraph reply above. I think you're taking all this a little too personally. If I 'attack' your position, it is not an attack on you per se. If you have no position, or an inconsistent position, and yet you insist firmly that something is the case, then the normal and natural thing is to wonder why. When I came to this Talk page, I took from your comments that [redacted blacklisted link] was: a) engaged in copyright violation; b) not an official site, but only a 'fan site'; and c) had content of 'relatively low value'. I thought all this might well be the case. On closer examination, I find that the instances of possible copyright violation are few and they are arguably covered under fair use. As to its being a fan site, it seems from other comments here in the Talk section that [redacted blacklisted link] was started with the permission and participation of Prouty. I find myself that there are a dozen or so 'commentaries' produced by Prouty himself for the [redacted blacklisted link] site. So on balance it appears to be an official site. Finally, when there are ten or more hours of original content with Prouty espousing his views, this is of 'relatively' high value.

Why then maintain the fatwa on the Prouty site as an external link? It all seems to boil down to the site hosting an 'attack' on you. In Amatulic's view, 'just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should'. This might be a good principle for general ethics, but doesn't pertain to Wikipedia, a public site with stated official guidelines. You yourself have more than once invoked those guidelines. When I finally ask: where is the guideline stating external links shall not be included if they host attacks on Wikipedia or its editors? There is silence.

The facts on their face are these: the [redacted blacklisted link] site is evidently the only site of its kind and it hosts a variety of content of obvious value to those interested in Prouty. You continue to bring up the 'conspiracy theory' label, which is somewhat bizarre, but since you feel you have been attacked, I suppose it is natural for you to be defensive. Prouty is of interest to more than just conspiracy theorists. I myself come to Prouty by way of Victor Krulak, whose life and career I find fascinating. I find the whole pissing contest here surrounding 'conspiracies' rather distasteful and not germane to the topic of Prouty's bio (his speculations on conspiracies may be part of his bio, but are a subset of that bio).

It is baffling and sad that even on biographical articles of minor figures, there has to be trench warfare on Wikipedia. I wouldn't mind improving, maybe even expanding this article on Prouty -- but why walk into sniper fire? If I hadn't read the Talk page first, I might have simply added [redacted blacklisted link] to the external links with other improvements. Then we all know what would have happened. Hochichi667 (talk) 09:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no dog in this fight. Let me explain my involvement:

The [redacted blacklisted link] site is blacklisted. In a lengthy email conversation with Len Osanic, and after posting proposals on both the blacklist and whitelist pages with no objection, I white-listed just the [redacted blacklisted link] home page, in the hope that it would lead to public discussion instead of unproductive back-room private conversation. That has happened. Mission accomplished.

You want a policy? Here you go: Wikipedia:Libel. It is a policy to delete defamatory material. One could argue whether the policy applies to defamatory links or actual text in an article. It doesn't matter. It should be obvious that Wikipedia cannot be complicit in libel. The [redacted blacklisted link]/mcadams page, while it does contain some valid critiques, clearly exists as a hatchet job for no other purpose than libel.

That said, I think overall the [redacted blacklisted link] site is potentially a useful resource. It has some good information in it about the subject. The defamatory pages add no value and can safely be removed. Pages that attack McAdams' arguments rather than his character can be kept. If the site contents was modified thus, I believe nobody would object to linking it. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I thank you for posting something with actual substance. Yes, indeed, though I think it obvious that [redacted blacklisted link] should be listed among external links for a bio entry on Prouty, I also consider it obvious that if the site clearly violates guidelines pertaining to external links, then little can be done about it.

Let's consider your points one at a time so that I do not misinterpret. You say that [redacted blacklisted link] is blacklisted in your comment; but you also say that the [redacted blacklisted link] home page is whitelisted. What is the current status of just the [redacted blacklisted link] home page? While I think the [redacted blacklisted link] home page is germane to the topic of Prouty's life, I do not see how a link to a critique page of Prof. John McAdams (and secondarily a brief smear against editor 'Gamaliel') is of relevance to the Prouty wiki entry. Moreover, since there is evidently no way to navigate to the McAdams page from the [redacted blacklisted link] homepage, for all intents and purposes, it is irrelevant to the question of putting [redacted blacklisted link] among the external links. The case is the same if I have a stray MP3 audio recording on my server where I 'attack' this or that person -- if I don't link to it from my home page, from the point of view of the visitor it does not exist. Wikipedia cannot be responsible for everything that exists on the server of a site given in external links. It can only reasonably responsible for what the person clicking the external link may access.

If the [redacted blacklisted link] home page is white-listed, then what follows may be ignored. If the whole site, however, is blacklisted on account of the McAdams page, then it is important separate out what issues are at work to see if the blacklisting is justified.

First off, I do assert that there is a difference at least in principle between libelous or defamatory material printed on a Wiki page and on an external link *unless there is a guideline that says otherwise*. While I respect your opinion that Wikipedia should not be a party to libel, defamation, etc., and might even agree, I think the important thing here is to determine the applicability of an external link to [redacted blacklisted link] on the basis of clearly stated guidelines. This is the only way to avoid further confusion, convoluted debate, etc.

The link you provided [Wikipedia:Libel] itself links to two other sections that seem to be of relevance. The first is "No personal attacks". The second is "Slander and libel". Let me take the second one first.

1. Under the 'defamation' heading, there's a distinction between slander and libel. Roughly speaking, slander is spoken while libel is printed. So if the McAdams page engages in anything, it is libel. According to the standard in the United States (given in this entry), libel must be factually false and harmful to reputation. However, on the same page we find that "vulgar abuse" is not considered libel. When I review the McAdams page, I find a basic slurs of "laughingstock", a comparison of McAdams to the Westboro Baptist Church, and a suggestion that McAdams is "asleep at the wheel". Other negative remarks directed at McAdams are quotes by others and links to criticisms made by others. It is an interesting question whether a statement like "McAdams commits daily academic fraud" when used as a link to an external site constitutes libel when that statement is, for example, the title of the article linked. I leave the question open. Whatever the tone and the tenor of the page, the question of whether *on substance* the page in relation to McAdams amounts to criticism or simple name-calling, I think, is clear: the page is a collection of criticisms. This is its main function. It links to a variety of article-length criticisms of McAdams on a variety of grounds; the main one being his apparent errors when it comes to this or that aspect of the JFK assassination. There are suggestions he is a "disinformation agent" and a whole collection of sarcasms, sneers, expressions of outrage, etc. But there can be no doubt, however, that these simply ornament the substance: from their point of view, McAdams is to be criticized first and foremost on a variety of substantive grounds. The name-calling comes second. After all, one need only consider the counter-example: if the issue were *simply* calling McAdams names, then there would be no need to write whole articles or perform demonstrations refuting this or that historical claim of his. I would maintain that the general difference between substantive criticism and simple name-calling is not the absence of name-calling: criticism need not be polite and Victorian. It can, in fact, be ugly. The determining factor, however, is whether there are substantive disagreements on outside matters presented with a certain amount of detail.

So when you say that the McAdams page on [redacted blacklisted link] "clearly exists as a hatchet job for no other purpose than libel", this is untrue. Libel is not simple name-calling or "vulgar abuse". Libel has a higher standard, and the Wikipedia guideline refers to libel. The fact that the McAdams page presents rather hysterically a set of links to published criticisms of McAdams in and around some juvenile name-calling does not make that page libelous. For it to be libelous, factual claims made on the page must be shown to be untrue. I leave that demonstration aside here because for it to be of any value, it would have to be done in a court of law. But I reject that the McAdams page self-evidently exists "for no other purpose than libel". If that were so, half the Internet would exist for pure libel.

That brings us, however, to the issue of the sub-section "McAdams and Nazis". McAdams is not the only target of the McAdams page. As is well known here, 'Gamaliel' makes an appearance (it is alleged) on this page. Several comments back, I invited Gamaliel to take legal action if the page in question here really was libelous, and this continues to be my view. The mini-section contains a number of factual claims that, if disproved, might be libelous. For instance, if 'Gamaliel's real name is what is given on the McAdams page, and if he did not at some point have a Nazi symbol on his page, this is a factually false claim on the McAdams page, and could be pursued. Of course, the section does *not* seem to allege that either Gamaliel or McAdams are Nazis; it stops short of that. It alleges instead that Gamaliel is a 'pal' of McAdams and had a Nazi symbol "on his website". This may amount to a kind of smear; it may amount to libel. But it well may not.

I leave the question aside because there is something more relevant to present that may save time. It is here in #2:

2. The second link in the Defamation article is to 'No personal attacks'. While I do not think the McAdams page in regards to McAdams would be deemed libelous in a court of law -- and in Gamaliel's case it would well hinge on whether there was ever a Nazi symbol "on his webpage" -- I have found a clear Wikipedia guideline that seems to stand against linking to the McAdams 'attack' page. It is in the External Links section of the 'No personal attacks' page:

"Linking to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against persons who edit Wikipedia for the purpose of attacking another person who edits Wikipedia is never acceptable. Attacking, harassing, or violating the privacy of any person who edits Wikipedia through the posting of external links is not permitted. Harassment in this context may include but is not limited to linking to offsite personal attacks, privacy violations, and/or threats of physical violence. This is not to be confused with legitimate critique. Inclusion of links in articles is a matter for sound editorial judgment."

Finally, there are clear grounds for restricting the McAdams page as an external link. Not only does the McAdams page seem to host an "attack" against Gamaliel, it also arguably violates his privacy if indeed his real name and rough location are given correctly on that page.

It seems clear that Wikipedia does not wish to link to "off-site [...] attacks" with possible "privacy violations against persons who edit Wikipedia". Surely, Gamaliel edits Wikipedia -- that we can agree. Moreover, the McAdams page's sub-section on "McAdams and Nazis" is pretty clearly an "attack" on Gamaliel who is an editor. Note: this does not necessarily mean the section is libelous. But here the Wikipedia guideline does not require that the stronger standard of libel apply. Instead, a weaker, non-rigorous, and non-legal category of "attack" is used. Under this looser standard, it would be harder to assert that the "McAdams and Nazis" section does not constitute an attack.

Where does this leave us?

I have read a variety of arguments here why [redacted blacklisted link] should not be included among the external links of this Wiki bio entry. In fact, four have been presented. It has been said that [redacted blacklisted link]: a) violates copyright; b) is not an official site; c) has material of "relatively low" value; d) is libelous against John McAdams and editor Gamaliel. I won't recap the first three here because they have been more or less debunked. In the last case, the question of whether libel (a complicated legal standard) exists on the McAdams page can be set aside in favor of the clearer Wikipedia guideline offered by the external link/attack standard which is clearly given on the "No personal attacks" page.

Conclusion: What remains, it seems to me, is to determine whether the whole site ([redacted blacklisted link]) is blacklisted on account of the McAdams page, and if so, whether the "blacklist" might instead be restricted to the McAdams page. I think to begin with, there is certainly no reason to link to the McAdams page on a bio entry of Prouty. Someone might try to link to it on a bio entry of McAdams, but for an article on Prouty is wholly irrelevant. Further, the fact that the McAdams "attack" page cannot be accessed from the [redacted blacklisted link] home page suggests to me that Wikipedia bears no responsibility by linking to that home page. If the [redacted blacklisted link] home page itself links to the McAdams "attack" page at some later date, then the home page might reasonably blacklisted. The fact that the McAdams "attack" page is an orphan on the [redacted blacklisted link] site with no direct route from the home page means that it should have no effective bearing on whether to include a link to [redacted blacklisted link] (the home page) in the External Links section. Hochichi667 (talk) 11:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

You're missing the point that Amatulić and I have been trying to make from the beginning. Even if you make a convincing case that this link is not prohibited, that does not automatically mean it should be included. An affirmative case for inclusion must be made. You seem to think that inclusion should be "obvious", but others disagree, and the few arguments for inclusion have been thoroughly debunked. Earlier you expressed the desire to improve and expand this article, and the energy you spend fighting for the inclusion a link to a libelous fan page would be better spent to that more productive end. Gamaliel (talk) 04:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Earlier Gamaliel repeatedly attributed his decision to prohibit an external link to The Colonel L Fletcher Prouty Reference Site—a site dedicated to a highly decorated "Full Bird" Colonel in the United States Air Force—from being linked to Colonel Prouty's own Wiki page, as due to its having contained so-called "policy violations" of various natures. However, by simply reviewing Wikipedia's policy page, these alleged violations are charged erroneously. Clearly the website is not primarily a commercial endeavor. Clearly the website is richly stocked with Primary Research on the subject of Colonel Prouty as an historical figure. Clearly the Primary Source Material contained at [redacted blacklisted link], which was obtained directly from the subject himself, is far and away the largest volume of both audio and video interviews of the subject available anywhere. Moreover, the ad hominem or otherwise critical comments contained on the McAdams website are aimed directly at assertions that were allegedly made by Colonel Prouty. However, there is one important distinction: The original statements by Prouty, that are being challenged on the McAdams’ website, can only be found on the Colonel Prouty Reference Site IN CONTEXT rather than presented from the biased point of view being offered by one of his detractors. How can a reference site that was created for--and in cooperation with--the subject himself be omitted? Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty, USAF -- as per National Security Directive 54/12 -- was the first Focal Point Officer (between all branches of the US Military and the Central Intelligence Agency) working out of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, in support of all clandestine operations GLOBALLY. Subsequent to that, he became the Chief of Special Operations in the Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He was THERE. So it is with great bias that Gamaliel has chosen to apply censorship. Indeed, by preventing the subject (Prouty) of the false charges from being accurately represented through an external link to HIS OWN webpage, Gamaliel is behaving like the judge who allowed the prosecutor's witnesses to make accusations, but prevented the defense from calling its own witnesses to the stand in order to impeach the false accusations. Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty was an honorable man. He should be allowed to speak for himself. Students of this case (JFK) and of these other subjects related to the life and work of an eyewitness to HISTORY should not be prevented from educating himself or herself due to Gamaliel's censorship. I am beginning to understand why more and more people are beginning to lose trust in Wikipedia as a reliable source. When you are failing to live up to your own published standards by arbitrarily, if not, systemically omitting PRIMARY SOURCE MATERIAL from being externally linked, how can you expect to: increase your popularity, the public’s trust, or your donation revenues? Gregory Burnham (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The idea that this is a censorship issue is absolutely ludicrous. The article includes links to the full text of two of Prouty's books, so it's not like anyone's trying to hide his views from Wikipedia readers. Prouty is already allowed to speak for himself here. The real issue is whether or not Osanic's fan site meets Wikipedia standards for inclusion. As long as Osanic's advocates ignore or dismiss this issue, we're unlikely to find any common ground on this matter. Gamaliel (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

That is incorrect. He has not been aloud to "speak" for himself here. There is a great deal of difference between "reading someone's written word" and actually "hearing and/or watching" someone speak those words. There are dozens of audio/video interviews at [redacted blacklisted link] for students to study for themselves, available ONLY on the Reference Site. Moreover, he wrote things for the website that had never been written anywhere else! This skirmish is more and more appearing to be a grudge match between Galamiel and Len Osanic. But it shouldn't be. It should ONLY be about serving history, education, adding to the knowledge base, and the CONTENT found at "The Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty Reference Site" beyond that which can be found in his books. I think you are, perhaps subconsciously, re-directing the anger you feel for Len Osanic by passive-aggressively venting your spleen at a "softer target" i.e., the website that he administers. A pity. You do so at the expense of free speech. This debate should not be between Prouty and McAdams. Nor should it be between Galamiel and Osanic. It should not be a debate at all. In my opinion, Galamiel, you need to hold yourself to a higher standard than that. After all, you are "the trusted guardian" here. Personality conflicts should be especially avoided by those who hold the keys to the realm. The wisdom of your decisions should always serve as an example of Wikipedia's unbiased commitment to equal opportunity within the marketplace of free ideas. Any other agenda, real or perceived, can only cut into revenue. Gregory Burnham (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with free speech, obviously. Prouty's words are quoted and linked to, just not in the manner in which you would personally prefer. This is not censorship, this is responsible selection. Wikipedia has a responsibility to, as you said, serve history and education, and we do that by insisting on only high quality links. What will those people who investigate the history and views of Prouty think of Prouty when they visit a website supposedly about Prouty which includes widespread copyright violations and juvenile attacks on people in the form of "funny" picture captions? What will they think of Wikipedia for suggesting such a website as a resource? Your eloquent words about higher standards should also be directed at your friend Osanic to urge him to be a more responsible steward for Prouty's legacy. Gamaliel (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

So we come full circle. First, I think we ought to separate Gamaliel's views from Amatulic's. The views here I'll be referring to are Gamaliel's as best I can discern.

I've demonstrated at great length here -- at a great waste of time apparently -- two points: a) the Prouty site has enough original material of 'relatively high value' that it should be included among external links; b) none of the charges raised against it by Gamaliel have held water. On the former point, Amatulic seems to agree. On the latter point, the charges of 'fan site', copyright violation, and so on, there is no basis for excluding it. Only the Wiki guideline on 'No personal attacks' which I quoted above serves to disqualify the *McAdams* page on [redacted blacklisted link] from being an external link. But that is irrelevant here since the McAdams page has nothing to do with a Wiki bio entry on Prouty. I, for one, would not try to include it.

Gamaliel attempts to turn the whole thing around again by ignoring everything written above and returning again to his original point that the [redacted blacklisted link] page has no value to the Prouty bio entry. Gamaliel: see above. Either you have not read what I've written or you're simply obfuscating. I hope it's not the latter. No objective person would dispute that the [redacted blacklisted link] homepage is germane to this bio entry on Prouty. Period. And the only page in violation of Wiki guidelines is the McAdams attack/criticism page.

So my question still stands: is the entire Prouty site blacklisted or just the McAdams page? Hochichi667 (talk) 12:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Your question has been answered by me, already. The entire [redacted blacklisted link] site is blacklisted due to on-Wiki behavior related to that defamatory page, which maligns not only McAdams but also suggests Gamaliel has Nazi connections due to a vandal putting a swastika on his user page in the past. Pure and simple libel. I have whitelisted just the home page to encourage discussion, but the entire site remains blacklisted. If you want to propose any changes to how the blacklist should be configured with respect to that site, this talk page is not the place to do it.

I'll add that we don't blacklist individual pages, and it would be a waste of everyone's time to propose that. It's just too trivial for the site operator to rename the offending page to something not blacklisted. We don't play whack-a-mole. We blacklist entire sites. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Was it answered? Perhaps to someone who is deeply familiar with the blacklisting process like an editor at Wikipedia. For instance, you say the site is blacklisted, but the home page is whitelisted. I don't understand how that is possible. The site includes the home page. It seems a contradiction. And whitelisted with respect to what? If the home page is whitelisted, it is able to be included among External Links, one would think. If not, then I'm not sure how it is 'whitelisted' in any sense. If one may not link to the [redacted blacklisted link] home page from any Wikipedia article on account of the site's being blacklisted, that would mean to me the home page is blacklisted as well by default. While I find the impatience behind your answer amusing, you haven't really answered the question in any way that is helpful.

I also note your insistence that the Gamaliel section of the McAdams page is 'pure and simple libel'. Again, I'm not so sure that's the case. An objective person would separate the intended effect from the legal definition. As I pointed out above, there is no need to appeal to libel as a category: Wikipedia already provides for removing external links that contain 'personal attacks'. Your other comment concerning the Talk page being 'not the place' for discussing the scope of the blacklisting is similarly unhelpful without providing *where* that avenue might be pursued. It seems obvious to me that the Prouty site except for the McAdams page is of direct relevance. A solution that saves the [redacted blacklisted link] material for the reader of this Wiki entry via external link without encouraging the type of personal attacks on the McAdams page is not 'trivial'. In fact, it would finish the matter as far as this Wiki entry page goes -- a disagreement that's already gone on for some time and will presumably go on for some time yet. Hochichi667 (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

As I said, the whole site is blacklisted. I "poked a hole" in the blacklist to allow a single page through, for the purpose of encouraging discussion here. If that doesn't make sense, I'm not sure how I can explain it more clearly. If you want to discuss blacklisting, the venue for that is MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist; it was an oversight on my part that I didn't reference that discussion page. As to libel, the community consensus on that has been made clear in past discussion that led to the blacklisting. If you want more clarity, you are welcome to ask an attorney. Wikipedia has attorneys who maintain user talk pages here, on which you are free to leave comments. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I've read over the page you linked, and was surprised to find that I agreed fully with two users: Infrogmation and -- Amatulic. I was quite surprised since you seem rather less friendly/objective on this Talk page than over there. Perhaps that's just a misinterpretation based on the limitations of online communication. As you note in the Spam-blacklist article: "The site wasn't blacklisted on the basis of any discussion on this page, but rather based on an ANI discussion (archived here). The blacklisting was apparently done in response to disruption caused by linking to an attack page at www.[redacted blacklisted link]/mcadams/"

So if I understand the past situation right, users Gamaliel and Threeafterthree get into some sort of online spat. Gamaliel is extra chummy with a certain Prof. John McAdams, who is considered a reliable authority on the JFK assassination though he has never written anything peer-reviewed on the subject. But he is a professor and, the saying goes, all the pro-conspiracy people are cranks, so he must be an authority. McAdams has his rather basic website included among the external links of as many Wiki entries related to the JFK assassination as possible. This gives him a better ranking among Google search results -- in fact, his relationship with Wikipedia is what is primarily responsible for his ranking on Google. Threeafterthree decides to retaliate against Gamaliel by pulling down McAdams' links, other edits done by Gamaliel, etc. This results in an indefinite block on Threeafterthree. But it also results in the [redacted blacklisted link] site being blacklisted on account of Threeafterthree's behavior.

This latter bit is somewhat baffling. Or I guess what I mean to say is, it's somewhat baffling that the whole [redacted blacklisted link] site is still blacklisted. Because here is your statement from the Spam-blacklist page: "I suggest not de-listing, but modifying the entry to blacklist only that attack page. I would do it myself, but I prefer the transparency of discussion this public page first, rather than back-room OTRS communications." This would indicate to me that "modifying the entry to blacklist only that attack page" is, in fact, possible. This is somewhat at odds with what you wrote above about Wikipedia not playing whack-a-mole. So which is it? Which Amatulic was right?

The comment by Infrogmation over on the Threeafterthree admin noticeboard discussion is the best thing I've read yet:

Personally, I think some of their recent actions bring credit to neither User:Threeafterthree nor User:Gamaliel. I think both have removed relevant and appropriate links (that appear to differ from their own personal viewpoint). Gamaliel, really, removing and blacklisting prouty dot org "the Fletcher Prouty Reference Site" from the article on Fletcher Prouty? How is Wikipedia supposed to aspire towards accuracy and NPOV when we can't link to the subject of the article's own words? That a notable person who is the subject of an article has "non mainstream" or "fringe" opinions does not by itself seem reason for wholesale removal and blacklisting of any links to their own words. (We have articles on people IMO a lot wackier than Prouty -- Lyndon LaRouche comes to mind -- and are able to have reasonably balanced articles on them without such drastic tactics.)

I can see, having been introduced now to the Spam-blacklist page, that there is the proper place to request that the [redacted blacklisted link] page be opened up for inclusion among external links. But this discussion has been informative. Hopefully, we can improve this Wiki entry to the benefit of all. Hochichi667 (talk) 12:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I wrote the statement about blacklisting only that one page before I realized the implications and standard practice. I stand by my later, correct, statement that we blacklist entire sites. If you think about it, blacklisting a single page does not prevent the sort of abuse that the blacklist is intended to prevent, because it is trivially simple for the site operator to rename the blacklisted page. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I can only hope to address the most serious of the many inaccuracies in your post. I am not "extra chummy" with Professor McAdams, nor am I engaged in an effort to boost his Google page rank, as your comment implies. You are well aware of this, since I've already posted here a link to Mcadams' attack on me on his blog. Alleging collusion between totally unrelated parties is a staple of conspiracy theories. (At one point Jim DiEugenio alleged that I certainly must know some accused conspirator in the Kennedy assassination because we both were Hispanic men who at one point had resided in Florida. I can't make this stuff up!) Another staple is the conspiracist's inability to grapple with clear, stated reasons for disagreement, instead concluding that a hidden, more sinister agenda must be present. This refusal to accept stated reasons for disagreement must be why you find our decisions baffling. I suggest you read that ANI discussion again, and more closely since your recounting of that discussion is full of significant errors of fact. Instead of focusing on an inaccurate dissent (I played no role in blacklisting anything, contrary to Infrogmation's strange assertion.) posted several days later, read the immediate, universal objection to attack pages such as Osanic's. Perhaps then you will no longer be baffled by Wikipedia's decision.

A final note: I have participated in this discussion out of courtesy to Amatulić and because of my commitment to this encyclopedia. However, I will not allow this discussion page to become another attack page aimed at myself. Any further inappropriate and/or demonstrably false allegations that have nothing to do with editing Wikipedia will be removed and redacted from this page's edit history and I will ask that you be blocked. Gamaliel (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I prefaced my comment above with "So if I understand the past situation right", so if I am blocked, this will only seem heavy-handed on your part. I have simply attempted to engage in a reasonable, objective discussion of circumstances surrounding this (relatively minor) Wiki bio entry. But rather than advance any theory as to motives -- which, incidentally, always involves a certain amount of speculation and is not automatically 'conspiracy theory' -- let me make some statements of fact that are unobjectionable. 1) You are attacked on a page located at [redacted blacklisted link]/mcadams. 2) You have spent a considerable amount of time presenting a laundry list of reasons on this Talk page why the [redacted blacklisted link] page should not be included among external links. 3) That laundry list is unnecessary since the McAdams page is an attack page and already excluded by Wikipedia guidelines. Now, all the reasons you have assembled above I have picked apart, and in total create a situation of 'the lady doth protest too much'. Whether you were ever favorably predisposed to McAdams ("chummy" is simply a bit of vernacular) -- and this isn't unknown on Wikipedia -- is secondary to the question of whether you are at all objective when it comes to this particular Wiki entry. I submit you are not. Proof of this is that you continue to suggest I am a conspiracy theorist and associate my criticisms with 'conspiracy theory'. Not only is this not true, it shows that you cannot separate the issue of your war with the conspiracy theorists from this Prouty Wiki bio entry. There is a double-standard when you can impugn my motives and similarly speculate ('he must be a conspiracy theorist') but your own motives are above reproach. I submit you should have no power to edit this page since you are not a disinterested party, far less block users when they wonder aloud why you take the publicly-stated position you do.

I am amazed personally that I have to point out that Prouty had a long, distinguished career that had nothing to do with 'conspiracy theory'. Here's a counter-example: John Kerry recently stated to the press that he thought there was more to Oswald than was ever discovered, and that perhaps others were involved in turning Oswald into a shooter. Should John Kerry's page now be dominated by questions of conspiracy theory? I would think not. And if Kerry's page becomes a sort of battleground between Wikipedia editors (as this page was between Gamaliel and Threeafterthree) do others automatically have to be caught in the crossfire? I came to this page more or less by accident, hoping simply to improve it. But as with many of the publicly-voiced criticisms of Wikipedia recently, it seems more trouble than it's worth. But perhaps that is the goal? Or would that be another 'conspiracy theory'? Hochichi667 (talk) 10:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

removed per WP:SPSBLP

I removed a citation to PRA because this is a biography of living persons and PRA is a self-published source. 55 Gators (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Prouty is deceased and the publisher of the source is Political Research Associates. Gamaliel (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the source meets Wikipedia's reliable source criteria, however, I think it's probably better to use a link directly from PRA: http://www.publiceye.org/rightwoo/rwooz9.html. Location (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll swap out the links. Gamaliel (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Prouty may be deceased, but I think that regardless it is better to avoid the use of advocacy groups as sources. Using an advocacy site as a source is the equivalent of using opinion pieces from newspapers -- not objective. 55 Gators (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I think in-text attribution would be required if PRA were stating an opinion, however, the citation seems to be used for a statement of fact: "Prouty's The Secret Team was recently republished by the Institute for Historical Review (IHR)."[2]. You could take this to WP:RSN, but I don't think there would be any objections to it in this context. Location (talk) 18:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Malicious insinuations

I've made a couple edits to writing which is clearly meant to discredit Prouty. I put that he was "hired by" Scientology as opposed to "worked for" as the latter makes it sound like he was a Scientologist. That's ridiculous. I also removed the "evolution and Heisenberg are propaganda schemes" tidbit. This inclusion provides zero context and is incredibly misleading. Reading the page that it comes from in his book, he argues that these ideas have been misinterpreted and used by "power elites" to justify their worldview. This is completely different from the notion that Prouty did not accept these scientific theories as fact. If someone would like to provide ample context for this, that's great. Otherwise I have taken it out because it is disingenuous. Rollo44 (talk) 08:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The New Yorker citation states: "In the eighties, Prouty worked as a consultant for Scientology." I do not object to the changes, however, to state that this is a "malicious insinuation", "disingenuous", or that it is "clearly meant to discredit Prouty" puts you in the position as if you know what was in the mind of another editor... and you don't. - Location (talk) 22:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

"Fringe" reference removed from the article

The following reference had been added to this article back in September 2019, with the following diff.

Two days ago it was removed with this diff, which I undid yesterday with this diff.

It was again removed now with this diff.

I just wanted to leave a record here for the history of this reference. This is a quite detailed review of a book that was written by the author who is the subject of this page. Apparently, the author's own books, and especially this one, are sometimes qualified as "fringe views" by some so-called "mainstream" reports. Which is fine. The author's own views can be qualified by some reports as "fringe views." No problem here.

But, on the author's own page/article, a review of his book is removed because it is deemed a "fringe review?" An author can be considered as "fringe" by some reports. But a review of the author's alleged "fringe" views is then removed as "fringe" itself? This does not make sense. If an author's views are deemed "fringe", than certainly any reviews of his views will have to be fringe themselves by logical necessity. But on the author's own fringe page/article, a review of one of his fringe books cannot be removed on the excuse that it is fringe. Fringe authors and articles can be a reliable source for their own fringe views and ideas according to Wikipedia policies, it seems to me. On these grounds I am recording and protesting here this unwarranted removal of a reliable source for the author's own fringe views. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 22:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The review (listed within the bibliography under "Books", rather than as further reading) is from the LaRouche movement and therefore does not represent a reliable, mainstream viewpoint on Prouty's work. I am unsure whether the recomendations in the "Further reading" section constitute reliable, mainstream assessments. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I re-added the review in the "Further reading" section. warshy ^(¥¥) 14:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

You can have a serious scholarly or journalistic examination of fringe views, and those sources would not be fringe. Gamaliel (talk) 11:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Gamaliel. I've looked on Google Scholar and JStor and there appears to be a fair few non-fringe assessments of Prouty and I'd argue we should delete all the current further reading links and introduce new more serious ones. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)