Talk:Russell Tribunal/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Advocate's Statement

As I'm sure some folks know, I'm advocating for Nobs and his views on this article. Nobs has requested through me that we get some views from some outside users and their views on this article and see what some other folks think about it. From the informal discussion I have solicited on IRC, most of those folks are requesting that most of the discussion be archived as it is a little hard to follow in points. (The discussion is now archived and broken up appropriately in the archive.)

I am more than happy to help get this article to consensus, but as such, I have what I'd like to call 'Terms of Moderation'. I prefer not to continue helping with an article unless I can get everyone on the same page with some general terms - this comes after my help with some other advocacy cases that pretty much disintegrated into glorified edit wars (specifically Javier Solana). If everyone "involved" could to to User_talk:Kc9cqj/Russell Tribunal, review the terms and certify them, I'm more than happy to participate in the process as an outside party. This is not an official mediation nor an arbitration; this is a step that I use designed to encourage discussion only and get both sides into the right perspective. Willmcw brings up a good point in that since I have already represented myself in the debate as nobs' advocate, it would be improper of me to request terms. I'm rewording the page, please still follow the same links. KC9CQJ 00:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is anyone opposed to me creating an archive of the comments here? KC9CQJ 05:54, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you want anyone to notice your comments you might want to post them at the bottom of the page. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:56, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks-W.

Archiving seems like a good idea. -Willmcw 06:18, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

I endorse the archived text as substantially accurate without comment on the confusion Anonymous user created with reversions; as I understand, the preceeeding discussion was essentially between 3 users with a fourth user, Mikkalai adding independent corroboration of the Harper & Row translation. nobs

KC9CQJ, the archive you generated is fine -- and the minor reformatting you did in the interest of clarity has not altered the content. Anonymous user nobs, please try to refrain from the subtle slights against editors when you comment. As a point of clarification, the only revert performed on this page during the past 30 days was by anonymous user nobs at 17:20, 17 April, 2005, wherein he attempted to revert away a full paragraph of comments by -Rob (myself) without explanation. [1] -Rob 19:03, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous User again attempts to insert confusion with above posting (19:03, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC))into discussion with personal referances aside from the issue under discussion. Let me restate, I beleive there are only three contibutors to this discussion and a translator. One contributor I beleive has flatly stated he really knows little about the article contents.nobs

Whoa, that's a little off-base, there. That, and you're just as accountable for 'inserting confusion with personal references'. Why don't we get away from explaining who is responsible for what and stick to the issues?

On a second note, as a question to -Rob, why doesn't this article look more like Winter Soldier Investigation? KC9CQJ 20:57, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If I understand your question correctly, I believe the answer is: because the WSI article received a significantly higher amount of editor attention and contribution than the Russell Tribunal article. Both are products of war-time debate and fueled by recent political discussions, but the WSI discussions had more "legs" because, in my opinion, the Democratic Presidential candidate (Kerry) had cursory involvement with WSI, and not with the Russell Tribunal. -Rob 03:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Request for comment

Actual wording of the Request for Comment: Should contemporary views and/or possible criticism of the Tribunal, including some from a Russian author, be permitted within the article? [2]

• Contemporary views and criticisms are always welcome in any Wiki-article, providing they are germane to the subject of that article, and presented in an NPOV manner. The nationality of the source is irrelevant. This applies to the Russell Tribunal article as well. You will find these concepts more succinctly detailed in the various Wikipedia guidelines to editing. -Rob 05:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• With specific regard to the insertion of certain footnotes (or external links to those footnotes) from the Gulag Archipelago manuscripts into the Russell Tribunal article, I believe that issue to be already settled. They do not qualify as 'criticism,' and as mere rhetorical comments, they do not qualify as germane to the Russell Tribunal subject. There appears to be a concensus among the recent contributors as well. From Willmcw, In my opinion, the link to excerpts (possibly copyvios) of The Gulag Archipelago does not add anything useful to this article. -Willmcw 19:54, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC) From KC9CQJ, I think the proper thing to do in light of all of this information is to place nobs' proposed verbage within the Gulag Archipelago article, the basic gist of it being that Solz criticized Western philosophers who were quick to point the fingers at America but keep their mouths shut about the Soviet Union and leave it at that. KC9CQJ 10:35, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC). From Mikkalai, It seems that these phrases show the Solzh's attitude not to Tribunal, but rather to Russel... Mikkalai 03:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) The suggestion was made that anonymous user Nobs find a more suitable home for these footnotes in either the Gulag Archipelago or the Bertrand Russell articles -- a suggestion he appears to be pursuing. These are my comments to the official request. -Rob 05:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mikkalai actually said: "I looked into the source and unfortunately have to admit that my reading (based on English text) was totally wrong. A lesson for future not to speak out of memory. The original text goes as follows: "Эй, "Трибунал Военных Преступлений" Бертрана Рассела! Что же вы, что ж вы материальчик не берете?! Аль вам не подходит?". And the translation is basically correct. Indeed, Solzhenitsyn addresses directly to the Tribunal. The phrasing is rather teasing, jeering, rather than deriding, angry or annoyed. (I am not good at translating the terms of emotion.) The remark is out of context. I will try to find the overall attitude of the author to the Tribunal. Mikkalai 03:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In fact, in Vol. 3 Ch. 13. He makes a similar note once more: "Эй, "Трибунал Военных Преступлений" Бертрана Рассела и Жана Поля Сартра! Эй, философы! Матерьял-то какой! Отчего не заседаете? Не слышат..." "Hey, “War Crimes Tribunal” of Bertrand Russell and Jean-Paul Sartre! Hey, philosophers! See what a material is here! Why aren't you in session? They probably don't hear...." Looking for more...Mikkalai 03:30, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)" nobs

Incorrect, anonymous Nobs. Mikkalai did indeed say, It seems that these phrases show the Solzh's attitude not to Tribunal, but rather to Russel... Mikkalai 03:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) It is customary to use an editors most recent comments, especially when said comments contradict each other. You'll find the timestamps useful in this regard. -Rob 14:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contemporaneous means "at the same time", i.e as the Tribunal, not to be confused with "contemporary", meaning "now". nobs

Incorrect again, anonymous Nobs. From Webster's Unabridged Dictionary (2002), contemporary -adj; 1) existing, occurring or living at the same time; belonging to the same time. The word 'contemporary' can also be used to mean "at present" or "modern," but those are less frequent usages, so KC9CQJ used the word properly. I hope that alleviates some of your confusion. Not that it makes a difference -- both modern and contemporary criticisms can be valid contributions to wiki-articles. -Rob 14:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nobs believes that the entire Tribunal page needs to be reviewed, including external links. Nobs' primary intent is to make all contemporaneous information for the Russell Tribunal to be made available to the reader to that they may draw their own conclusions. We would like for other users to read and comment on the article, including the archive thread. Please indent and sign your responses accordingly to maintain readability.

Name of the tribunal

copied from user talk:Willmcw

Willmc:Here are three proposals for an edit to your recent contribution on the Tribunal page:

(1) ...formally calling itself International War Crimes Tribunal...

(2) International War Crimes Tribunal

(3) The group called itself Intertnational War Crimes Tribunal though it was unsanctioned by any government and had no prosecutorial power...

I'd like to get a consensus rather than an edit war; I may be able to research some of the purported sources into my timetable over the coming months and will of course, always work to achieve a general concensus of meaning. Thx. nobs

Nobs, your #1 seems fine. #2 is weird, since it is not the Nuremburg tribunal. #3 is fine too, though perhaps heavy-handed and I thought that its status was already clear. Anyway, I just added it because the formal name ought to be in there somehow. Cheers, -Willmcw 19:56, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Miscellaneous Questions

May I direct your attention to the quote from Stokely Carmichael and complete transcript from Instructional Resource Center, University of Washington Department of Communications; does this qualify as a "notable personage", or "winner(s) of...awards of recognition in humanitarian and social fields"? nobs

He has a wiki-article about him? Sounds notable to me. Your point is...? -Rob 03:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Should I take your silence as an indication that you had no point to make with the above comment? -Rob 09:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Its not for me to comment or make judgement; it's my job to make available to the serious student of history the fact that Stokely Carmichael referred to the Secretary of Defense as "that honky McNamara" at time when he was sitting as a Judge over the United States Army as listed in item 2, or perhaps examine his judicial temperment by reading the entire transcript. Being new to wiki I can only imagine what judgement the wikigods would bring upon a User who spoke about another user that way.nobs

It's not for you to comment or make judgement, yet you go on to do just that? Heh, that's an interesting disclaimer. This may come as news to you, but McNamara was indeed a honky. All of the white people referred to 42 times in that speech as honkies were indeed just that. But any serious student of history would already know that. As for Charmichael ever being a judge, it appears you may be experiencing source confusion again. Charmical never sat on the bench of any judiciary system, as far as I am aware - but he was Chairman of the Student Nonviolent Committee. You lost me with your references to "wikigods" and speaking "that way." -Rob 02:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Carmichaels racist intonations I leave others to judge. Wiki may say honky doesn't have the same implication other words have but I'm sure other people may dispute that. Stokley Carmichael as I remember him and the transcript suggests is more of a stand up comedian. And to think history remembers him as an American participant in an International War Crimes Iribunal like Robert Jackson. I guess this is why history is so fascinating.Nobs 04:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Charmichaels racist intonations? Care to cite some of them? Perhaps you meant accusations of racism, which he intones repeatedly in the speech you cite. While you are at it, can you pinpoint exactly what in that transcript suggests to you that Charmichael is a stand-up comedian? Your response to these two questions should prove quite revealing. -Rob 17:56, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can see you don't intend to answer these two questions. Your silence is answer enough for me. I'll be copying your comments to the more appropriate Carmichael article talk page for further discussion. -Rob 13:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we're getting to the point, the Tribunal was not a Tribunal at all. Imagine one sitting in judgement--a notable person of humanitarian & social causes-- making racial epitaphs toward the accused.Nobs 04:56, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Tribunal was a tribunal by all standard definitions of the word. You still have yet to cite a source that proves your assertion that Charmichael was a Judge (I don't see that word anywhere in the Tribunal article, or the transcript you provided). You appear to still deny that the term 'Honky' was merely a desparaging slang term that means "white person." You use terms like "racial epitaphs" (instead of racial epithets?) and "racist intonations" (instead of accusations of racism?) when they are clearly nonsensical. You claim Vladimir Dedijer isn't listed in the wiki-article (he is indeed), then you claim he's listed twice in the article (nope, just once). I'm starting to see a trend here. My first impulse is to assume you might have some difficulties in reading comprehension and thought expression, or perhaps english is not your native language. If the latter, I will most certainly extend to you infinite patience while we decipher what it is you are trying to communicate. If it is the former, I would suggest enlisting the aid of an Advocate to help you formulate and present your thoughts in a more lucid and cogent (and ultimately, more productive) manner. I'm seeing paragraph after paragraph of chatter, with no discernible improvement to the article being generated. -Rob 17:56, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While the Tribunal was tribunal by all standard definitions of the word, are your propounding the arguement that "tribunal members" asked to render a verdict of yah or nay as regards the "questions" could include personages who lack judicial temperment? In other words a notable personage might not be qualified to preside over a traffic court but was qualified to render a verdict or decision in this matter. Nobs 17:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No. -Rob 13:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, a question relating to partisan idiocy, would you object to some refernce being highlighted the Tribunal occurred in 1967, during the Administration of Lyndon Johnson? Nobs 17:12, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I tend to object to anything that is listed as "objectionable" under the Wikipedia guidelines to editing. I hope that helps. -Rob

Regarding the qualifications of Edgar Lederer: I beleive his history working inside the Soviet Union from 1935-37 in the "Institiute of Vitamins" in Leningrad may perhaps lay the foundation for his expertise in the fields of biological warfare and chemical warfare, but the period of 1940-1944 in the chemical plant, or "perfumery" as he calls, during the Nazi collaborationist Vichy regime seems obscure; was he infact drawing a salary from the state at this time? Nobs 01:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nifty. -Rob 13:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What is curious is Edgar Lederer's absence of biographical information in the primary sources one would seek such information {a situation not without precedent). Nobs 16:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From Who's Who in France Dictionnaire biographique 1967-1968: LEDERER (Edgar)...(1940-1946) (labratorie de chimie biologique de la faculte des sciences de Lyon)...

seems our friend M. Lederer was indeed employed by the Vichy collaborationist regime Nobs 21:54, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sources

I stand corrected on Lederer, the sourcing confused me. Vladimir Dedijer is not listed in the article; also, the sourcing distinguishes between Reporters and witnesses; perhaps this is a reliable distinction? nobs

• I stand corrected on Lederer, the sourcing confused me. Your implied apology is accepted.
• Vladimir Dedijer is not listed in the article; Yes he is.
• the sourcing distinguishes between Reporters and witnesses; perhaps this is a reliable distinction? There were reporters there. There were witnesses there. In addition to the panelists. Can you please elaborate on what you are asking here? -Rob 02:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are correct again, Vladimir Dedijer he is indeed listed twice. I appreciate your patience, I am merely trying to establish the the varacity of whether this is indeed a valid historical document. It appears second hand information and is somewhat confusing, not being a contemporaneous transcript. That is what I am trying to establish. It may actually be, but it is hard to establish on its face because it appears to be a reprint of sorts. I am approaching it with no prejudice, and doing a careful reading, so I appreciate your patience. (It appears Russell & Sartre may not have been in attendence beyond oppening sessions, not being listed as "members").

Dedijer is listed once, not twice. (I assume you are still referring to the Russell Tribunal wiki-article.) The wiki-article is not an historical document. All wiki-articles are "second-hand information" as original research is discouraged. It is indeed a product of contemporaneous transcripts. Russell was not present at any of the proceedings, being prevented from attending by age-related illness. -Rob 18:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vladimir Dedijer is listed at the top of the Vietnaese-American document 3rd after the names of Russell and Sartre as "President", then again slightly lower on the same page under "members", a slight understandable difference between the wiki and source documents. Nothing to fret about. Nobs 02:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll reiterate just one more time for you: Dedijer is listed just once, not twice. This applies to the wiki-article as well as the source (check it yourself, page 17). They are identicle. As to whatever blemishes you find in third-party sources of information, rest assured they have not found their way into the present article. -Rob 13:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As to "Reporters and witnessess". One would assume judiciously a fair "tribunal" would accept only witness testimony, however the page of "participants" as I call them draws a distinction between "Reporters" and "witnesses". Is this to say the Tribunal was willing to accept third hand information?, i.e. third hand information from some seperate special class, paid celebrities. To take the arguement to the extreme, the distinction raises the question of whether participants were merely "press hounds" as the old term suggests. Journalists today are argueing for some right of confidentiality regarding sources, however here they are not named as witnesses, in other words, what material facts can they bring other than what someone told them. Such evidence is impermissible hearsay. I go to the larger point though, why are they treated as a special class of giving 'testimony' if they are not witnessess? I draw no conclusions yet. Nobs 04:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just so we are on the same page, please cite what reference you are using to obtain your list of "reporters" and "witnesses." Just an FYI, the Nuremberg statutes allowed a considerable amount of hearsay as admissable - something that would not be allowed in any court in the United States, for instance. -Rob 18:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reporters and witnesses, in the order appearing in this book, incidentally the "Tribunal members" does not agree with the wiki, so wiki article is at least a third generation "copy" of "this book"; I will assume in good faith this Vietnamese-American.org reproduction is essentially the same as the original source which can be found in the history tab.Nobs 19:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The list of panel members you cited and the wiki-article do indeed agree, although I do note that previous editors have fiddled with some of the qualifications listed after some of the names. That is what wiki-editors do, and it doesn't make the information any less accurate. You need not assume in good faith that the Vietnamese-American.org information is accurate. You can find virtually identical sources all over the internet, such as at this Louisville.EDU site. But if you wish to be really sure, do what I do and ignore all of those reproductions and go to more direct sources. Pick up and read through a copy of "Against the Crime of Silence" which contains the original transcripts, or better still, physically view the mounds of information provided to the Tribunal, much of which is stored here. -Rob 21:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As an aside, perhaps you may wish to collaborate on an Edgar Lederer page which may be more relevent to the current issue of dual use technolgy, seeing he evidently worked in a "perfumery" in the Soviet Union in the 1930's and later was called as an expert witness in chemical weapons Nobs 19:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I must pass on that offer for now, and admit my lack of knowledge on technologies used in dueling. -Rob 21:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"dual use technolgy" is an article which needs to be written, seeing for example Donald Rumsfeld, as head of a pharmacuetical firm in the earlier 1980's, met with Saddam Hussein to transfer technology which had a dual use. Lederer likewise was employed at the Soviet "Ministry of vitamins" in Leningrad, which may extend to an expertise in bio-chem dual use technology. Point is to show the historical roots of modern issues and discussions.

Frankly, I most probably will not dispute the evidence given in testimony etc, cause much of those things actually happened. My problem is with process, qualifications of "members", publicity, objectives etc. In fact, the "Tribunal" could have merely presented its findings without the Jenny Jones TV show aspect as presented in the article like voting on a resolution in an academic debate. There just seems something undignified about thte whole process, and as I originally hoped, the Solzhenitsyn reference might have brought some dignity to article, as well as pointed to a disagreement between two giants of the 20th century: Russell & Solzhenitsyn.

Another aside, I may have been to hard on the profession of journalism so let me insert this eyewitness testimony from a German journalist, Uwe Siemon-Netto:

"Dangling from the trees and poles in the village square were the village chief, his wife, and their twelve children, the males, including a baby, with their genitals cut off and stuffed into their mouths, the females with their breasts cut off. The Vietcong had ordered everyone in the village to witness the execution. They started with the baby and then slowly worked their way up to the elder children, to the wife, and finally to the chief himself. ... It was all done very coolly, as much an act of war as firing an anti-aircraft gun. This was no isolated case. It became routine .... Because it became routine to us, we didn't report it over and over again. We reported the unusual, like My Lai." Nobs 22:01, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the 2 almost completely irrelevant paragraphs just above: My knowledge of the technology used in dueling extends to pistols at 30 paces, and goes no farther; I see no "disagreement between two giants" to which you refer; good ol' Siemon-Netto is perhaps one of my favorite paralogists. You are still avoiding the several questions asked of you above? -Rob 07:26, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I beleive any fairminded rational reader can see the Russell Tribunal page for what it is, if they want to waste the time to do so, despite the fact no qualified criticism is allowed of this sacred cow. Being a newbie it's been a learning experience and you've certainly been helpful. Unfortuneately I got other projects that need my attention so we'll just leave this to another day. Nobs 16:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you - any fair-minded, rational reader can indeed see the page for what it is. This is what most wikipedia editors strive for. Don't be hard on yourself for being a newbie; we all were at one time. I'm glad I could be of help. If I've taught you anything, I hope it's that when you say things like "Its not for me to comment or make judgement" out of one side of your mouth, while making comments and judgements ("Parody? Comedian? Sacred Cow?") out the other side of your mouth -- someone is going to call you on your bullshit. Also, if you are going to lament the lack of "qualified criticism," then you'd better be prepared to actually offer some. And finally, there are no "wikigods." -Rob 13:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note on the above Personal References: There is a difference between (1) a judgement (2) analysis (3) opinion. I believe in this entire discussion I have always maintained a seperation between all, and have never offerred any personal points of view unless requested to do so. As fo Stokely Carmicheal I beleive I was being generous after rereading the transcripts, as does very much sound like a Nite at the Improv, and kind when one considers he was being accused of treason in 1967.

Somwhere I read that wiki had enough technical contributors and now it is being expanded into the humanities; perhaps technical contributors when engaging in debate and discussion of matters outside their fields need to learn some of the basics of discourse.Nobs 02:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Request for comment

Actual wording of the Request for Comment: Should contemporary views and/or possible criticism of the Tribunal, including some from a Russian author, be permitted within the article? [3]

nobs notes: "should read "contemporaneous" not "contempory", meaning a Nobel Laureate's work written "at the same time of the Tribunal", not modern comments written after the fact. Nobs 17:10, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Nobs believes that the entire Tribunal page needs to be reviewed, including external links. Nobs' primary intent is to make all contemporaneous information for the Russell Tribunal to be made available to the reader to that they may draw their own conclusions. We would like for other users to read and comment on the article, including the archive thread. Please indent and sign your responses accordingly to maintain readability.

I beleive any fairminded rational reader can see the Russell Tribunal page for what it is, if they want to waste the time to do so, despite the fact no qualified criticism is allowed of this sacred cow. Being a newbie it's been a learning experience and you've certainly been helpful. Unfortuneately I got other projects that need my attention so we'll just leave this to another day. Nobs 16:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The previous two weeks of discussion have been archived. In addition, I've copied a portion of this page to Talk:Stokely Carmichael for further discussion at a more appropriate location. I've also left a copy of KC9CQJ's Advocate Statement and Request for Comment above, since this article is still listed at RfC -- Perhaps others might still opt to participate here. Nobs has indicated he has 'other projects' to which he must attend, and no productive discourse has been held here in over a week. All of my points of discussion have been addressed, and any further comments appear to be no more than petty and irrelevant banter, so I will be withdrawing from this discussion as well. -Rob 16:17, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

For the record: being new to wiki, my failure to respond to the above user, assuming he does not revert signatures for a third time, when he made what some may construe as a accusation against myself in archive, in no way suggest I agree with said user or accussation. Nobs 19:54, 1 May 2005 (UTC)