Talk:Russell Tribunal/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.   -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?
 * 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: "&#1069;&#1081;, "&#1058;&#1088;&#1080;&#1073;&#1091;&#1085;&#1072;&#1083; &#1042;&#1086;&#1077;&#1085;&#1085;&#1099;&#1093; &#1055;&#1088;&#1077;&#1089;&#1090;&#1091;&#1087;&#1083;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1081;" &#1041;&#1077;&#1088;&#1090;&#1088;&#1072;&#1085;&#1072; &#1056;&#1072;&#1089;&#1089;&#1077;&#1083;&#1072;! &#1063;&#1090;&#1086; &#1078;&#1077; &#1074;&#1099;, &#1095;&#1090;&#1086; &#1078; &#1074;&#1099; &#1084;&#1072;&#1090;&#1077;&#1088;&#1080;&#1072;&#1083;&#1100;&#1095;&#1080;&#1082; &#1085;&#1077; &#1073;&#1077;&#1088;&#1077;&#1090;&#1077;?! &#1040;&#1083;&#1100; &#1074;&#1072;&#1084; &#1085;&#1077; &#1087;&#1086;&#1076;&#1093;&#1086;&#1076;&#1080;&#1090;?". 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: "&#1069;&#1081;, "&#1058;&#1088;&#1080;&#1073;&#1091;&#1085;&#1072;&#1083; &#1042;&#1086;&#1077;&#1085;&#1085;&#1099;&#1093; &#1055;&#1088;&#1077;&#1089;&#1090;&#1091;&#1087;&#1083;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1081;" &#1041;&#1077;&#1088;&#1090;&#1088;&#1072;&#1085;&#1072; &#1056;&#1072;&#1089;&#1089;&#1077;&#1083;&#1072; &#1080; &#1046;&#1072;&#1085;&#1072; &#1055;&#1086;&#1083;&#1103; &#1057;&#1072;&#1088;&#1090;&#1088;&#1072;! &#1069;&#1081;, &#1092;&#1080;&#1083;&#1086;&#1089;&#1086;&#1092;&#1099;! &#1052;&#1072;&#1090;&#1077;&#1088;&#1100;&#1103;&#1083;-&#1090;&#1086; &#1082;&#1072;&#1082;&#1086;&#1081;! &#1054;&#1090;&#1095;&#1077;&#1075;&#1086; &#1085;&#1077; &#1079;&#1072;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;&#1077;&#1090;&#1077;? &#1053;&#1077; &#1089;&#1083;&#1099;&#1096;&#1072;&#1090;..." "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)

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?
 * 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)