User talk:Docbrosk1941

Criticism of Israel has nothing to do with antisemitism. The charge is used to deflect criticism of Israel, and has no parallel with any other people or country. In my case, perhaps because I have some Jewish ancestry, it is especially unfounded, and if there are any conservatives who have used it in reference to me, they are very well hidden. That the ADL says something does not make it true, especially given the ADL's history.

Alan Sabrosky
I hardly know where to begin - there are so m,any errors of commission and omission that it would be simpler just to delete the entry and start over. For instance - and you can use my entry in "Who's Who in the East" (23rd edition, 1993) for preliminary verification - Iuse my full name "Alan Ned Sabrosky" because omitting the middle name causes most search engines to miss my academic & government work. I am not a retired Marine officer - I served 10 years including 2 tours in Vietnam as a sergeant. I was at the Army War College as Director of Studies in the Strategic Studies Institute, but I never oversaw student reports - that happened ion the War College proper. The academic publications are partly correct, except for the "prisoners of war" - remark that was the title of a book published in the early 1990s and dealt with the propensity of states to go to war and not POWs, which simply showed that whoever did this hatchet job never opened the cover of the book. And that was only in the 1970s, missing almost all of my subsequent work.

I don't simply have "an advanced degree from the University of Michigan, I have A.M. degrees in History (1971) and Political Science (1972) and a Ph.D in Political Science (1976), as well as being a graduate of the US Army War College (1986). My academic appointments inclued the US Military Academy, Middlebury College, Catholic University, the University of Pennsylvania, Georgetown university and the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). I was at the Foreign Policy Research Institute as indicated and finished with a very bad year there, followed by a slot as Senior Fellow at the Ce ter for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). And that led to the Strategic Studies Institute appointment concurrent with the General of the Army Douglas MacArthur Chair of Research for more than five years, ending with a Superior Civilian Award for exemplary work as "manager, mentor and analyst."

And so on. Do you really want me to do a line-by-line suggested editing with sources? Or should I ask any one of several editors who know my work to edit the piece? Or since the Hasbara clowns who did this travesty will just edit it again, do you want to kill it and wait for me to die before re-inserting it? After then they probably won't care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docbrosk1941 (talk • contribs)

Much of the discussion about me seems to focus on Anti-Semitism. I wrote an article on the subject, "The Complicated Faces of Anti-Semitism," https://www.countercurrents.org/sabrosky200310.htm. Reading it might give people a better idea of where I stand. More specifically (having read the comments), it might be worth noting that "Veterans Today" is hardly an antisemitic website, given the number of Israelis and Jews who write for it. It is anti-Zionist (as am I), which Israel's advocates assert is the same thing - which is nonsense, can one imagine (e.g.) equating a condemnation of British imperialism with a prejudice against the British people? And besides, the Middle East constitutes a very small part of the subject matter in "Veterans Today" anyway. Same with the blog called "Mondoweiss." It is hardly pro-Palestinian, like VT it is more anti-Zionist, but looks at many more issues - and it is worth noting that the three guys running "Mondoweiss" are all American Jews.

The real problem that Israel and its supporters face is that it - and they - cannot afford an open disclosure of what Israel is and does. Many people in other countries realize this. South Africa today, for instance, has the most active BDS movement in the world and a government openly critical of Israel as an apartheid state - and whatever South Africa's other failings, it knows apartheid when it sees it. Americans don't see. hear or read about this pn TV or in the press. Look at the ownership and you'll understand why. I do point out these things, plus the fact that dual Israeli citizens litter the US government, and that the official US government case foe 9/11 is a bad joke - how (e.g.) could someone who could not fly a single-engine propeller Cessna fly a Boeing 757 into the Pentagon?? Pointing out these things gets one named as a "conspiracy theorist" (in an attempt to belittle their arguments) and an Anti_semite (even if one has some Jewish ancestry, as I do), but as a Danish chemical engineer said on Danish TV, there is only one conspiracy theory out there, and that is the one put out by the US Government. 'Nuff said. Docbrosk1941 (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

A belated welcome
Hi: After seeing your entry at the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard, I've repeated your pings of the two editors on the article talk page using the templates, because I'm not sure they will have seen the material you placed there. I see nobody ever gave you one of these templates with links to policies and guidelines, etc., so I thought it couldn't hurt to do so now. I've also had an admin put the notice at the top of the article to indicate that it has been nominated for deletion, and I suggest you consider opining there, either "delete" or "keep", Articles for deletion/Alan Sabrosky. Sources—preferably third-party, such as news articles, rather than things like actual graduation lists—will be an important factor in having it kept, if that's what you want. I hope some of this is helpful. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Docbrosk1941. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Alan Sabrosky, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the request edit template);
 * disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 12:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, I do not know who any of the editors are, either the ones who are discussing whether to keep/revise/delete this page, other than thanking one for the courtesy of welcoming me to Wikipedia. Several of my FB friends apparently contributed to a revision (since reverted), but i have never met or even spoken with any of them, and of course no money is involved. Nor do I have ongoing relations with any of the institutions at which I taught or was affiliated. Hope this clarifies things. Docbrosk1941 (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

AfD closed; discussion about rewrite continues
Hi: The Articles for deletion discussion was closed as "no consensus", which means the Alan Sabrosky article is kept, but there is no prejudice against its being renominated fairly soon, since the closer felt the outcome was not conclusive. There is now discussion of the rewrite on the article talk page, with one editor dissatisfied about the section on the controvsial writings. You may want to join in; I apologize for not having notified you earlier in the day. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Whatever eventually happens, Yngvadottir, I want to thank you in particular for taking the time to do the reqrite and to take a thoroughly professional approach to the article. Your rewrite strikes me as eminently fair. Were I to add anything, it would be a sentence at the very end - something to the effect that "Sabrosky himself (having some Jewish heritage) dismisses the whole Antisemitism gambit as simply an effort used often and widely to suppress criticism of Israel," or something of that sort. And I wrote an article on the subject, "The Complicated Faces of Anti-Semitism," https://www.countercurrents.org/sabrosky200310.htm.

And that cuts to the chase. Since I was asked to weigh in, let me do so. First, simply naming a country as an agent of influence or the architect of some catastrophe does not constitute a condemnation of a people, except allegedly in the case of Israel and then only since the late 1970s, when it and its advocates here defined "The New Antisemitism" as any criticism of Israel or any Israeli policy or action. Period. And that is utter nonsense. Even dealing with the residue of Nazi Germany, the victorious powers talked about "de-Nazification" and not the eradication of the German people. That this variant of "Anti-Semitism" has come to be so widely accepted is a tribute to the effectiveness of the Jewish lobby in the US and elsewhere - in the US, it is in "The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations" (it has its own website, note the nearly fifty major organizations on it). In 1956, President Eisenhower ordered Israel (plus Britain and France) to stop attacking Egypt and to withdraw - a US president doing that today (if one dared) would be assailed left, right and center.

More specifically (having read the comments), it might be worth noting that "Veterans Today" is hardly an antisemitic website, given the number of Israelis and Jews who write for it. It is anti-Zionist (as am I), which Israel's advocates assert is the same thing - which is nonsense, can one imagine (e.g.) equating a condemnation of British imperialism with a prejudice against the British people? And besides, the Middle East constitutes a very small part of the subject matter in "Veterans Today" anyway. Same with the blog called "Mondoweiss." It is hardly pro-Palestinian, like VT it is more anti-Zionist, but looks at many more issues - and it is worth noting that the three guys running "Mondoweiss" are all American Jews.

The real problem that Israel and its supporters face is that it - and they - cannot afford an open disclosure of what Israel is and does. Many people in other countries realize this. South Africa today, for instance, has the most active BDS movement in the world and a government openly critical of Israel as an apartheid state - and whatever South Africa's other failings, it knows apartheid when it sees it. Americans don't see. hear or read about this pn TV or in the press. Look at the ownership and you'll understand why. I do point out these things, plus the fact that dual Israeli citizens litter the US government, and that the official US government case foe 9/11 is a bad joke - how (e.g.) could someone who could not fly a single-engine propeller Cessna fly a Boeing 757 into the Pentagon?? Pointing out these things gets one named as a "conspiracy theorist" (in an attempt to belittle their arguments), but as a Danish chemical engineer said on Danish TV, there is only one conspiracy theory out there, and that is the one put out by the US Government.

More than enough said. Sorry for being long-winded, but I would like to get this sorted out. I hope the re-write (with my middle name included!) gets cleared, but if not, just kill the old one and be done with it. And I would be happy to talk about this with one or all - maybe Skype or Hangouts or Zoom or...? Docbrosk1941 (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * This will have to be a fast response, I'm afraid; I have to get ready for work. I would advise you to go to the talk page of the article and make the point there about the Veterans Today website and any others about the sourcing of the rewrite. At one point you hadn't yet read it; I take it you now have? However, since this is an encyclopedia, talking about actual issues in foreign policy is supposed to be off-limits. It's an odd environment, in some ways reminiscent of a faculty lounge but in others very different. As to discussing off-wiki, I am on IRC but few other editors are; off-wiki discussion of article issues is to a certain extent frowned on because of the need to avoid canvassing and to leave a clear record of what led to article-writing decisions. I see you are now considering whether the article should be deleted after all. It is possible to ask for that, since the deletion discussion ended with less than a clear affirmation of notability, but I would obviously prefer myself for some rewritten version to remain; I judge you to be notable. And with that I must run, I'm sorry to say. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I will take your advice - hope I post correctly! I have now read your re-write and (except for the possible addition of that final sentence I mentioned) find it eminently fair. I did not intend to suggest a one-on-one talk nut something with all of the editors involved if necessary, but I appreciate it may not be feasible. I would only want the article deleted if your re-write is not accepted, otherwise the re-write is fine. And I understand about not discussing ongoing issues, but the whole anti-semitism bit here in the US (and in some other countries) is a matter of censorship and not one of policy. But let me go to the article talk page and input what you suggested. Thanks! Docbrosk1941 (talk) 13:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * You appear to have posted here instead of there. Talk:Alan Sabrosky. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

One thing I did not mention (and I apologize for my frustration as I respect your professionalism). I do not think anyone reading what I have published can find one iota of racist or antisemitic material there. Understand that I do not equate criticism politically with racism: wehen I say (e.g.) that Jewish settlers were wrong to applaud the burning death of a Palestinian family, I do not consider that antisemitic - although ADL & SPLC (among others) will. But if one of the editors think I spew racism or antisemitism, let him/her give a specific example. Docbrosk1941 (talk) 23:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Note post on "WIKIPEDIA AND ME" at https://www.facebook.com/alan.sabrosky. Hope you are well!Docbrosk1941 (talk) 07:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

You may never see this in Iceland. But I want to thank you for your efforts on my behalf. God bless!Docbrosk1941 (talk) 00:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

February 2023
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Doug Weller talk 13:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)