Talk:Russell Tribunal/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Note: to make this archive easier to read, I have added subheadings and attempted to indent text where necessary. If I have made mistakes in my attempt, please feel free and revert the changes or modify them to make things correct. KC9CQJ 11:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 NPOV October 2004 2 Tribunal membership 3 Show trial 4 Solzhenitsyn and Russell 4.1 Gulag Archipelago References 4.2 Comments to the Material 4.3 'Winning' the Prize 4.4 Mikkalai enters discussion 4.5 Nobs 4.6 Discussion clarity

NPOV October 2004

Anonymous edits are reverting to old version, which describes the Tribunal as being an investigation of U.S. Vietnam war crimes while blithely ignoring that no enemy war crimes were examined. The old article also ignores the membership of the Tribunal and the assistance from North Vietnamese forces. -- SEWilco 17:23, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comparison of two versions: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Russell_Tribunal&diff=6512899&oldid=6512576

By the indications of the sources provided in that article, war crimes and conduct were indeed the topic of that hearing. Additionally, are you complaining that each member of the Tribunal isn't listed? -Rob

No, I'm complaining that the point of view of the Tribunal is not described. It is relevant to any of their decisions. SEWilco 19:42, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The "point of view" of the Tribunal as alleged by the Tribunal, or as alleged by the U.S.? Both views appear to be stated. -Rob

The point of view of the world which the Tribunal had. Remember hearing any teachers mention the Cold War? SEWilco 04:15, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Tribunal members were GOOD. They managed to make decisions on all these issues, and they all happen to agree with the aims. But they keep talking about Vietnam, when there were two Vietnams. Golly Gee, what a mistake to make. SEWilco 04:15, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

At what point were there two Vietnams? Upon review of the Geneva Convention, there appears to be just one Vietnam. I wonder if historians refer to the "two Americas." In your opinion, with which of the two Vietnams does the U.S. presently have trade relations, and why? Golly. Gee. -Rob

Tribunal membership

You managed to delete some info, but forgot to note who won which of those awards to which you referred. SEWilco 04:15, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Only deleted POV commentary. And I didn't "forget" to note who won what - I leave extraneous and irrelevant information like that for more appropriate articles. This is not an article about awards and their recipients. -Rob

Show trial

In what way was the Tribunal not a show trial? -- SEWilco 20:12, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It wasn't a trial as much as it was a tribunal - where a judgement (pre-formed or not) is presented and supported. Did it qualify as a "public" event? If you wish to insert the allegation by some that it was a "show trial," you should do so without the exclusion of other descriptors. See latest revision. -Rob

Solzhenitsyn and Russell

(section originally called Solzhenitsyn's Indirect Comments and Rhetorical Questions to Russell)

Why is one Nobel Laureate in Literature's (Solzhenitsyn) three direct comments to another Nobel Laureate in Literature (Russell)

(1) Not interesting

Not relevant, you mean. "Interesting" was never an issue. I don't see any direct comments. Only unattributed footnotes on some anonymous persons blog page that appears to be filled with out-of-context snippits of text that say absolutely nothing about the Russell Tribunal. -Rob

(2) Been removed twice by an anonymous user Gulag Archapelgo

An external link to your personal blog on a Wiki-article page? Trying to drum up website hit count, are we? There isn't any copyright protected material on your blog, is there? -Rob

The medium of samizdat that Solzhenitsyn's work first appeared in was the only way for him to directly communicate because of Soviet censorship. nobs

Regardless of his method of communication (apparently by Blog...), unrelated comments to Russell would be better off, perhaps, on the Bertrand Russell article page. You might try there. Oh... wait. I see you already have. -Rob

The alternative to the link is to write the Solzhenitsyn footnote comment into the article text nobs

I assume you mean the Bertrand Russell article text, correct? -Rob

Gulag Archipelago References

Solzhenitsyn gives two referances addressed directly to Bertrand Russell, and one referance directly to the 'Bertrand Russell Tribunal', challenging the Tribunal to use Solzhenitsyn foregoing text derived from testimony of Gulag witnesses.

Here is the complete material in question, text & footnote:

Part II Perpetual Motion

Chapter 2. The Ports of the Archipelago

{v.i, p. 534}….”Well, even if the Ivanovo Transit Prison isn’t one of the more famous, my friends, just ask anybody imprisoned there in the winter of 1937-1938, the prison was unheated—and the prisoners not only didn’t freeze to death, but on the upper bunks they lay there undressed. And they knocked out all the windowpanes so as not to suffocate. Instead of the twenty men Cell 21 was supposed to contain, there were three hundred and twenty-three! There was water underneath the bunks, and the boards were laid in the water and people lay on those boards. That was right where the frost poured in from the broken windows. It was like Arctic night down under the bunks. There was no light down there either because it was cut off by the people lying on the bunks above and standing in the aisle. It was impossible to walk through the aisle to the latrine tank, and people crawled along the edges of the bunks. They didn’t distribute rations to individuals but to units of ten. If one of the ten died, the others shoved his corpse under the bunks and kept it there until it started to stink. They got the corpse’s ration. And all that could have been endured, but the turnkeys seemed to have been oiled with turpentine—and they kept driving the prisoners endlessly from cell to cell, on and on. You’d just get yourself settled when ‘Come on, get a move on! You’re being moved!’ And you’d have to start in again trying to find a place! And the reason for such overcrowding was that they hadn’t taken anyone to the bath for three months, the lice had multiplied, and people had abscesses from the lice on their feet and legs—and typhus too. And because of the typhus the prison was quarantined and no prisoner transports could leave it for four months.”

”Well, fellows, the problem there wasn’t Ivanovo, but the year. In 1937-1938, of course, not just the zeks {prisoners} but the very stones of the transit prisons were screaming in agony. Irkutsk was no special transit prison either, but in 1938 the doctors didn’t even dare look into the cells but would walk down the corridor while the turnkey shouted through the door: ’Anyone unconscious, come out.’”

”In 1937, fellows, it was that way all across Siberia to the Kolyma, and the big bottleneck was in the Sea of Okhotsk, and in Vladivostok. The steamships could transport only thirty thousand a month, and they kept driving them on and on from Moscow without taking that into account. Well, and so a hundred thousand of them piled up. Understand?”

”Who counted them?”

”Whoever was supposed to, counted.”

{p.536} “If you’re talking about the Vladivostok Transit Prison, then in February, 1937, there weren’t more than forty thousand there.”

“People were stuck there for several months at a time. The bedbugs infested the board bunks like locusts. Half a mug of water a day; there wasn’t any more! —no one to haul it. There was one whole compound of Koreans, and they all died from dysentery, every last one of them. They took a hundred corpses out of our own compound every morning. They were building a morgue, so they hitched the zeks to the carts and hauled the stone that way. Today you do the hauling, and tomorrow they haul you there yourself. And in Autumn the typhus arrived. And we did the same thing: we didn’t hand over the corpses till they stank—and took the extra rations. No medication whatever. We crawled to the fence and begged: ‘Give us medicine.’ And the guards fired a volley from the watchtowers. Then they assembled those with typhus in a separate barracks. Some didn’t make it there, and only a few came back. The bunks there had two stories. And anyone on an upper who was sick and running a fever wasn’t able to clamber down to go to the toilet—and so it would all pour down on the people underneath. There were fifteen hundred sick there. And all the orderlies were thieves. They’d pull out the gold teeth from the corpses. And not only from the corpses.”

“Why do you keep going on about 1937? What about 1949 on Vanino Bay, in the fifth compound? What about that? There were 35,000! And for several months too! There was another bottleneck in the transport to the Kolyma. And every night for some reason they kept driving people from one barracks to another and from one compound to another. Just as it was with the Fascists: Whistles! Screams! ‘Come on out there without the last one!’1 And everyone went on the run! Always on the run! They’d drive a hundred to get bread—on the run! For gruel—on the run! No bowls to eat from. Take some gruel in whatever you could—the flap of your coat, your hands! They brought water in big tanks and there was nothing to distribute it in, so they shot it out in sprays. And whoever could get his mouth in front of one

1 “Without the last one!” —a menacing command to be understood literally. It meant: “I will kill the last man” (literally or at least warm his hide with a club). And so all piled out so as not to be last.

{p. 537} got some. Prisoners began to fight in front of the tanks—and the guards fired on them from the towers. Exactly like under the Fascists! Major General Derevyanko, the Chief of Administration of the Norhteast [i.e., Kolyma] Corrective Labor Camps, came, and while he was there an air force aviator stepped out in front of the crowd and ripped his field shirt down the front: ‘I have seven battle decorations! Who gave you the right to shoot into the compound?’ And Derevyanko replied: ‘We shot and we will go on shooting until you learn how to behave.’” 2

2 Say there, Bertrand Russell’s “War Crimes Tribunal”! Why don’t you use this bit of material? Or doesn’t it suit you?

nobs

Comments to the Material

Of what "bit of material" concerning Vietnam war crimes is he speaking, exactly? -Rob

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)

I propose this language in a sub heading entitled Criticism

Fellow Nobel Laureate in Literature Alexandr Solzhenitsyn was critical of the Russell Tribunal in his 1974 Nobel prize winning The Gulag Archipelago. -nobs

FYI, books do not win Nobel prizes in literature, only the authors do. So that should read: Fellow Nobel Laureate in Literature Alexandr Solzhenitsyn was critical of the Russell Tribunal in his 1974 book, The Gulag Archipelago. On the face of it, that appears to be a fair statement, though it might be better to say: Fellow Nobel Laureate in Literature Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, in his 1974 book, The Gulag Archipelago, criticized the Russell Tribunal for attacking the Vietnam War while ignoring the human rights violations of the Soviet Union. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:25, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Excellent observations, Willmcw. In addition, please note the opening description of the Russell Tribunal states: "It was designed to investigate and publicize war crimes and conduct of the American forces and its allies during the Vietnam War." The mission statement of this tribunal was rather specific, and it would appear ludicrous to chastise the event for its failure to address each of the thousands of problems that existed in scores of countries at that time. I still don't see an actual criticism from Solzhenitsyn about the Tribunal per se, but about Russell's failure to address unrelated problems elsewhere in a similar manner. Hence my suggestion that such criticism find a home in the Bertrand Russell article, if warranted. -Rob

Thanks for your comments. You are correct. Perhaps due to the economy of words I tried to compress too much inofrmation into one sentence. How about this:

Fellow Nobel Laureate Alexandr Solzhenitsyn was critical of the Russell Tribunal in The Gulag Archipelago for which he won the 1974 Nobel Prize in Literature for attacking the Vietnam War while ignoring the human rights violations of the Soviet Union, or alternatively, Fellow Nobel Laureate Alexandr Solzhenitsyn was critical of the Russell Tribunal's objectives and motives in The Gulag Archipelago for which he won the 1974 Nobel Prize in Literature --nobs

This may be more accurate still (and equally inappropriate for this article):

Fellow Nobel Laureate Alexandr Solzhenitsyn was envious of the attention generated toward the war crimes of the Vietnam conflict by the Russell Tribunal. This is evidenced by the rhetorical questions and quips contained in the footnotes of his manuscript The Gulag Archipelago. -Rob

Since he doesn't put forth any actual criticisms of the Tribunal, and you have avoided my repeated requests to explain just what you have interpreted as "criticism," you have lost me as to what your intentions are. -Rob

(1) Text reads Many of these individuals were winners of the Nobel Prize, Medals of Valor and awards of recognition in humanitarian and social fields.; Solzhenitsyn is a qualified critic by the standards of both the original Tirbunal and todays Wiki guardians of the page.

Having received a Nobel Prize was neither a qualification of the the tribunal, nor does it qualify one to be a critic, any more than winning a Medal of Valor does -- you appear to be reading things into text that isn't there. -Rob

(2) The pointed referance in question is directed at Bertrand Russell’s “War Crimes Tribunal”, and not to Bertrand Russell, per se. Here is the actual referance from Gulag Archipelago, Part II, chap. 2, p. 537, footnote 2, Afred Knopf Edition (1976): Say there, Bertrand Russell’s “War Crimes Tribunal”! Why don’t you use this bit of material? Or doesn’t it suit you?as you can plainly see, again, this statement is directed to the Bertrand Russell War Crimes Tribunal, and not Bertrand Russell individually, singularaly, personally, or professionally.

"this statement," is not a criticism, it is a rhetorical question asked long after the tribunal took place and ended. Yet again, you avoid explaining just what this criticism is of which you speak. -Rob

(3) The fact that the Nobel Prize was awarded to Solzhenitsyn for the Gulag Archipelago (and not Ivan Denisovich, The First Circle or other writings), to which this quotation is extracted, leads to the consideration of the Nobel Prize Committee's sentiments regarding their name being used in the entire context of the War Crimes Tribunal. This is of immense historic interest.

Read again, please. The Nobel Prize Committee (if there is such a thing) has nothing to do with the tribunal. Also, FYI, Solzhenitsyn received his Nobel Prize for his literary endeavors, not specifically for Gulag Archipelago. As noted in the article on Nobel_Prize_for_Literature, The Nobel Prize in literature is awarded annually to an author from any country who has produced "the most outstanding work of an idealistic tendency". The "work" in this case generally refers to an author's work as a whole, not to any individual work, though individual works are sometimes cited in the awards. All of this is off-topic, of course. If you have something of "immense historic interest" you'd like to share, perhaps you should find a suitable article in which to do so, and have at it. -Rob

(4) Leonid Brezhnev, the entire Politburo, and the Soviet judiciary failed to censor Alexandr Solzhenitsyn; wiki editors should learn from this.

I agree. Put it in the article about Alexandr Solzhenitsyn. Refrain, however, from carrying your crusade to unrelated articles by trying to slip in external links where ever you can. -Rob

In summary, nothing is pristine in this world and immune from qualified criticism, not God, not Jesus Christ, and neither the sacred Russell War Crimes Tribunal. --nobs

Qualified criticism? Have you (or Solzhenitsyn) provided any yet? I'd like to see it. -Rob

Please show a relevant source that indicates the Nobel Prize was granted for The Gulag Archipelago. The award citation does not mention it ("for the ethical force with which he has pursued the indispensable traditions of Russian literature"), nor do the award presentation speeches.[1] One of the speeches does mention another book:

When his novel, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, first appeared eight years ago, it was recognised at once in his own country, and soon all over the world, that a major new writer had entered the arena.[2]

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, but please do not say that Solzhenitsyn won the Nobel Prize for The Gulag Archipelago. He won, as does every author, for his body of work. -Willmcw 17:33, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right, I'll take your word for it to spare me the research on the subject; my only point is the Gulag was the last work to appear before Solzhenitsyn was recognized by the Nobel Committee. I beleive that language is more appropriate, being recognized by the committee, instead of the every day corrupted use among Amnerican journalists, 'prize winner. Thanks --nobs

Perhaps they should remove "Prize" from the name of the award. Prizes are won. -Rob

And they'd better remove links like this from their official website: Get to know all 770 Prize Winners! (Also, please sign your talk page posts with four tildes (~), that will automatically add your IP number or your username once you get one.) Cheers, -Willmcw 18:57, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

'Winning' the Prize

Interesting link; now I recall how Menachim Begin [3] won the "Peace" Prize in 1978 and invaded Lebanon in 1982 [4] (with the Shabra & Chatilla massacres in its aftermath); or when Mikhail Gorbachev won his peace prize in 1992 after this action [5]. Or Charles Dawes in 1925, of coarse nobody told the folks who put out this site [6], here's the relevent text:

1924 April The Dawes Plan restructures German reparations and stabilizes the German currency. American banker Charles Dawes arranges a series of foreign loans totalling $800 million to consolidate gigantic German chemical and steel combinations into cartels, one of which is I.G. Farben. "Without the capital supplied by Wall Street" it is said, "there would have been no I.G. Farben in the first place, and almost certainly no Adolf Hitler and World War II." Three Wall Street houses, Dillon, Reed & Co., Harris, Forbes & Co., and National City handled three-quarters of the loans used to create these cartels. (Sutton) (Note: Professor Carroll Quigley wrote that the Dawes Plan was: "largely a J.P. Morgan production.") (Quigley)

Or perhaps the Wall Street Journal article in 1980 that debated whether or not Reagan's economic program should be called Reagenomics or Friedmanomics after Milton Friedman, but I just don't have time to go into all the other categories. One can see why over the hundred years so many years, and it must amount to decades, no Peace Prize was awarded. --nobs

The official Nobel Prize website may not give the full picture. The Peace Prize is awarded by a panel appointed by the Norwegian Parliament, unlike the the scientific and literature prizes that are awarded by Swedish academic panels. And the Economics Prize was created without the initial permission of the Nobel Institute, who apparently accepted it gudgingly and have recently changed into a more general category. Anyway, this further discussion establishes the minimal relevance of Solzhenitsyn's footnote, except as a further footnote to history. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:46, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

The foregoing is just a digression of personal observations on the Nobel Committee, really has no relevance to the subject of Solzhenitsyn's criticism; I return to the main point, Soilzhenitsyn is qualified as a living contemporaneous witness of those days and events in history–qualified by both the Tirbunal's standards and current day editors.

Cut and pasted from above, since you seem to have missed it: Having received a Nobel Prize was neither a qualification of the the tribunal, nor does it qualify one to be a critic, any more than winning a Medal of Valor does -- you appear to be reading things into text that isn't there. -Rob 00:17, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

His criticism is fair and valid, and not in anyway distatseful or repugnant. It is an important footnote to histroy, relevent to the Tribunal and not Russell's personal biographical page.

Cut and pasted from above, since you seem to have missed it: "this statement," is not a criticism, it is a rhetorical question asked long after the tribunal took place and ended. Yet again, you avoid explaining just what this criticism is of which you speak. -Rob 00:17, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I propose this language under a heading of criticism: Fellow Nobel Laureate in Literature for 1974 Alexandr Solzhenitsyn was critical of the Russell Tribunal's objectives and motives in The Gulag Archipelago, Part II, chap. 2, p. 537, footnote 2, Afred Knopf Edition (1976). without perhaps quoting the actual text, Say there, Bertrand Russell’s “War Crimes Tribunal”! Why don’t you use this bit of material? Or doesn’t it suit you? or any link to it. A reasonable compromise --nobs

Cut and pasted from above: "this statement," is not a criticism, it is a rhetorical question asked long after the tribunal took place and ended. Yet again, you avoid explaining just what this criticism is of which you speak. -Rob

It appears you do not have a monopoly on monotonous repetition. Still waiting for your alleged criticism made by Solzhenitsyn. His rhetorical question (relegated to a footnote, no less) expressing envy that Russells pet grievance was getting attention, while his own pet grievance was not, does not rise to the definition of "criticism." So there you have it. If you will present us with an actual criticism, editors will determine the value of its presence in the article. A reasonable compromise. -Rob 00:17, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

According to the text page under "Aims of the Tribunal", No. 5 states,

Have forced labour camps been createdthere is no section regarding testimony before the Tribunal; under conclusions there is no statement regarding the findings of the Tribunal regarding this item; and there are no sources sited for any of this information

Mikkalai enters discussion

I see a lot of heat generated here without actual understanding what was Solzh's phrase about. To understand it, one must also understand the political atmosphere in the Soviet Union at these times. Briefly. Soviet press made a great fuss about Russel Tribunal that uncovered "crimes of American imperialism". In this atmosphere Solzh's remark (poorly translated. I will look into the Russian origin) reads as following: "You are speaking too much of Russel Tribunal. But what is discussed there is a mere triffle in comparison what happened in Russia" And he addresses no to Tribunal, but to Russian press: "why don't you speak about our own bitter issues instead?". Kind of "mote in the eye of thy brother" message. I hope this closes the issue. (revoked myself)Mikkalai 01:33, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your input on this issue, Mikkalai. I hope this closes the issue as well. -Rob 02:33, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Good understanding; so in Russian the remark is addressed to a Soviet readership primarily, and not necessarily to a Western audience? --nobs

I believe Mikkalai is saying Alex was criticizing the Soviet press, not the Russell Tribunal. The Soviet press made a big deal of the "crimes of American Imperialism" uncovered at the Tribunal, even while similar and worse crimes were being perpetrated in Russia. Mind you, Russell was deceased before these comments were made, and long before they were published. And the tribunal had concluded many years prior. There was no Russell and no Tribunal to actually query, hence the rhetorical nature of Alex's questions. -Rob 03:03, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I accept our friend User:Mikkalai reading of the Solzhenitsyn text.

Right now the only criticism of the Tribunal page is this "was portrayed by the mainstream United States media as ineffectual, biased and a show trial." Being that Wiki is truely an international effort, would you object to invitng Mikkalai to insert a phrase about how the Tribunal was covered in the Soviet media at the time? Here's got the credentials, you should see [7] Thx --nobs

I will try, but my abilities are limited. Mikkalai 03:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I promised, 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)

• Babel Fish trans: The "tribunal Of the military crimes" Of Bertrand Russell! However, that you, that zh you material'chik not beret?! Al to you it does not approach?".
• "the tribunal of military crimes "Bertrand Russell and Jean polya Sartra! 31, philosophers! Material- that of what! Why you do not sit?--nobs
  • he-he.Mikkalai 04:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK it seems I narrowing this down. It seems that these phrases show the Solzh's attitude not to Tribunal, but rather to Russel and other Western pro-communuist intellectuals, who close their eyes on the Soviet atrocities. The key is the following quotation from Solzh's interview:.

It seems that these phrases show the Solzh's attitude not to Tribunal, but rather to Russel'... - exactly the point I made long ago, and hence my suggestion to find a place in the Bertrand Russell article for such comments. -Rob 04:07, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Я скажу только, что знаменитое противопоставление Бертрана Рассела "лучше быть красным, чем мертвым" - на самом деле не содержит альтернативы. Потому что быть красным - это значит быть мертвым, сразу или постепенно. Свободные люди Запада пропустили 65 лет, стоя на ногах и во всей силе, - не боролись. Когда они сдадутся коммунизму, они окажутся в положении рабов и притом умирающих. И тогда они начнут борьбу, но в совершенно других условиях. Поразительно то, что Запад не слышит прямого смертного приговора, который ему произнесен."

"I will say only that the famous contraposition of Bertrand Russel "Better red than dead" in fact does not provide an alternative. This is because to be red means to be dead, immediately or gradually. Free people of the West skipped 65 years — standing on their feet, having all their force — yet they didn't struggle. When they surrender to Communism, they will find themselves in the position of slaves, and dying, too. And only they will start to struggle, but under completely different conditions. Th West does not hear the direct death sentence, delivered unto them".

Now I will not be so bold as to declare that the case is closed. You are welcome to ask for additional explanations and research. Sorry I confused you earlier. Mikkalai 03:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You did not confuse me.  :) Your conclusions were still correct, even if your translation was off. The Soviet press did indeed trumpet the findings of the Tribunal, while ignoring the crimes occurring in Russia. But alas, the Russell Tribunal's focus was only Vietnam. As I said before, I too hope this closes the matter. Again, thank you for your time and effort, Mikkalai. -Rob 04:07, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Allow me to express a bit of suspicion. While surfing, I noticed the remarks about 3rd and 4th Russell Tribunals, likely not related to Vietnam. This is not covered in the article. Mikkalai 04:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There have been many smaller tribunals held in the name of the Russell Peace Foundation (and I'm sure there will be many more), but none of them, with the exception of the Tribunal on War Crimes in Vietnam, were held prior to the publishing of Alex's book. Russell himself could not attend this tribunal, due to age related health issues. The tribunal was concluded in 1967, long before Alex's comments were made. Let me ask you, were there no other organizations at that time raising the issues of which Alex wrote? -Rob 04:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

About Russell himself: while he stood for Soviet disidents, and even made a declaration in their defense (of Vladimir Bukovsky et al.), his declaration was phrased in such a way that the dissident's unjust trial is an aberration during the last 15 years of "big changes in the Soviet directed, of course to larger happiness and freedom, and this humiliating trial is a threat to this marvellous development" (this is an not actual Russel's quotation, but my quick translation from it translation into Russian, but I hope I did not skew the idea too much ), i.e., he was still blind to what actually the Soviet Union was, as I seee it. Mikkalai 04:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Many people were just as blind, prior to the publishing of Alex's work. -Rob 04:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And some of them were intentionally blind; see, e.g., the following episode: "Itzik Feffer". And to some extent I see why they did so. Whatever one may say now about freedom and welfare enjoyed in the "freedom world", it is only naive to believe that capitalists volunteered to give up 11-hour work days, children labor and subsistence-level wages. There was a real struggle of work and capital until a reasonable balance was stricken. And in any struggle extremists play an important role, being the main hit force, even if they go over board. So, communists played their role of a battering ram, even if driven by their utopian ideas. Mikkalai 04:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nobs

The Gulag Archipelago text was completed in 1956. As Solzhenitsyn said, all 1800 pages never were at one place in time before him on his desk. It was circulated in samizdat, without official Soviet Imprimatur stamp. It existed in single type written copies, produced one at a time, even up to the time Solzhenitsyn was awarded his Nobel Lauraete. Solzhenitsyn continued editing it into the 1960's, i.e. adding footnotes. The footnotes regarding the Russell Tribunal were contemporaneous, i.e. at the same time, as Soviet newspapers headlined detailed accounts of the Russell tribunal proceedings. Though the primary audience is Soviet and Russian speaking, Solzhenitsyn throughout the Gulag Archipelago is addressing an international audience. There remains problems with the Wiki article. (1) It begins with in intro about the charges, and skips (2) a conclusion and verdict, without any body of text about testimony regarding the charges. For example, charge No. 5 is use of forced labor, and no referance to this charge exists in body, text, testimony, or conclusion. This places the entire article in a light of lacking a NPOV. Solzhenitsyn's comments are obviously about this charge.

Wait a second. Where are you getting this from? It's like this is coming out of thin air. I haven't seen anywhere that we've accepted or even stated that Solzhenitsyn made comments about Russell in comparison to forced labor. It's only been that he mentioned things about philosophers being present. Still reading - more to come. KC9CQJ 13:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Most obvious is the lack of any sourcing on the page. The links at the bottom are however, a good excercise in self-congratulations. --nobs

The source for the information in that article is Against The Crime of Silence: Proceedings of The Russell International War Crimes Tribunal -- a compilation of the proceedings at both sessions of the tribunal. From the links provided to exerpts of those proceedings, it wouldn't be too difficult to include citations for every word on that page -- are you volunteering to insert those citations? All wiki-articles are works in progress. I dare say none of them are perfect. You point out that actual testimony text is missing, yet you fail to realize that insertion of the thousands of pages of testimony is not possible in a wiki-article. When the information is that extensive, editors tend to summarize, just as the initial editors of this article appear to have done. You also complain that Right now the only criticism of the Tribunal page is this "was portrayed by the mainstream United States media as ineffectual, biased and a show trial." You fail to note the criticism that indicates the Americans and Vietnamese were not officially represented at this tribunal. You fail to note the criticism that a majority of the panalists on the tribunal were politically "left of center." And as I said above, it is a work in progress -- valid criticisms can always be added. Alex's rhetorical quip does not fall into that catagory, and even Mikkalai's explanations show them to be more appropriate in the Bertrand Russell article, if anywhere. -Rob 05:25, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yet, as you state in a comment to me somewhere below, I believe, that that may or may not be a criticism, depending on where one falls. If I read that alone, by itself, that would be a statement or a description, not a criticism. So, whether it's failure to note a criticism, I'd say the jury's out. But you're right, Alex's statement hasn't met the burden of proof. Still reading. KC9CQJ 13:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My referance is to this one specific charge, forced labor. The article simply states ""Have War Crimes been committed? then concludes with Yes War crimes have been committed", leaving the disposition of the charges to the imagination. Then, to use your term, a bunch of self-promiting, self-congratuling links are added as supposed source information, without any specific index to testimony on, for example, forced labor. One can only imagine why it was ommitted. The quality of the article speaks for itself. --nobs

Ok, where are the self-promiting or self-congratulating links, and where did that verbage come from? Still reading. KC9CQJ 13:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To use my terms...? I've no clue what a "self-promiting" is, nor a "self-congratuling" for that matter. They are certainly not my terms. Since you seem to be shifting your focus from rhetorical questions asked of a concluded tribunal to "forced labor" issues, I'll leave that argument to other editors. Word of advice: when your imagination runs out, you might try actually reading the source. -Rob 05:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps nobs is trying to make an argument as to where Alex's comments would be appropriate? It seems that you keep asking for evidence as to why a rhetorical quote should be present, and his answer seems to be or could be that it speaks directly to the forced labor issue. Just a thought. Still reading. KC9CQJ 13:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I can make this segment of the conversation more clear. Nobs points to the section of the Russell Tribunal article listing the aims of the Tribunal, in particular #5 which asks, Have forced labour camps been created, has there been deportation of the population or other acts tending to the extermination of the population and which can be characterized juridically as acts of genocide? The wiki-article then lists its conclusions to that charge as follows: (9) Have prisoners of war captured by the armed forces of the United States been subjected to treatment prohibited by the laws of war? Yes (unanimously). (10) Have the armed forces of the United States subjected the civilian population to inhuman treatment prohibited by international law? Yes (unanimously). (11) Is the United States Government guilty of genocide against the people of Vietnam? Yes (unanimously). The article in its present state lists the charges made by the Tribunal, and the verdicts reached by the Tribunal, but does not present the thousands of pages of evidence and debate used by the Tribunal to reach these conclusions. Nobs, if I understand correctly, feels the wiki-Article should present all of the information used to form verdicts, which I explained wasn't feasible. I then directed him to a source, Against the Crime of Silence, and inquired if Nobs would like to volunteer to create citations to each bit of evidence and investigation for the wiki-article. As for what Alex's footnotes speak to... They point out the lack of attention paid to the problems he discusses in his books. Alex isn't criticizing the Tribunal so much as the nonexistence of a similar Tribunal for the very serious issues in the Soviet Union. -Rob

Ad this one to your rhetorical repetoir: When you begin with a conclusion, the result is the same. ----nobs

Following this discussion, it would seem to me that the quotes be best placed in the Gulag Archipelago article with cross reference to Russell Tribunal? Or perhaps these quotes should be added to criticism of the Russell Tribunal itself? Let me look at the current article for a moment ... KC9CQJ 10:01, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) ... It appears to me that there is almost no criticism of the Tribunal itself within the article. Is this intentional, or are we of the feeling that criticism is too POV? If so/if not, then what would be the problem with adding a section on the Soviet view of the Tribunal? Or the American view? I think Rob's point is to say that there were people in the Soviet Union wondering why there wasn't a Russell Tribunal to investigate the gulags as well, Alex was one of them, and he specifically pointed this out in his book. I think the article's lacking without pointing to criticism - this was a significant international event, and obviously there was criticism of it. So why isn't it in the article? KC9CQJ 10:12, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) ... And again, a third comment tonight. 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. That's what seems right to me, given the rhetorical nature of the comments and the fact that Russell was long dead. KC9CQJ 10:35, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC).

Its a question of propotionality. 2 footnotes spoken contemporaneously to the Russell Tribunal in the Gulag Archipelago if placed in the Wiki article will shrink the contents of the rest of Solzhenitsyn's book, whereas the Tribunal remains immune from criticism. The Solzhenitsyn article is basically the missing history of the Soviet Union from 1918-1972, detailing testimonies of atrocities and abuses over a 50 year span; the Russell Tribunal is an academic debate masquarading as a parody of the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, self-appointed, and unsanctioned by any international power. --nobs

Not if the contents of the rest of the book are also discussed. If you discuss the entire book and also mention Alex's tension with Western pro-communist philosophers, we're good as gold. You guessed it, still reading. KC9CQJ 13:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

KC9CQJ - Somehow, during this discussion, the original issue has been split into two different issues. Let's address each individually. The first issue is (and was) whether or not a footnote or two from Alex should be included in the Russell Tribunal article as criticism of the Tribunal. They should not, for several reasons: The comments do not provide any actual criticism of the Tribunal; they merely lament the lack of similar attention to the gulag system and crimes against humanity under the Soviet Union. The footnotes were published after the death of Russell, and after the completion of the tribunal, regardless if they were scribbled down on a napkin "contemporaneously" and held in secret for several years previously. They are not something the Tribunal could have responded to or acted upon. Your suggestion that the comments might find a home in the Archipelago Gulag article has merit, perhaps as an entry point to discussing why "western outrage" was so long in coming. -Rob

The second, and newer issue is of the level of criticism contained in the Russell Tribunal wiki-article. User Nobs notes the article already contains the criticism that it was portrayed by the mainstream United States media as ineffectual, biased and a show trial. I further noted that the article indicates the Americans and Vietnamese were not officially represented at this tribunal. I also noted the article contains criticism (or perhaps applause, depending on your bent) that a majority of the panelists on the tribunal were politically "left of center." If I recall the event correctly, those were the major criticisms that existed at the time. Unofficial, leftist, show trial. You ask: It appears to me that there is almost no criticism of the Tribunal itself within the article. Is this intentional, or are we of the feeling that criticism is too POV? If so/if not, then what would be the problem with adding a section on the Soviet view of the Tribunal? I would caution against adding criticism simply for the sake of adding criticism. That said, if there exists valid criticism that you feel should be included, please do not hesitate to contribute, if it will make better the article. I believe you'll find the "Soviet view" less than critical, however -- I seem to recall they were loving every second of the Tribunal as it was castigating the Western Powers for their human rights abuses, arrogance, imperialism, etc. -Rob 20:12, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And this was precisely my intent; to split this discussion into two distinct issues, because there are two issues that this discussion is following. First, where should the material that Rob wants to place go, if not here? Second, is there criticism in the article? It is obvious to me that you've discussed both in detail your reasoning to both questions, and that's what I wanted, in one place, without having to follow the broken up structure way above these comments. As an aside, why don't you have a user name? It makes it seem as if you're an anonymous user to me, that and your edit history could be attributed to a name if you wished. I no longer wish for an answer to this question, so don't worry about it. KC9CQJ 21:36, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've no idea what you mean by "material that Rob wants to place." I see footnotes that Nobs wants to insert (from Alex's book) and a vague reference to Article needs more criticism made by Nobs and KC9CQJ. Is there other material I should be aware of? As for your aside about anonymous (Ahem, KC9CQJ isn't anonymous?) names ... I'll leave that discussion at the side for now. Too many issues bubbling on the stove at the moment. -Rob 01:19, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm fiddling with my response, so please bear with me in the history. Rob is nobs, they are one in the same, and I am assisting him to find a home for Alex's comments. I am only trying to make your valid points clear and provoke thought. I never said that the article needs more criticism, in fact, you DIRECTLY quoted me : It appears to me that there is almost no criticism of the Tribunal itself within the article. Is this intentional, or are we of the feeling that criticism is too POV? If so/if not, then what would be the problem with adding a section on the Soviet view of the Tribunal? This is a question that was asking you to define your criticism and provide for me your argument against listing Alex's quotes as criticism, which you followed through on. KC9CQJ 13:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note of clarity: nobs name in private e-mail to Kc9cqi is Rob and Kc9cqi first reference on this page is to me. Anonymous user signing as Rob is not myself.nobs

Response to issue (1): a footnote, published in samizdat, type written and smuggled out of the Soviet Union, at risk of imprisonment for ASA Anti-Soviet agitation and being branded a Article 58 political prisoner, that made its way to the Nobel Committee for which its author became a Nobel Laureate soon after, is of significance precisiecely because of the circuitous route it traveled to Oslo and the Nobel Committee. To argue Solzhenitsyn, from internal exhile and banishment in Kazakhstan, should have done more research and published despite the problems he had both recieving and communicating information from Europe, is ludicrous on its face. Simply because of the gap between the circulation of the Gulag Archipelago in samizdat, and its mass commercial publication in Europe, first in Swedish in 1973, and English in 1976, does not mean it was held in secret. The POV that complaints about the Soviet Gulag slave system were "out of sight, out of mind" evidently still has currency. -- nobs

The above paragraph - nice. And totally irrelevant. May I direct you to the Gulag Archipelago Talk page? I guess "issue (1)" (the fact that Alex's footnotes didn't contain criticism, and weren't even published until later) shall remain unchallenged. -Rob 01:19, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agree. It is a bit around the issue. KC9CQJ 13:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Response to the second issue gets closer to the point. The Tribunal is not really a Tribunal at all, and it does much to denigrate the historic meaning of the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal. The so-called "charges" read like an acedemic debate, "Has such and such occured", an effort to determine whether or not laws of war have been violated, without any attempt to explain what "laws of war" are. Without being constituted by any international authority to investigate violations of laws of war or international law, as the Nuremberg Tribunal was duly constituted. "Mock trial" as practiced in Law school's is perhaps more fitting than "show trial". Perhaps this issue and discussion needs to be transferred to the Nobel Committee page, in a subsection entitled Russell vs Solzhenitsyn, after all it appears the Nobel Committee was perhaps using Solzhenitsyn to repent of their error for ever elevating Bertrand Russell to status of prize winner. Interesting how the wiki page says Russell was awarded the prize for his advocacy of freedom of thought, yet criticism of the Tribunal today is strictly censored. --nobs

I think that's a little too radical, man. This isn't about censorship, it's about finding the right place for your content, Rob. I think that the other users here have proven that a criticism subhead doesn't need to be here, and the comments on Solzhenitsyn should probably go into Gulag Archipelago instead of here, not the Nobel Committee page, and not Bertrand Russell. I think that's the point that's trying to be made, not censorship. KC9CQJ 21:36, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) (comment returned to original place) KC9CQJ 13:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In the above paragraph, Nobs tips his hand and shows his true motivations. If you dislike Russell so much, Nobs, go start some fires on the [[Bertrand Russell] page -- and good luck to you. The fact that Solzhenitsyns greivances weren't constituted by any international authority to investigate violations of human rights doesn't, in my opinion, lessen the value of those expressed greivances. -Rob

Reread the above. Russell Tribunal was duly constituted by an international authority as Nuremberg Tribunal was. Russell Tribunal was little more than an academic debate. --nobs

I'm sure they were just as valid as the greivances expressed at the Russell Tribunal. You came to this article attempting to insert links to your personal Blog website. A blog where you state, "You've seen Wiki, now get the facts ..." [8]. Perhaps it is not Russell that you dislike, but Wikipedia in general? You then attempted to insert empty headers and mess with the formatting. If you call the reverting of these antics, along with the reverting of vandalism, idiocy, vulgarity and harassment 'censorship' then yes, consider yourself censored. As for criticism, it is usually welcomed if presented while following the Wikipedia editing guidelines. You should give it a try. -Rob 01:19, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Do you agree or disagree that the Russell Tribunal was an academic debate? You talked about nobs switching from a rhetorical question to something about forced labor camps, yet you switch from answering a perfectly legitimate question to what could be construed as a personal attack on nobs for content outside Wikipedia. I'm sure if you looked at his blog, you'd find that it's mostly source references that he's used inside Wikipedia for articles, source references that don't exist on elsewhere on the Internet, from what I can see. Perhaps you didn't go all the way to the main page of the blog [9]. I don't see one Wikipedia blast anywhere on this blog, at all! I think you're a little quick on the trigger, personally. KC9CQJ 13:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As for my opinion about the Tribunal being an academic debate, see my comments below. As for your insinuation that I've made a personal attack, please elaborate. (Of course I haven't, but your explanation should prove amusing.) As for your failure to "see one Wikipedia blast anywhere on this blog," may I again direct your attention to Nobs' catch-phrase, You've seen Wiki, now get the facts ... Wikipedia prides itself on striving to remain factual and NPOV, and the 'blast' on Nobs personal blog clearly indicates otherwise. -Rob

Just an observation, KC9CQJ... you just referred to Nobs as Rob -- two totally different people, as far as I can tell. -Rob 01:19, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

above posting is evidence of reversion and forgery--nobs

Only because I reverted my own stuff because I felt I was being a bit hot under the collar. KC9CQJ 20:37, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let me say this. I've placed my comments under every major place that I thought I needed to say something. Anon IP user (for lack of your name), you have some very good points, and I agree - the Alex material should go over to Gulag Archipelago. I am an advocate, yet first, I am fair. I was following your new discussion regarding where the content should go. I was attempting to clarify your comments and got you to break the issues out so everyone could understand precisely where the issues are. I wanted to see general consensus, and you brought it out. You have proven your point, and you did a fine job of referring Nobs/Rob to the right place where I made a query about putting the commented quotes there. Thank you.

I would like to see EXACTLY where your accusations of harassment and vulgarity are coming from. I don't take those accusations lightly at all, especially when you state that another editor has written idiocy, which, in my opinion, could be construed as a personal attack. More interesting, in the same paragraph might I add, you state that nobs has a problem with Wikipedia and has taken it to his blog, when in all actuality, it's an unofficial online text repository that nobs runs just in case he needs to cite some material to please Wikipedians like yourself. Lighten up! You're quick to figure out what's going on without reading everything related first, and perhaps that's why you edit behind an IP address and not a username like the rest of us. Although you are correct in stating that there are some genuine problems with putting Alex's comments into this article, I'd still like an answer as to whether the Tribunal was an academic debate or not. KC9CQJ 13:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

KC9CQJ asks, I would like to see EXACTLY where your accusations of harassment and vulgarity are coming from. I made no such accusations. I accused Nobs of inserting empty headers and messing with formatting, for which his edits were reverted. Reverts are also performed for things such as harassment, idiocy, vulgarity, vandalism, etc., and if Nobs wishes to call that censorship by Wikipedia, then so be it. I explained to Nobs that if he follows the Wiki editing guidelines, his criticisms would most likely be welcomed. Methinks you are looking for a fight when no one has thrown any punches. -Rob

Ok, well, my IMPRESSION is that you were attempting to accuse him of that. I'm sorry. I make mistakes. KC9CQJ 20:55, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

KC9CQJ states, ...you state that another editor has written idiocy... I most certainly did not. See above. -Rob

Seeking clarification, once again. Sorry. KC9CQJ 20:55, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

KC9CQJ claims, ...you state that nobs has a problem with Wikipedia and has taken it to his blog... Incorrect. I merely posed the following reasonable question, Perhaps it is not Russell that you dislike, but Wikipedia in general? after citing Nobs caustic headline on his personal blog (You've seen Wiki, now get the facts...) and his ludicrous insinuation that Wikipedia censors reasonable and factual content. -Rob

I presume that Nobs did that because no one's helped him to figure out what was happening, including you. If it weren't for me coming to this page and breaking out your comments, he may have no clue as to what you're actually trying to do, and that's to improve the article, which I've alwasy understood. KC9CQJ 20:55, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

KC9CQJ proclaims, You're quick to figure out what's going on without reading everything related first, and perhaps that's why you edit behind an IP address and not a username like the rest of us. Save the conspiracy theories, please. To use a phrase I've recently read, 'Lighten Up.' Get off your high horse and go back to being 'fair,' as you say -- a feat you've been accomplishing extremely well until this last paragraph of yours, if I may add -- and cease with the hostilities. I've no quarrel with you, and it's not conducive to resolving the real issues being discussed here. -Rob

You're right, I have no quarrel with you, but you have no reasonable idea as to how much this issue has been inflamed by your use of quick wit and sarcasm, and that's the point I was attempting to make. That, and until you put your endash followed by Rob, I had no clue whether or not you were a legitimate user trying to improve the article or a troll. Now I know, and hopefully you'll understand that I am referring to you, -Rob as the former and not the latter.

KC9CQJ queries, ...I'd still like an answer as to whether the Tribunal was an academic debate or not. Are you asking for my opinion? There were academics present, and there was indeed debate during the sessions. I'm not exactly sure what you are asking. I wouldn't characterize the whole event as an academic debate. It appears to be more like a fact-finding mission, with the sources of the facts being heavily weighted to one side -- seeing as Great Britain politely refused to be officially represented, and the United States refused to even respond at all. -Rob

Thanks for your answer, and that's what I wanted.

Anonymous user 165.247.204.55 reverted his signature to Rob, who of coarse is not myself, whom KC9CQJ initially addressed as Rob. --nobs

Or more accurately, as: -Rob As noted by anonymous user KC9CQJ, the anonymous user Nobs is known as Rob, not to be confused with -Rob (myself), an original contributor to both this discussion page and its associated article page. -Rob

Well, I was trying to prove the point that nobs was a newbie and I really thought that you had a good point. And I wanted you to clarify in some places. I didn't think I was on a high horse, but I guess you thought I was, and I'm sorry you misunderstood. All I was trying to do was get you to realize that if we don't have newbies, we might as well hang it up and go home. But, I think I've proven all my points, and it's time for me to move on from this article. Thanks for both of your insights, and I'll see you all later. KC9CQJ 21:30, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Misunderstandings happen. I believe you misread in some places, and I could have been more clear in some of my comments. I retract my "high horse" comment (which was inspired after reading the exchanges between you and Nobs on your user Talk page) now that I understand your intentions were good. I was put on the defensive early in this discussion when Nobs requested advocate assistance to resolve an issue of censorship -- a charge I felt was not only inaccurate, but offensive. Even for a newbie. I applaud and admire your efforts as an advocate; a job not many are qualified to do, and even fewer and willing to do. Thank you for your help here. -Rob

Discussion clarity

It would help others trying to follow this disussion if editors would stop interpolating their comments, and in addition, would indent their comments in a logical fashion. Right now the page appears as seemingly random bits of text by unknown authors. That makes it almost impossible to for anyone coming to this page to understand who is saying what to whom. Thanks, -Willmcw 17:11, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Not only that, usernames (as opposed to IP addresses) are also extremely helpful when attributing comments. -- AlexR 10:39, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As an aid to AlexR, and other readers, I've signed my comments on this page in the manner I have signed previous edits for over 2 years. I hope that makes following the conversation above a little easier. (My apologies if it adds to the confusion for KC9CQJ, however). -Rob

I'm really confused... Just kidding! Thank God you went back and did that, because when I archived, it made things so much easier. KC9CQJ 11:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The early referances KC9CQJ makes to Rob on this page are to nobs who is Rob in real life; Anonymous User 165.247.204.55 later enjoined, reverted his anonymous IP number to Anonymous Rob, and at some points even appears in discussion with himself. --nobs

Further note of clarity: The Tribunal (assuming information on the page is accurate) did not bring charges, as I have misstated; it had no legal authority to do so. Hence the name Tribunal is suspect and misleading. It debated questions as the wiki text suggests. As a point of order, without physically reverting any text, I wish to clarify I understand completely all the so-called charges, were in fact merely questions being debating, as wiki text plainly declares. nobs