Talk:Victor Perlo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Any attempt to reinstall McCarthyite conspiracy theories and rants into this article will be vigorously resisted. 172 | Talk 15:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- You're not resisting McCarthyism. You're promoting censorship and historical revisionism. The perils of McCarthyism are when people are persecuted and blacklisted based on rumor and innuendo. The sources Nobs used for the information you've censored are at least as reliable as any other historical documents from this period, even if you detest how that information was gathered. In your zeal to hide the past, you've left a smaller whitewashed article with no sources whatsoever, and yet you've provided no explanation other than that the documentation doesn't fit your personal POV. Whatever that POV is, it's not resistance to McCarthyism.
- -- Randy2063 20:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Strange vandalism
We have an article on the Perlo group which links here yet there is not one word about Victor Perlo's spying career. Going through history I find a (at first glance) reasonably written article that is massively vandalized, removing all mention of spying in an orwellian manner and nobody goes boo for almost a year. The diff can be found here. I'd protest to the vandal user's talk page but it's done by a non-logged in editor using a university IP address. Since there seems to have been several edits done since December 12, 2006 and I don't want to suggest that they're all worthless, I'll be reintroducing the data using the December 11, 2006 version as a template but not reverting back to that version out of respect for the possibility that subsequent edits were done in good faith. Hopefully this is going to be a relatively painless restoration. The 2 year old comment above doesn't seem like a good omen though. TMLutas 03:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for handlng that. I had intended to come back and do something similar to what you did but I was diverted. There's always plenty to fix around here.
- -- Randy2063 18:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Unsourced!
While I can readily appreciate this article has been kicked about by various POV sides, the encyclopedic way out is for each to cite their sources and let the readers decide. The unsourced article as it stands is not a useful tool for a serious researcher, being entirely unsourced. You all are aware that original research doesn't belong here, yes? User:scbomber 19:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)