Beg pardon, but the author of this incivility states at least a half dozen times in Talk he is well aware of the sourcing; here for example http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Americans_in_the_Veno...
The question is, can he again use Wikipedia prescribed Dispute Resolution Processess to impugn his own professional critics, not further the writing of an encyclopedia, and get the NLG good 'ol boy network to assist his smears http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration...
For those concerned about Wikipedia's credibility as a viable source, this bares watching. I have opted to work within the project to call attention to this abuse, and not tell my story outside.
nobs
On 1/23/06, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
"Rob Smith" nobs03@gmail.com wrote in message news:52a8cf060601221206t3fe7d93bm41bfe58f23696658@mail.gmail.com ... [snip]
I selected this because it's the quickest to refute:
Here he refers to Prof. Klehr's work as "outrageous McCarthyite POV Red-baiting defamatory Blacklist "
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Americans_in_the_Venona_pa...
No he doesn't.
He earlier added some commentary on the list which according to the edit summary "added critical POV to balance page list".
This was then removed with the comment "this page is a list of names, not a forum to debate their significance".
The edit in question restres the commentary with the summary"Revert: Otherwise this is an outrageous McCarthyite POV Red-baiting defamatory Blacklist".
In other words, the words you quote above refer to our article on the subject, not to the list itself, with the disclaimer that this description covers a version of the list without commentary.
My phrase of the week: ingenuous cobblers [1]
HTH HAND
Phil [[en:User:Phil Boswell]] [1] definitional nitpickers can go hang, I like it and I'm taking it home for a pet :-)