Jump to content
The Education Forum

Wikipedia, Spartacus and the JFK Assassination


John Simkin
 Share

Recommended Posts

John,

The article you wrote for Wikipedia is already deleted. I tried to access a hyperlink in Wikipedia (which had not been deleted) to "spartacus education" but a screen came up saying there was no such topic.

These people must be looking for work in the disinformation industry. I have noted occasions of "severely edited" information in Wikipedia.

After having read the US intelligence community's (Committe report on US Intelligence and WMD) searing self-analysis, that they must depart their iron-fisted bureaucratic thinking and seriously change to enter the 21st century, these Wikky editors may find that autocratic control of information is not an efficient use of time, may lead to wrong conclusions (which will flat out piss some people off) and may no longer provided any favored status to its practitioners.

People and, it seems, the US goevernment, wants their information unskewed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 157
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The decision has been taken to ban Pat Jaress from editing Wikipedia pages for a year. Pat has agreed to join the forum and will explain how just five members of the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee are able to control what appears on the so-called "neutral and objective" Wikipedia. It is fast becomming the major source of disinformation in the world. It in fact will takeover from Fox News, CBS, New York Times, Washington Post, etc. as the main news and information source of Operation Mockingbird.

The discussions that took place in the decision to remove Pat Jaress as editor have now been deleted. I saved an early version of this and thought it would be a good idea to post it on this thread:

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RPJ/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration | RPJ

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here.

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.

Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.

Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.

Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if they so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

On this case, no Arbitrators are recused and 5 are inactive, so 5 votes are a majority (8 active arbitrators).

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page (this link was removed so it was not possible to add comments on the debate).

1) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires that all significant points of view regarding a subject be fairly represented in an article on the subject.

Support:

Fred Bauder 16:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

SimonP 02:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Charles Matthews 20:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

➥the Epopt 14:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg (talk) 04:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement from John Simkin

I am the author of the Spartacus Educational website. It was started in September 1997. The main objective was to provide a free encyclopaedia. I believe this was a similar intention behind the creation of Wikipedia. Like Wikipedia, Spartacus has resisted all attempts to become a “subscription only” service. I was attracted to the idea of creating a website because I saw the possibility of breaking the stranglehold of the rich and powerful over the communications system. It was hoped that when Jimmy Wales started Wikipedia in 2001, he shared this vision. In an interview he gave to Slashdot he said "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." (2004-07-28) However, it seems that Wikipedia is now being used to support the “official interpretation” of the past as reflected in the mainstream media.

At the time I created the Spartacus Educational website, I was a history teacher (11-18 year olds) in England. I was also a prolific writer of history books for students. As I still held the copyright for my books, I decided to put them on the web free of charge. Students, from all over the world, were therefore being provided with free teaching materials. This is especially useful for students in the Third World who do not have the money to purchase textbooks or to those who study in countries where the authorities use the political system to control the information they receive. On average, we get 6 million page impressions a month. A survey carried out by the Fischer Family Trust showed that the Spartacus Educational website was used by more history students in the UK than any other website, including that of the BBC. As you can see, I am a very dangerous person.

http://www.fischertrust.org/

According to this page “three of the arbitrators deem Spartacus as "unreliable" and dedicated to a "propagandistic point of view." It goes on to say: “The complaining editors want defending editor RPJ banned from Wikipedia for, among other things, citing Spartacus.”

It seems strange that the arbitrators want to “ban” someone for citing a source of information because it apparently puts forward a “"propagandistic point of view". In fact, if these arbitrators spent just a short period of time on my website they would soon discover that one of my main themes is to expose propaganda from wherever it comes. See for example, my section on the communist government in the Soviet Union:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RussiaSU.htm

I especially recommend those pages on Socialist Realism, NKVD Secret Police, Soviet Writers' Union and banned writers such as Yevgeni Zamyatin, Isaac Babel, Boris Pilnyak, Nickolai Tikhonov, Mikhail Slonimski, Vsevolod Ivanov, Victor Serge, Vladimir Mayakovsky, Sergei Yesenin, Konstantin Fedin, Victor Shklovsky, Mikhail Zoshchenko and Alexander Solzhenitsyn.

The arbitrators seem more interested in my pages on American history. After looking at my pages on “Barry Goldwater, Harry Truman, and a few other historical figures” it is concluded that I “have, what an American might believe, is a foreign viewpoint of modern American history which might seem stark, candid, and non-deferential”. I have to confess that I am indeed “candid and non-deferential”. However, that is not only true of my pages on American historical figures. I take the same approach with historical figures from all countries, not just those from the United States.

The debate about me being a reliable source is apparently based on my pages on the assassination of John F. Kennedy. That I am guilty of putting forward a "propagandistic point of view." This seems to completely misunderstand the contents of my encyclopaedia. The website was created to support the teaching of history in the UK. One of the aspects of the history curriculum in the UK is to teach “interpretations”. That is to say, we teach our students that people interpret the past in different ways. There are several factors involved in this process - this includes the political beliefs of the person creating the “interpretation”. Nationalistic factors are also important, hence the reasons why arbitrators at Wikipedia based in the United States have taken offence at my “candid and non-deferential” interpretations of American political figures.

Educators in the UK have tried to deal with this problem by rejecting the idea that it is possible to create a “standardized, neutral, objective” interpretation of the past of the type favoured by the Soviet Union under Stalin and Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler. Instead, history teachers in the UK attempt to arm its students with the skills needed to deal with issues like subjectivity and propaganda. Therefore, when we teach any historical subjects, we expose our students to different interpretations of the past. We also provide them with the sources of evidence that these historians use to support their interpretation of the past. This is true whether you are studying Barry Goldwater, Harry Truman, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin or the assassination of John F. Kennedy. This is reflected by my encyclopaedia. Therefore on most pages you will get examples of different interpretations of that subject. It seems that the Wikipedia arbitrators, who dislike my website, have concentrated on those interpretations they disagree with.

I suspect that attempts to get my links banned from Wikipedia has very little to do with my page on Lee Harvey Oswald. It has more to do with my pages on people like George H. W. Bush, Luis Posada Carriles, Orlando Bosch, Robert Gates, that have links to my site from Wikipedia. This is a debate about people who are still alive. It is a debate about the present and not the past. When Wikipedia arbitrators talk about the need to produce “neutral and objective” entries, they are really concerned about the provision of a standardized view of the past. They are the modern Stalins and Hitlers who believe that the state should determine the way we see the world. Before I edited it, the Wikipedia entry for the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird described it as an “urban myth”. In fact, the CIA is still attempting to control the world’s mass media and that includes the internet. It is only to be expected that today’s struggle over how we interpret the past and the present is taking place at Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird

I am very interested to know something about the people who accuse me of producing propaganda. We always teach our history students that it is important to explore the background of the people creating these “interpretations”. That is why, in my encyclopedia I provide a link to a page on the person who has created the material. I also provide a link to my own biography:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/author.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Simkin

Maybe my accusers at Wikipedia should provide also provide biographies that provides us some information about their experience of studying or teaching history.

I expect that this entry will soon be deleted so I have also posted it on the International Education Forum. Maybe the Wikipedia arbitrators would like to join the forum so they can post a defence of their views.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8861

Appropriate use of sources

2) Generally, material used in articles should come from reliable secondary sources, not from primary data, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Types_of_source_material. As applied to this case, where the Warren Commission Report contains extensive accounts of primary evidence, use of the primary evidence to draw novel conclusions is inappropriate. It is the interpretation of the primary evidence by the Warren Commission which is usable as a secondary source.

Support:

Fred Bauder 16:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Primary sources can be very useful, but original syntheses based on such sources are original research. SimonP 02:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Charles Matthews 20:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

➥the Epopt 14:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg (talk) 04:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

No original research

3) Wikipedia editors may summarize reliable secondary and tertiary sources but may not conduct original research. As stated at WP:NOR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, synthesis of primary documents into a new argument constitutes original research.

Support:

Fred Bauder 16:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

SimonP 02:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Charles Matthews 20:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

➥the Epopt 14:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg (talk) 04:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Use of unreliable sources

4) It is inappropriate to use information from unreliable sources devoted to an extreme partisan point of view, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Partisan_and_extremist_websites.

Support:

Fred Bauder 16:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

SimonP 02:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Charles Matthews 20:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

➥the Epopt 14:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg (talk) 04:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Verifiability, not truth

5) The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed, see Wikipedia:Verifiability. As applied to this case, the policy may mean that, in the absence of verifiable alternative versions of events that have been published in reliable sources, the dull official versions of events may form the bulk of a Wikipedia article regardless of public opinion regarding a matter.

Support:

Fred Bauder 16:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

SimonP 02:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Charles Matthews 20:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

➥the Epopt 14:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg (talk) 04:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Banning of disruptive editors

6) Editors who disrupt editing of articles by aggressive biased editing may be banned from the affected articles, in extreme cases from the site.

Support:

Fred Bauder 16:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

SimonP 02:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Charles Matthews 20:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

➥the Epopt 14:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg (talk) 04:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Socks

7) Anonymous or alternate accounts which mirror the disruptive editing behavior of a banned or blocked editor are subject to the remedies applicable to the banned or blocked editor.

Support:

Fred Bauder 16:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Though I'm not certain about the title. Occassionally editing anonymously, which is all that seems to have occured in this case, is not usually considered sockpuppetry. SimonP 02:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Charles Matthews 20:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

➥the Epopt 14:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg (talk) 04:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

RPJ

1) RPJ (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) has edited in an aggressive biased manner, see this edit and this explanation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RPJ

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vil...pump_%28news%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...on/RPJ/Workshop

Support:

Fred Bauder 16:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

SimonP 02:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Charles Matthews 20:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

➥the Epopt 14:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg (talk) 04:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

RPJ's liberal interpretation of NPOV

1.1) RPJ's interpretation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is more liberal than is appropriate, taking the position that "all significant information is put in the article." This statement was made in response to a protest regarding adding questionable information [1] referring to the Mauser edit. See also this edit and this assertion.

Support:

Fred Bauder 16:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

SimonP 02:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Charles Matthews 20:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

➥the Epopt 14:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg (talk) 04:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

RPJ's failure to assume good faith

1.2) RPJ has expressed his opinion that other users are using techniques of disinformation, [2]. See also "Below is a response of a person who may want only one viewpoint in the article" and [3]. extended characterization of another user, taunting of another user, and more taunting.

Support:

Fred Bauder 16:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

SimonP 02:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Charles Matthews 20:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

➥the Epopt 14:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg (talk) 04:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Original research advanced by RPJ

1.3) RPJ has advanced original research based on primary sources edit by RPJ citing primary source. Some of the primary reports of evidence are included in the Warren Commission Report, but do not lose their primary status by such inclusion. In at least one case the information advanced by RPJ is not contained in the cited source, eg, information about the chain of custody is contradicted by the source cited. In another instance a friend of Oswald's is described as "[holding] extreme right wing views" in this edit, an assertion not supported by the source cited, see this comment.

Support:

Fred Bauder 16:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

SimonP 02:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Charles Matthews 20:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

➥the Epopt 14:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg (talk) 04:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Use of unreliable sources by RPJ

1.4) RPJ regularly cites information from unreliable sites dedicated to a propagandistic point of view, one is spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk, [4] [5] and [6] ([7]). See also this, this, and this. material from another conspiracy theory site: ratical.org.

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...;oldid=29196939

[5] http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhosty.htm

[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...;oldid=84470632

[7] http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKcurryJ.htm

Support:

Fred Bauder 16:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

SimonP 02:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Charles Matthews 20:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

➥the Epopt 14:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg (talk) 04:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

RPJ a single purpose editor

2) Most of RPJ's edits have been disruptive edits to Kennedy Assassination related articles. He has not contributed productively to Wikipedia.

Support:

Fred Bauder 16:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

SimonP 02:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Charles Matthews 20:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

➥the Epopt 14:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg (talk) 04:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Anonymous edits by RPJ

3) RPJ has made a number of disruptive edits using anonymous ips.

Support:

Fred Bauder 16:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

SimonP 02:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Charles Matthews 20:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

➥the Epopt 14:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg (talk) 04:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

RPJ banned from Wikipedia

1) RPJ is banned from Wikipedia for one year.

Support:

Fred Bauder 16:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

SimonP 02:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Charles Matthews 20:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

➥the Epopt 14:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg (talk) 04:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

RPJ is placed on probation

2) RPJ is placed on indefinite probation. He may be banned from the site for an appropriate period by any administrator if he edits in a disruptive manner. Blocks and bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RPJ#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Support:

Fred Bauder 16:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

SimonP 02:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Charles Matthews 20:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

➥the Epopt 14:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg (talk) 04:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Socks

1) Edits by anonymous ips or alternative accounts which mirror RPJ's editing behavior are subject to the remedies applied to RPJ. Blocks and bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RPJ#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Support:

Fred Bauder 16:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

SimonP 02:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Charles Matthews 20:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

➥the Epopt 14:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg (talk) 04:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Vote

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

Everything has passed. Jayjg (talk) 04:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Close Fred Bauder 06:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It [Wikipedia] is fast becomming the major source of disinformation in the world. It in fact will takeover from Fox News, CBS, New York Times, Washington Post, etc. as the main news and information source of Operation Mockingbird.

It is Operation Mockingbird.

They wasted no time at all in running in some mechanic to completely whitewash the original Wikipedia "Watergate first break-in" article (which I derived a lot of my research from) back to the Official Story, nor in completely eradicating from existence the Remote Viewing Timeline that exposes serious CIA crimes, which first was posted in Wikipedia. The page I just linked to for the timeline originally had a big banner at the top with the story of the Wikipedia censorship, but it appears they've elected to take that down.

Ashton

Edited by Ashton Gray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is amazing to me is that these men can have so much power and yet we know so little about them. One of the first things we teach young historians is that when you are trying to work out if a source is reliable or valid, it is necessary to find out as much as you can about the person or persons who produced it.

Members of the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee can ban an editor of Wikipedia for life based on their own interpretation of the evidence. This includes making completely inaccurate comments about me even though I provide a detailed biography on my website and at Wikipedia. Yet, it is impossible to question the academic background of the people making these statements, because they do not provide this information. One can see why. The only one who provides any sort of information that can be checked, Charles Matthews, has a degree in mathematics. They are even allowed to hide behind nicknames, making it impossible to discover their expertise in the area of study. Wikipeda will lose all academic credibility unless it does something to clean-up its arbitration process.

By the way, reading the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee page suggests that "Epopt" was not a valid voter. Mind you, considering the debate that went on concerning the banning of Pat Jaress, it seems that it is a feature of arbitration meetings that all committee members have to be in full agreement about every stage in the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been told by a Dr Debug, that I must put a link to my Spartacus Educational website, from my Wikipedia biography. He/she has described this as “advertising”. Once again, it is impossible to know who this Dr Debug is. As I said earlier, Wikipedia cannot obtain credibility until they provide names and background information on the people writing and editing its encyclopedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dr_Debug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a trial attorney in Honolulu and for the last 35 years have engaged in trial work in commercial fraud, racketeering, and civil conspiracy both here and in California where I am also licensed so I know the area of law and usual fact patterns.

Last year I saw the articles in Wikipedia on the Kennedy assassination and was surprised at how outdated they were. I don't know that much about the subject but the articles were embarrassingly outdated. I've tried to update them with new information and its been like poking a hornet's nest. A group of editors seem to feel the only proper source of information is the Warren Report as interpreted by a Professor MacAdams that has a website devoted to the Kennedy assassination.

I then got interested in how the group of editors operated to drive away other ideas. Here is basically what has caused the controversy where they want me banned for life.

Presenting evidence of four significant viewpoints relating to the Kennedy murder:

• There was a criminal conspiracy to murder the President. This viewpoint is reflected in the final Report of the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1979 after a three year investigation. This viewpoint has majority support among 70% of the American public in 2003.

• There is “an official cover-up” involving the murder of the president. This viewpoint is reflected by G. Robert Blakey the former counsel for the House Select Committee on Assassinations.

"Significantly, the Warren Commission's conclusion that the agencies of the government co-operated with it is, in retrospect, not the truth. We also now know that the Agency [CIA] set up a process that could only have been designed to frustrate the ability of the committee in 1976-79 to obtain any information that might adversely affect the Agency."

"Many have told me that the culture of the Agency is one of prevarication and dissimulation and that you cannot trust it or its people. Period. End of story. I am now in that camp."

and a growing amount of evidentiary material being released by the HSCA [45]and Assassination Records Review Board. This viewpoint of "an official cover-up" has majority support among 68% of the American public in 2003.

• The conclusion of the Warren Commission that Lee Oswald was a lone assassin. This viewpoint has minority support among 22% of the American public in 2003.

• Lee Harvey Oswald did not participate in the plot to murder the President. This viewpoint was consistently voiced by Lee Oswald prior to his murder. This viewpoint has minority support among 7% of the American public in 2003.

These specific examples of contributions to Wikipedia have also not been well received:

* Finding and disclosing that a false history of research had been placed in the biography of the famous NASA scientist Dr. Eugene Shoemaker. (That human skulls recoil towards the shooter) This was used in the assassination article.

* A year later,again found a false history of research on human skulls had been placed again back in the biography of the late Dr. Shoemaker. This re-insertion of the information was done exactly one year after it was deleted by an editor of his biography when I had noted on the talk page of the Shoemaker biography that the information was unsourced and appeared suspect.

* Added information that was discovered by Congress years after the Warren Report was issued that the accused assassin, Lee Oswald, had the name and telephone number of an FBI agent in his address book, and had left a letter for the agent two days before the President was murdered. The FBI destroyed the letter and withheld the address book information.

* In the Warren Report article included a well known article from the New York Times about the CIA conducting a covert propaganda campaign to squelch criticism of the Warren Report (which clears the CIA of involvement in the Kennedy assassination). The CIA urges its agents to use their "propaganda assets" to attack those who didn't agree with the Warren Report. "Cable Sought to Discredit Critics of Warren Report" New York Times, December 26, 1977, p.A3

* Included excerpts from the now famous Katzenbach Memorandum. Written, three days after the Kennedy murder by Assistant Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, which said the purpose of the federal investigation was to satisfy the public “that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large."

* Included the excerpt from the Central Intelligence Agency's mission statement regarding a controversial activity of the CIA acting as a "secret hand" to perform "covert actions" assigned by the Director of the CIA or the President.

* Included excerpts from the 1998 Assassination Records Review Board Report criticizing the Kennedy autopsy on a number of grounds including the destruction original documents, the imprecise and inexplicably absent measurement of wounds, the failure to show original autopsy photographs by the Warren Commission, the failure to create an accounting of the photographs and a chain of custody for the autopsy materials, medical testimony in 1979 suggesting a change in the location of where the the fatal shot hit the head.

* Extracted actual testimony from the transcripts of witnesses from previously secret Warren Commission hearings. This is sworn testimony of witnesses to the actual assassination itself. These will be reconstructed, as as whole, in the workshop. Since most of it was put in and then deleted at several different times for different reasons by the complaining editors. Defending editor RPJ deems much of information to be the subject of a content dispute since the complaining editors insist the fatal head shot came from the rear of the head, and not the front right temple which blew out the back of his head.

In summary, this whole episode has proven very interesting and have come to a conclusion that it is an organized effort that is being consistently applied to Wikipedia and perhaps to other internet sites to limit information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Gary Loughran
I have been told by a Dr Debug, that I must put a link to my Spartacus Educational website, from my Wikipedia biography. He/she has described this as “advertising”. Once again, it is impossible to know who this Dr Debug is. As I said earlier, Wikipedia cannot obtain credibility until they provide names and background information on the people writing and editing its encyclopedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dr_Debug

Dr Debug is quite a fan of John's work...he has a demopedia site of JFK assassination, found in link presented by JS above. Which includes from index hyperlink - 2.17 Enemy Summary, a synopsis of John Simkins speculation. He also links this to a biography of John on the same site, which contains external links Spartacus. Doesn't seem like a character who runs with WC conclusions.

An invite to the forum might be in order.

Would an invite also be useful for the 5 arbitrators who so maddeningly upheld the RPJ complaints. At least get them on our territory and let them be judged for their knowledge or lack thereof in the subject which they so woefully and contemptuously passed judgement.

At least we won't remove or edit their posts because we may or may not disagree with them. Certainly they will not be prevented from posting for having differing opinions. Hmmm, even writing the above has made me consider how fundamentally flawed the idea of the wikipedia is.

History nowadays is written by the owner of the website, it seems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr Debug is quite a fan of John's work...he has a demopedia site of JFK assassination, found in link presented by JS above. Which includes from index hyperlink - 2.17 Enemy Summary, a synopsis of John Simkins speculation. He also links this to a biography of John on the same site, which contains external links Spartacus. Doesn't seem like a character who runs with WC conclusions.

An invite to the forum might be in order.

Would an invite also be useful for the 5 arbitrators who so maddeningly upheld the RPJ complaints. At least get them on our territory and let them be judged for their knowledge or lack thereof in the subject which they so woefully and contemptuously passed judgement.

A good idea. I will invite them today.

At least we won't remove or edit their posts because we may or may not disagree with them. Certainly they will not be prevented from posting for having differing opinions. Hmmm, even writing the above has made me consider how fundamentally flawed the idea of the wikipedia is.

History nowadays is written by the owner of the website, it seems.

That is why forums are better than conventional websites for writing history. Wikipedia might be acceptable for some subjects but is a ridiculous idea for presenting information on controversial subjects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One may find it interesting that Wikipedia does not hesitate to implicate the good old CIA in Coup D Etats in other parts of the world, such as the 1979 assassination of Park Chung Hee of South Korea. Park was killed by the head of the Korean Central Intelligence Agency, KIm Jae-Kyu. Kim's attempt to blame it on North Korean guerrillas was exposed and he and five co-conspirators were executed within a year of the Coup. According to Wikipedia , Kim repeatedly asked if the American CIA had attempted to contact him yet. No hiding that story like in Dallas. As we know, Lee Oswald attempted to call his contacts as well.

The "Presidents Last Bang" , the movie about the assassination, has been attacked by Park's son , but it there is not much controvery about what happened. Park supporters do not like the film because it simply does not put President Park in a very good light, since he died in the company of two young women. One of the women is the famous Korean singer Sim Soo-bong

http://www.simsoobong.com

who suspended her career over the trauma, but continues to perform in Korea today.

Park Chung Hee assassination

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

The assassination of Park Chung Hee, the former president of South Korea, occurred on October 26, 1979 at a secret house in the Blue House compound connected with Korean Central Intelligence Agency (KCIA) in Gungjeong-dong, Jongno-gu, Seoul, South Korea, at 7:41pm. It is simply known as "10.26" or the "10.26 incident" in South Korea.

Contents [hide]

1 Assassination

2 Those involved in assassination

3 Possible motivations of assassination

4 See also

5 External links

[edit] Assassination

KCIA director Kim Jae-kyu invited Park to a dinner at a KCIA building in the Blue House compound. After Park and guests were seated, Kim Jae-kyu left the dining room to convene with his co-conspirators. Kim reentered the room, pulled a .38 revolver, shot a bodyguard of the president, and then fired several shots at Park. Upon hearing the shots, five armed KCIA agents stormed the room and adjacent rooms to kill two of the president's security detail and his driver.

[edit] Those involved in assassination

Kim Jae-kyu: Hanged on May 24, 1980

Park Heung-ju: Executed by firing squad on March 6, 1980

Park Seon-ho, a KCIA agent and a longtime friend of Kim Jae-gyu : Hanged on May 24, 1980

Yoo Seong-ok, a driver in the secret house: Hanged on May 24, 1980

Lee Ki-ju, head of secret house security service: Hanged on May 24, 1980

Kim Tae-won, secret house security agent: Hanged on May 24, 1980

Seo Young-jun, secret house security agent: Released after imprisonment

[edit] Possible motivations of assassination

Kim Jae-kyu testified in court:

I shot the heart of Yusin Constitution like a beast. I did that for democracy of this country. Nothing more nothing less.

Another interesting note: shortly after shooting president Park, Kim Jae-kyu allegedly made frequent and desperate inquiries as to whether the "American CIA" have attempted to contact him yet. This lead to a possible conspiracy theory involving CIA.

[edit] See also

The President's Last Bang: a movie describing the event

[edit] External links

BBC News' "On this day": a recollection of Park's assassination.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Chung_Hee_assassination"

Category: Assassinations

Tax-deductibility of donations | FAQ | Financial statements (pdf)

The President's Last Bang

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

The President's Last Bang

The President's Last Bang poster

Directed by Im Sang-soo

Produced by MK Pictures

Written by Im Sang-soo

Starring Song Jae-ho

Han Suk-kyu

Baek Yun-shik

Distributed by MK Pictures

Release date(s) 2005 (South Korea)

Running time 102 min.

Language Korean

IMDb profile

Korean name

Hangul: 그때 그사람들

Hanja: (n/a)

Revised Romanization: Geuddae Geusaramdeul 1

McCune-Reischauer: (n/a)

The President's Last Bang is a satiric black comedy film by South Korean director Im Sang-soo about the events leading to and the aftermath of the assassination of former Korean President Park Chung-hee by his close friend and Korean Intelligence Agency director Kim Jae-kyu.

The negative portrayal of the former President has raised a storm of controversy, leading to a suit against the film by Park Chung-hee's only son, Park Ji-man. A ruling by the Seoul Central Court ordered that 3 minutes and 50 seconds of documentary footage (mostly of demonstrations) be edited out of the film, so as to not confuse the film with real events. This ruling is being appealed, and the excised footage replaced with a blank screen for its running time.

Contents [hide]

1 Plot

1.1 Cast

2 Footnotes

3 External links

[edit] Plot

Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details follow.

Almost the entirety of the film focus on the few hours before and after Park's assassination on October 26, 1979. Undoubtedly the most controversial aspect of the film is its portrayal of Park. In the film, he is shown to be a cowardly libertine, having late-night drinking parties, pawing young women, and in particular having much admiration for Japanese culture, to the point of occasionally speaking Japanese himself2.

The film starts out in the Blue House, where KCIA Chief Agent Ju deals with the outrage of the mother of a young woman who was one of Park's playmates by interrogating and intimidating them. KCIA director Kim gets scolded by a doctor about his drinking, a direct result of having to attend President Park's drinking parties. Scenes of various officials and low officers making their way to a heavily-guarded safehouse follow, including Chief Agent Ju procuring an attractive young woman and the famous enka singer Sim Soo-bong for the party.

During the dinner, President Park, his personal bodyguard Cha Ji-Chul, Director Kim, Chief Secretary Yang (appointed to the post to be Park's drinking buddy, portrayed as a total sycophant) discuss how to deal with demonstrators, with Cha berating Kim for not being repressive enough. Kim, having been agitated the entire day, decides then to kill Park, and hatches the plan with Chief Agent Ju and KCIA Col. Min.

Director Kim returns to the party, shoots Cha (who is unarmed) and Park, each with a single shot, jamming the pistol on this second shot. Soon thereafter, Agent Ju and Col. Min and a few minions kill the president's personal bodyguard staff and secure the building. Kim comes back with another gun and finishes off Cha and tells off Park before shooting him in the head. They move to make the scene resemble an ambush by North Korean forces, and Kim uses the political fear and tension to his advantage while convening a Cabinet Council.

Director Kim and Colonel Min meet with the Army higher-ups to sell them his version of events, but Chief Secretary Yang gets to them first and tells what really happened. With every agency under its own authority and the possibility of inter-agency war looming over, the Army arrests Director Kim, leaving Agent Yu and Colonel Min helpless and confused. Realizing their fate, they call their families to say goodbye. Prime Minister Choi Kyu-ha ascends to the presidency, and the fates of those involved at the party, mostly execution, are listed.

[edit] Cast

Song Jae-ho - Park Chung-hee

Han Suk-kyu - KCIA Chief Agent Ju

Baek Yun-shik - KCIA director Kim Jae-kyu

[edit] Footnotes

1. The original title (in English, "The People of Those Days") refers to a famous Korean song of a similar title - "The Person of those Days". According to official sources, this song was performed by Sim Soo-bong during the party the night of Park's assassination. In the movie, however, Sim Soo-bong is summoned to perform Japanese enka songs.

2. The memory of Japanese Occupation fresh in the minds of many Koreans, this implies affection for if not association with Korea's former colonizers.

[edit]

Edited by Peter McGuire
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a trial attorney in Honolulu and for the last 35 years have engaged in trial work in commercial fraud, racketeering, and civil conspiracy both here and in California where I am also licensed so I know the area of law and usual fact patterns.

Last year I saw the articles in Wikipedia on the Kennedy assassination and was surprised at how outdated they were. I don't know that much about the subject but the articles were embarrassingly outdated. I've tried to update them with new information and its been like poking a hornet's nest. A group of editors seem to feel the only proper source of information is the Warren Report as interpreted by a Professor MacAdams that has a website devoted to the Kennedy assassination.

John:

This is most distressing. Aston is correct: this site IS Operation Mockingbird. How sad for all the people who go there, young people especially. More sheeple. It was just a matter of time til the Net came under this nazi-like control.

Thank God that this forum and others like it exist. There is truth to be found on the net; one just has to know where to look.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr Debug is quite a fan of John's work...he has a demopedia site of JFK assassination, found in link presented by JS above. Which includes from index hyperlink - 2.17 Enemy Summary, a synopsis of John Simkins speculation. He also links this to a biography of John on the same site, which contains external links Spartacus. Doesn't seem like a character who runs with WC conclusions.

I was keen to talk to Dr. Debug about his comments. However, he is not contactable via his Wikipedia page. It seems very strange as his own page provides links to his own website (Demopedia). That site makes full use of information from my Spartacus website. No problem with that as this is acknowledged. It just seems strange he should take me to task for promoting my own work.

It seems that a major battle is taking place at Wikipedia over the issue of the JFK Assassination and other related subjects. I have had messages asking me to use my media contacts to expose the way the NeoCons are controlling Wikipedia. When this becomes public knowledge Wikipedia's reputation in the UK will be in tatters.

See the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GabrielF...racyNoticeboard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Gary Loughran

Hi John,

Looking at the deletions, I don't believe a major battle is taking place, it seems more of an extermination.

Your comment previously was perceptive, in that the Wikipedia is a useless vehicle (in the way it's currently administered for dealing with historical/controversial issues) - though it does provide a decent repository for 'common knowledge' e.g. quiz answers, definitions, swift intros to subjects.

How do you propose the UK media can assist you/us in alerting the general public to it's failings, or how can we assist you.

I've used word of mouth vociferously, but the receivers of the message hear it and aren't perhaps as passionate about certain things as me. Hence the message doesn't get furthered.

If we can identify something which would xxxxx the passions and conscious of many then maybe there is something to run with.

I feel using JFK as a subject is something many people are ambivalent about, they feel oh there was a conspiracy, but what can you do?

British and Irish people have become attuned to disbelieving governments and little that the masses have done have enacted change in policy or methods.

I'm rambling a bit now, I have a terrible habit of writing what I'm thinking, whilst I'm thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since starting this thread I have received a lot of information from insiders about the way this NeoCon cabal runs Wikipedia. Fred Bauder seems to be the leader of this group. He describes himself as a retired lawyer but in fact he is like our old pal, Tim Gratz, a debarred lawyer.

SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO

No. 98SA447

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE

January 25, 1999

IN THE MATTER OF FRED BAUDER

EN BANC ATTORNEY SUSPENDED

Linda Donnelly, Attorney Regulation Counsel

James C. Coyle, Assistant Attorney Regulation Counsel

Denver, Colorado

Fred Bauder, Pro Se

Crestone, Colorado

PER CURIAM

In this lawyer discipline case, a hearing panel of the supreme court grievance committee approved the findings and recommendation of the hearing board. The board and the panel recommended that the respondent, Fred Bauder, be suspended for thirty days, be required to petition for reinstatement, and pay certain costs before again being allowed to practice law. We accept the recommendation.

I.

Fred Bauder was licensed to practice law in Colorado in 1976. He failed to answer the formal complaint filed in this case and the hearing board entered a default against him. The allegations of fact contained in the complaint were therefore deemed admitted. See C.R.C.P. 241.13; People v. Paulson , 930 P.2d 582, 582 (Colo. 1997). Based on the default and the evidence presented, the hearing board found that the following had been established by clear and convincing evidence.

On July 14, 1997, we publicly censured Bauder for soliciting for prostitution during a phone call with the wife of a dissolution of marriage client. See People v. Bauder , 941 P.2d 282, 283 (Colo. 1997). Bauder was ordered to pay the costs of that proceeding in the amount of $2,058.97 within thirty days of the date on the opinion. See id. at 283-84. He did not pay the costs as ordered, however, or file a motion for an extension of time to comply with our order. Moreover, Bauder failed to respond to a letter from the Office of Disciplinary Counsel and has not explained or justified his noncompliance with the order. As a result, a request for investigation was filed against him. Bauder did not respond to the request for investigation.

The hearing board concluded that Bauder knowingly disobeyed an order of this court in violation of Colo. RPC 3.4©; and that his conduct also violated Colo. RPC 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) and C.R.C.P. 241.6(7) (failing to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation).

II.

The hearing panel approved the board's recommendation that Bauder be suspended for thirty days, be required to petition for reinstatement, and as a further condition of reinstatement, demonstrate that he has paid the costs incurred in the 1997 proceeding.

Under the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1991 & Supp. 1992) (ABA Standards ), "uspension is appropriate when a lawyer knowingly violates a court order or rule, and there is injury or potential injury to a client or a party, or interference or potential interference with a legal proceeding." ABA Standards 6.22. However, disbarment is warranted when a lawyer "(a) intentionally or knowingly violates the terms of a prior disciplinary order and such violation causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public, the legal system, or the profession." Id. at 8.1(a).

The 1997 public censure is an aggravating factor for analyzing the proper level of discipline. See id. at 9.22(a). Other aggravating factors include Bauder's refusal to acknowledge the wrongfulness of his conduct, see id. at 9.22(g); his substantial experience in the practice of law, see id. at 9.22(i); and his indifference to making restitution, see id. at 9.22(j). Because Bauder did not appear at the hearing or offer any evidence, no mitigating factors were found.

The lawyer respondent has defaulted and apparently ignored the disciplinary proceedings. We elect to accept the board's recommendation. See People v. Rishel , 956 P.2d 542, 544 (Colo. 1998). We are satisfied that the requirement that the respondent undergo reinstatement proceedings and demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he is again fit to practice law will adequately protect the public. Accordingly, we accept the recommendations of the hearing board and panel. One member of the court, however, would impose more severe discipline.

III.

It is hereby ordered that Fred Bauder is suspended from the practice of law for thirty days, effective thirty days after the issuance of this opinion. It is further ordered that, prior to seeking reinstatement and as a condition thereof, Bauder shall pay the costs of his 1997 disciplinary proceeding in the amount of $2,058.97 plus statutory interest from August 14, 1997, to the Attorney Regulation Committee. Bauder is further ordered to pay the costs of this proceeding in the amount of $124.11 within thirty days after this opinion is announced to the Attorney Regulation Committee, 600 Seventeenth Street, Suite 200 South, Denver, Colorado 80202-5432. Bauder shall not be reinstated until after he has complied with C.R.C.P. 251.29.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...