Talk:Barry Chamish/Archive 1

Archive 1

Kempler video "soapbox"

Hey Barry fans, the Kempler video of the Rabin murder is a big scoop. I just found the entire video a week ago and am posting it everywhere in every language. It is not hard to do. Yitzhak Rabin, Yigal Amir are the relevent links. I put together www.barrychamish.com and www.yigalamir.com. Both sites I pay the hosting fees. I don't mind spending a bit more money if the real killers of Rabin get punished. so post the Kempler video everywhere. The wiki that I have been unsuccesful posting is, of course, the hebrew wiki. There is a group that takes down the link within minutes. You can even post in english and comment in english. Kempler video. Believe it or not most Israeli's have never heard the term Kempler video. The video was shown for one week in 1996 and never seen again till a guy gave it to me. It was sitting in his computer for 9 and a half years. So please post in the hebrew wiki especially.

• Hey there, why didn't you sign your comments with your Wikipedia User name by using the four tildes ~~~~ ? Also please do NOT use Wikipedia as a "soapbox" because it is against Wikipedia's rules, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine. Thank you. IZAK 03:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Yigal Amir's petition for a retrial

The following information could be included in the article of a verifiable source of information is given: Petitioning a retrial, however, Yigal Amir's new attorney is Dov Even-Or, who also represents Barry Chamish and David Rutstein in other cases. Such sources include one of the mainstream media channels and documents at the website of the court. They would not include self-made and maintained websites, original research and "alternative media souces", such as rotter.net, which publish materials sent to the without much verification. This comment also refers to the Yigal Amir article similar information is provided. Other than alternative media sources, we must comply with the Wikipedia policies to keep good credibility as a source information. gidonb 17:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

the petition filed by Yigal Amir attorney, Dov Even Or is online at all my hebrew web sites which include yigalamir.com shimonperes.net yitzhakrabin.co.il arielsharon.co.il .. as well on Larissa Amir, Yigal's wife, website yigal-amir.com just doubles click Yigal's picture and you can see the lawsuit..Regarding Gidonb decided what news source is reputable.. yea right, The story of the Rabin murder conspiracy is breaking. It should be over very soon.. so gidonb, I really don't know what your interest is.. but I really want the story to break before the next election.. Just like it had a mini-break before the labor primary... so alot of your work at deleting actually will cause Sharon/Peres to loose the election.. If the story broke sooner then Peres would be out completely.. Because of the small min - break out of the story.. Peres looses by a hair.. Peretz kicks him out of Labor.. and now Sharon will loose because of Peres...kempler video 17:56, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)

John Lennon

Chamish said that Yoko Ono was behind the assassination of John Lennon and that the song Imagine is about the New World Order. [1]

Please see my reaction at Talk:John Lennon. gidonb 21:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't find your reaction. I think some one erased it. if you have a back-up please repost here and on one of the Lennon pages.

Lenbrazil 14:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It is actually still there. Please see Talk:John_Lennon#Conspiracy_theory. Regards, gidonb 14:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

William Cooper

Hello KV! I really like the work you are doing here (I remember reading some of your stuff when I was putting an internal link on the Jeff Rense artical, and I saw your writings, indeed I was not surprised to see that there are some 'fixers' who are constantly trying to edit your stuff out in favore of some defamitory garbage against Mr. Chamish). However, why did you take out William Cooper's link? At least you could have merely taken out the UFO stuff, afterall Cooper did not believe it extraterrestrial, but rather an Illuminati ruse. Cooper was a patriot who was after the same people Chamish was, they are rather complimentery, and if some people want to discredit BOTH of them, that just shows what THEIR agenda is. Please do not be put off by Mr. Cooper (may he rest in peace).

Thank you,

69.248.43.27 04:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

BLOCKING User:Gidonb

SOME ADMIN COULD BLOCK HIM. HE IS REMOVING TIME AFTER TIME THE LINK TO OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF BARRY FOR NO GOOD REASON. --Haham hanuka 12:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The link was removed per WP policies and consensus above. Haham Hanuka is a POV pushing user who frequently gets blocked for long periods of time. He was referred several times to this discussion but refuses to contribute, preferring personal attacks and complaints instead under the title "BLOCKING User:Gidonb". I wish to have this affair checked out thoroughly, because I am totally fed up with the behavior of two individuals on these pages. Undoing POV is becoming a fultime job and I can hardly write a line. gidonb 12:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anyhting in the "consensus above". Be so kind as to repeat your reasonning here, and specify the policies involved. William M. Connolley 14:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC).

The discussion and consensus were on Talk:Yitzhak_Rabin_assassination_conspiracy_theories#External_links. This is the other place where he tries to insert this link, but he referred only to this page in his awkward request in the Wikipedia name-space accusing falsely accusing me of WP:3RR (Haham hanuka is about as much banned as he is allowed to participate on Wikipedia). I offered Haham hanuka to join the discussion and add his opinion, but instead he reverts me every time. I am totally fed up with his troll behavior. That said, his friend who accuses me of murder is worse. I think that the admins can do somewhat more to protect me and my edits. gidonb 14:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

See for example his false accusation here [2]. I think that all his latest edits and accusations should be undone and that he should be called to order for the umpteenth time. This is really a bad day for this discussion because those who know him and me best cannot edit today. gidonb 15:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that as being adequate. On the YR page it might be appropriate to choose another link; on this page, a link to the page subjects website is clearly appropriate (do you contest that it is BC's website? If not, I can't see any excuse for removing the link). Put in a warning if you like. Note: I'm not going to edit here; I only followed WP:3RR. William M. Connolley 15:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC).

Thank you. I except and respect your opinion that this consensus is applies to to YR page. I will undo all his other troll edits, 3RR or not. Sorry but I do not receive enough assistance from the admins, not withstanding your welcome efforts for a very specific point. Each Shabbat all articles relates to Israel are plundered by POV pushers from right and left. This is a very structural issue. I hope that you will support my bid for adminship, so I can give it a last shot. It is becoming far and far too time consuming without the rollback buttons. Regards, gidonb 15:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for discussion

I do not understand why you two are fighting a revert war over whether Yigal Amir should be wiki'd or not [3] [4]. Before you both get yourselves blocked for 3RR, will you please discuss the issue at hand on the talk page here (without using CAPITALs or words like Troll). William M. Connolley 17:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC).

Of course there is no problem whatsoever with the the link to Yigal Amir article, an article to which I have contributed myself. One only has to follow the links to see that you are mistaken. Why didn't you ask what I meant or read more thoroughly? This is obviously "only" a mistake, however it is a mistake that stains my excellent reputation on Wikipedia. Blocking someone, attacking his actions on several talk pages, jumping to wrong conclusions on someone's account, all this extremely unpleasant. I have tried to contact you about your obvious errors, but you did not respond. gidonb 04:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

If you don't object to the link to YA, why then are you removing it [5]? William M. Connolley 10:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC).

Naturally only because there were two such links in subsequent sentences. What other reasons could there possibly be for a user, whose sole aim is to improve the quality of this encyclopedia, to remove a wiki to a central article with respect to Barry Chamish? I am sorry I even have to defend myself from your allegations, but I already did on my talk page where you made the same allegations. I wish to remind you that we have policies about no personal attacks and assuming good intentions. You just violated them. gidonb 13:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

This issue still goes by unanswered. gidonb 15:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I still received no substantial response to this inquiry. My polite inquiries and objections were deleted from William M. Connolley's talk page. I think I deserve better treatment than this and would appreciate if other admins can look into this matter. gidonb 22:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Why remove the link?

I don't understand why you are removing the link to Barry Chamish's website. As William M. Connolley said above, "a link to the page subjects website is clearly appropriate (do you contest that it is BC's website? If not, I can't see any excuse for removing the link)."

You said in the edit summary that you were removing a 'controversial' link. Of course it's going to contain controversial material given the controversial nature of the author but to not have Barry Chamish's website listed on the page about Barry Chamish would be silly. The same is true of other controversial people/organisations. --Spondoolicks 14:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the conclusion was indeed that the link would be allowed at this page, but not at the Yitzhak Rabin conspiracy theories. I hope it is clear that I am very disturbed with William M. Connolley unfounded personal allegations against me. My questions on this matter were deleted from his talk page. I think it is very sad that an admin choses to contribute to the discussions in such a nonconstructive manner. gidonb 14:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Chamish's reply to Plaut

I'm no fan of Chamish, I think he is a second rate raving fruit loop lunatic, but I read he replied to Steve Plaut's debunking of his Rabin theories thought it should be linked of the article page. But I'm loo lazy too search Google for it.Lenbrazil 13:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

We carry a link to the Chamish website. On the website one can find answers with personal attacks on anyone who says something against Chamish and his theories. For example, I have been blamed for murder by his buddy, for just editing the Chamish article. NPOV is and will remain my only objective. Just recently I have taken away comments from this page that were meant to trash Chamish. I would also remove your comments if made in the article. Personal attacks by Chamish's buddy and a local admin will not break my Wikipedia spirit. gidonb 15:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

"Lindbergh baby kidnapped by space aliens"

"He also claims that the Lindbergh baby was kidnapped by space aliens in league with the Illuminati."

if someone doesn't give me a source for this i'm deleting it.

Dear anon, I searched Lindbergh and Chamish and could only find this: http://www.rense.com/general19/cons.htm I guess this is the source. It falls short of what is mentioned in the article and is not by Chamish. Thank you for noticing and letting us know! Regards, gidonb 13:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

POV warning

While I agree with neither the point of view of Chamish, or of the anti-Chamish anon (who has been vandalizing today), the current edit war ended up in deleting all criticisms on Mr. Chamish, including the external links. Since Chamish is so much criticized, that situation is extremely problematic. I hope that the warring sides and peacekeeping editors can find a compromise. I have NPOVd this article for a long time between the extreme POVs, but I am very busy at present. I learned about the existence of Chamish for the first time through Wikipedia. I do answer to questions on topic, since I learned through the edits of the article, but I trust others can learn the same. It is all on the web. gidonb 00:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I have been bold and restored the last NPOV version, which can use further improvements. Started making some of these improvements as well. Please keep an eye on the page! gidonb 00:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Pipes as Legitimate Criticism?

I would like to suggest that it is preposterous to list Daniel Pipes as a legitimate critic of Chamish (or anyone else for that matter.) While I agree with the overall assertion that Chamish's "facts" are highly suspect, this is equally true of Pipes. See the wikipedia entry for Pipes, in addition to myriad critiques available throughout the worldwide press. If Chamish is to be critiqued in an ethical and honest way it should not include the opinions of someone as discredited as Pipes. Thoughts?

We do not asses Chamish and his conspiracy theories. We only describe them for our readers. The same applies to the criticisms. gidonb 17:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

activist

Is Chamish an activist? What 'activity' has he participated in? political, militant, social? --Shuki 22:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I removed the category, that I did not add to this article. gidonb 05:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to BLP Noticeboard post

Hi. I'm here in response to a post from an anon on the BLP noticeboard|. The poster complained about bias. I am disregarding entirely what s/he said about the views of those editing this article, but I have to agree with him/her that the article is not (yet) properly referenced. I'm going to change all the inline ELs to inline references and make a few other changes. I will take out anything at all that is negative about the article subject or any other living person and that isn't adequately sourced. This may appear to be harsh, but it is necessary under BLP policy. Please feel free to continue discussing the issues here and to re-add any info for which good sources do turn out to be available. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Pipes is NOT a reliable source

Citing an Islamophobic neoconservative who was quoted saying that Palestinians are miserable people and deserve to be so goes beyond all the principals that Wikipedia underlined for its articles. Please find another source that purports that Mr. Chamish is a holocaust denier whose articles were published, with his consent, in neonazi publications.

Ahm2307 (talk) 12:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)