Talk:Friedwardt Winterberg

Changes

I had to undo the changes below by 69.22.98.146 (talk · contribs) as there was no external citation listed for them. See WP:CITE and WP:V. Provide a citation, and we can restore them. Everything else in the article is meticulously documented.

"participation in a purely scientific nuclear fusion counsel originally established by Lyndon LaRouche" -- never heard of this "nuclear fusion counsel", and the name itself gets no Google hits, and from what I can tell there is no "purely scientific" anything established by LaRouche.
"Although Dr.Winterberg participated in a purely scientific nuclear fusion counsel that was originally sanctioned by the La Rouche Society, he was never a member of their political organisation." -- I don't have any evidence either way on the membership. Citation?
"Dr.Winterberg was never a member of LaRouche's political organisation, the LaRouche Society." -- ditto
"Many felt that Rudolph, who had designed the Saturn V rocket that took Neil Armstrong to the Moon, had been unfairly treated by the US Government." -- need evidence that it was a wider campaign than the FEF

Again, happy to insert whatever can be verified (the "International Academy of Astronautics" is easy to verify, so it stays, though I have moved it to the section relating to his scientific work).--Fastfission 22:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading Article needs Complete Rewriting

Dr.Winterberg was only a participant in purely scientific endeavors of LaRouche, and never politically. -- LaRouche was organizing scientists to promote Fusion energy, Winterberg's specialty -- that is all Winterberg had to do with LaRouche, it was purely scientific -- this is why your article is very very misleading. -- The Intro needs be totally rewritten. Licorne 13:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the article based on what material exists in the secondary literature. See WP:CITE and WP:NOR. Everything is meticulously cited, and nothing additional beyond what is in the secondary literature has been added. If you have additional secondary literature, feel free to provide it. --Fastfission 16:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be clear, Dr.Winterberg was never a member of the LaRouche Society. Your article makes it sound like as if he were. Licorne 13:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a published source that says he was never a member? If not, how do you know? WP:NOR. --Alvestrand 13:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was curious and emailed Dr.Winterberg at the University of Nevada, please you do the same if you don't believe me. Do you want me to post his email address here ? Licorne 13:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with me - proper reference is "private correspondence", I think. --Alvestrand 13:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK Great, do please then leave it, how I added it to the article that he was never a member of the LaRouche Society. Thanks. Licorne 14:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LaRouche right in the Intro ?

Is it really necessary to put LaRouche in the introduction ? ? Like it's a major thing in his life or something ? ? Why not take it out of there. -- Also, calling Mr.Bjerknes a self-published amateur historian, isn't there a more polite way to phrase that please ? -- Licorne 01:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have documentation that Bjerknes is a professional historian, please offer it. The fact that he's self-published seems to be well-documented. --Alvestrand 07:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are nicer ways to phrase things, how about researcher or writer or author or historian, these words are commonly used in similar situations. --Licorne 23:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is LaRouche in the INTRO ? -- It is not a major part of his life, it is distorting, and misleading. -- The only so called connection was scientific. --Licorne 00:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Todorov?

For what facts in the article are Todorov's and Logunov's books references? --Alvestrand 22:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are commentary on the Winterberg vs Corry papers. That's why I put them next to Corry, many will want to see them. Licorne 23:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reference for post-cold-war discoveries?

An edit [1] has inserted this claim in the article:

After the fall of the Berlin Wall, Winterberg and the FEF were proven correct when they were finally able to obtain documents from the former East German files which proved that the OSI, despite their earlier denials, had indeed collaborated with the communist government of East Germany in the Rudolph investigation.

However, this is unsourced. Does anyone have a reference, or should it be deleted? --Alvestrand 22:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Dr.Winterberg would be glad to supply you with photocopies of the East German documents, his email is winterbe@physics.unr.edu Licorne 23:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is, that you don't have a documented source for this? --Fastfission 02:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert it back, I have seen the documents myself. -- Did you contact Dr.Winterberg ? -- He can send them to you if you just ask. Why didn't you ask him ?

Licorne 03:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fastfission are you afraid of Dr.Winterberg ? He doesn't bite. Just request of him the information, rather than reverting it all. He is just an email away. What are you afraid of ? Licorne 04:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK Fastfission here is a document from East German archives verifying that they had been in contact with OSI via US Embassy regarding Arthur Rudolph case. http://www.geocities.com/East_German_Document

Now please revert that section back, thank you.

Licorne 05:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the documentation, Licorne. But I can't verify your claim based on a scan that's so bad, it's even impossible to read what's on the page. (The cover letter, page 2, is readable, but doesn't say much, except that the copy should only be used for the personal "beilange" (defense?) of Arthur Rudolph). So under WP:NOR, I'm afraid you still haven't shown sources. --Alvestrand 06:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOOK AT THE second box it is now enlarged. I added a second enlargement view. Licorne 06:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that isn't enough just tell me and I will add even more documents, I have the whole portfolio. Don't erase it. Licorne 06:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Licorne, do you understand what WP:NOR means?

Your geocities website hasn't changed yet - the first doc is still unreadable - so you'll probably have to press "export" or something. Thanks for confirming that these documents are published by you and nobody else. --Alvestrand 06:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first box is just to show the header, the second box shows the text closely, why did you revert it ? Put it back. Licorne 07:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT original research, you can confirm it all with a simple email to Winterberg, why have you not done this ? ? ? Winterberg possesses the same documents which I posted. Contact him by email please, if you want a source go right to him he has it too. Licorne 07:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

REVERT IT BACK. You have no excuses not to. Licorne 07:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Licorne, documenting Winterberg claiming this is as much a violation of WP:NOR as having you post them on a website. And all the second JPEG shows is a 1992 letter from one "Fruth" to someone named "Rieger" that some 1983 correspondence is being passed - nothing about the content of those copies. Even if it wasn't original research, it wouldn't prove anything. --Alvestrand 07:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look closely the content is Arthur Rudolph, the text confirms US prosecutors' correspondance on this case with East German government. I just added to it an attached letter from US government to East German government, the document 433.

You may easily contact Winterberg on this. The text is precise with official stamps. Email Winterberg if you need to, winterbe@physics.unr.edu Licorne 12:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Write it up. Submit it to a journal with review procedures. Get it published. THEN it may be possible to refer to it on wikipedia without violating WP:NOR. --Alvestrand 13:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are copies of reproducible documents sent by the official German government BundesArchiv, received by Dr. Winterberg, did you contact him yet ? Why not? I thought personal correspondance is considered acceptable by Wikipedia so email him, he is at winterbe@physics.unr.edu --Licorne 14:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)Licorne 14:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you are doing where you say "proved that the OSI ... had collaborated" is, in the words of WP:NOR, a "new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation"".

If you manage to get such a thing reviewed and published as a "reputable source" outside of Wikipedia, Wikipedia can refer to it. But your interpretation of the documents you've shown cover pages for is not in itself a "reputable source".

I don't expect you to agree to WP:NOR. I'm just leaving this comment to make it 100% clear to those who come by and look at the talk page later that you're consciously and deliberately violating it, and that's why your changes will get reverted. --Alvestrand 14:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The letter from US Embassy clearly establishes that the OSI was in contact with East German government through the US Embassy in Berlin. It is in official record, photostatic copies I provided from Winterberg, did you email him yet ? WHY NOT ? ? -Personal correspondance is considered acceptable by Wikipedia. Licorne 14:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong at a previous crossroads. WP:V clearly doesn't permit private correspondence as a basis for assertions on Wikipedia. --Alvestrand 07:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If those East German documents were to be found on a site somewhere could we then link to them from Dr.Winterberg's page ? -- What do you require ? -- Licorne 00:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis King

Dennis King was a member of the communist Progressive Labor Party, click on his name to see. Licorne 23:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's your point? --Fastfission 23:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fact of value and interest in evaluating who had crticized Winterberg, the book is from a communist POV, important to note this. Licorne 23:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The book isn't "Communist" in the slightest. It's anti-LaRouche POV, which I happily noted, but it's also the best-known book about LaRouche. The book does not, by the way, criticize Winterberg at all. It describes his participation, roles, and viewpoints, but does not criticize. --Fastfission 23:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the Rudolph section, that's not King criticizing Winterberg ? -- Licorne

Well, if you mean "report on strange things that Winterberg supposedly did" by criticize, then okay. But in any case, the book is not "Communist" in the slightest, and every reference from King that looks speculative is well attributed as "according to King" or something along those lines. --Fastfission 00:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's right there on wikipedia that he is communist, WHY does it bother you to say it here ? -- Please explain, are you paranoid about communists or something ? Why not say it ? Why hide it ? --Licorne 00:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]