Jump to content

Talk:The 1001: A Nature Trust

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Dowlings membership lists' extract

[edit]

Hello Location, according to your deletion of my edit and your arguments (Neither Huismann or Dowling are reliable sources for this material. Non-fringe, non-conspiratorial sources are needed..):

  • first of all: I never participated in spreading conspiracy theories in WP or elsewhere and I totally agree with you there are conspiracy theories existing dealing with alleged aims and methods of "The 1001" (my edit you deleted did not contain any such claims btw.). So indeed we have to use reliable sources and to formulate in correct manner.
  • But when you claim, Huismann and Dowling beeing no reliable sources, you too have to cite your sources enabling you to state this. Otherwise it is you who creates a (conspiracy... or original research...) ...theory or participates in such a construction of others, which states the German WDR, Huismann, and many important reputable German newspapers such as Süddeutsche Zeitung and Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (which covered the findings of Huismann and did not call them conspiracy theories) would participate in conspiracy theories.
  • The WWF went to court in order to prevent Wilfried Huismann, Random House, WDR and SWR from stating incorrect factual claims. The (english) book from 2014 I cited has already been cleaned from all factual claims the WWF considered as incorrect as the WWF itself stated on it's homepage (this already happened with the second and third German edition of the "Schwarzbuch WWF", the third edition being nearly euivalent to the English 1st edition presented in October, 2014).
  • So when the WWF does not state any more, that the new edition is spreading incorrect factual claims. Please cite your reliable sources prooving Huismann's findings about Dowing'S membership lists being not correct. We don't have 1993 any more, this is 2014 and we have to deal with the current "state of the art", so to speak (for recent media coverage see Guardian/Observer for example: "Names of the members that have slipped out over the years include Baron von Thyssen, Fiat boss Gianni Agnelli, and Henry Ford, as well as corrupt politicians such as Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire, the former president of the International Olympic Committee Juan Samaranch, and beer baron Alfred Heineken.").
  • Even in the case you should be able to provide reliable sources which let raise some doubts according to the authenticity of Dowling's membership lists, at least the public dispute and the couverge in (especially German) media outlets can't and must not be concealed by force and without adequate reasons in a free encyclopedia. Everything else would mean (self-)censorship.
  • And finally: even if you would not accept any other sources then those of the members or the WWF themselves - there are members who have revealed their membership in "The 1001" and it is completely unintelligibly why the en:WP does not mention a single member.

This (small letters) is the text we speak about and which has been deleted without any discussion:

Two confidential membership lists can be found on the Internet today, one from 1978, the other from 1987, both from the estate of British journalist Kevin Dowling, who made a never aired film about the activities of the WWF in Africa. Many members are prominent amongst the world's political and financial elite. They included:[1]

Greetings, --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 04:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC) +--Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 04:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. As you know, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (i.e. WP:RS). As you also know and have pointed out, Wilfried Huismann's history reveals big issues pertaining to fact-checking and accuracy on this subject. Regarding the membership list, WWF's choice not to address it in litigation is open to interpretation so I do not agree that by default it is accurate or even suitable for inclusion. Huismann said he obtained it from "the estate of British journalist Kevin Dowling".[1] I cannot find that Dowling has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, however, Dowling does appears to enjoy the support of Executive Intelligence Review[2][3]. Search WP:RSN for EIR and you will find that it is generally not a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. Forwarding JFK conspiracy theories in Rendezvous with Death and Lieber Fidel - which appears to take the stories of the notorious unreliable Marita Lorenz as fact - does not help Huismann's case.
Furthermore, exceptional claims also require multiple high-quality sources (i.e. WP:REDFLAG). The Guardian article you referenced clearly demonstrates that Huismann is making an "exceptional claim" in that he believes the "1001 Club" exists for nefarious reasons:
"I hate conspiracy theories, but I'm convinced that the discreet '1001 club' still influences the strategic decisions of the WWF, because many of its members are important players in global and powerful financial and industrial corporations that rule the planet," Huismann told the Observer."
Hope this helps. -Location (talk) 06:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank your for your quick response. Indeed it helped understanding your position and this means - as far as I can see - we both took the same line according to our liability in Wikipedia to use reliable methods and sources to create an accurate reproduction of the state of knowledge, adequate for this encyclopedia. Let me repeat the crucial point in my reasoning posted above:
  • The deleted edit did not deal with any assumptions or opinions or even ideologies of Huismann or others, but only deals with the "confidential" membership lists (1978, 1987) from "the estate of British journalist Kevin Dowling", Huismann referred to. This means the only fact we have to check concrning my edit is, whether this membership lists are authentic or not. As you can see the Guardian (in Germany Süddeutsche Zeitung an others already did so in 2011, see here, e.g.), too, cites several members of "The 1001" as already known. So why not to mention such known and prominent members here in WP?
  • In case of doubts about the authenticity of the membership lists we would have to adapt my formulation in a suitable manner rather than deleting it. It is even yet clear that - in Germany anyway but with Huismann's book published in English in October 2014 in other languages as well - reputable media reported in an extent and tune, we have to record in this article.
And about your further asides I will respond in smaller font:
  • Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (i.e. WP:RS The WDR/SWR, on whose documentary Huismann's book of Huismann is based, has got overall reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. de:Wilfried Huismann in person is a well known journalist as well. I go along with you we have to deal carefully with this non-scientific information (as we have to do in general with journalist's information). Me and you, we both cannot decide, whether in a special case the membership lists is authentic or not. Therefore you can't expect me to trust just in your own assessment as a WP author. So if you intend to challenge his credibility according to the membership lists he provided, you should "cite third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (i.e. WP:RS" as well. As I did. Btw: Huismann as a journalist is third-party, whereas WWF (which is cited in the article) is not, but seems to have received strong financial support by "The 1001".
  • As you also know and have pointed out, Wilfried Huismann's history reveals big issues pertaining to fact-checking and accuracy on this subject: I don't know what you are referring to with this comment exactly. The WWF went to court and subsequently stated, the quintessence has had to be removed from Huismann's book and films in due to court decision and out-of-court settlements. But (I don't know whether you followed the media coverage, e.g. in German speaking media) what really happened was, that just minor claims had been removed, but not the quintessence. After all media showed surprised what an huge effort the WWF made to practically forbid or even forcefully remove the German 1st edition from the market and how little the changes in the book were, the WWF agreed with finally. In Germany the approach of the WWF against Huismann, Random House, and the WDR caused an outrage in media and book publishers.
  • Forwarding JFK conspiracy theories in Rendezvous with Death and Lieber Fidel - which appears to take the stories of the notorious unreliable Marita Lorenz as fact - does not help Huismann's case.: In my opionion you are right with this and I strongly support your intention to check thoroughly by using reliable sources, which conclusions can and should be reported as known state of knowledge and which claims can and should be regarded and explicitly marked as conspiracy theories or wild guess. But it does not help us either to change conspiracy theories with useful information from investigative reports and mix all together without distinguishing them. We only would participate in creating another conspiracy theory then. Do you see a connection between conspiracy theories and the question of the factual claim, that the membership lists from Dowling are authentic? I did not read about such a connection or even about the reasonable suspicion of such a connection. And important in our case: As to my knowledge the WWF did not question the authenticity of the membership lists' extract, provided by Huismann. So why should we do here? Of course it is possible I have overlooked important information, but if you know such source(s), please cite it here.
  • Huismann said he obtained it from "the estate of British journalist Kevin Dowling". I cannot find that Dowling has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, however, Dowling does appears to enjoy the support of Executive Intelligence Review[4][5]. Search WP:RSN for EIR and you will find that it is generally not a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes.: As you can read in my (deleted) edit I cited "the estate of British journalist Kevin Dowling" myself, just using the citation of the printed book with page numbers, not linking an extract from the ebook in google books. But what is the connection between EIR and the citation of Huismann? Do you want to state, Huismann follows EIR? Can you proove such a claim with any reliable source? Whoever originally leaked the lists: according to Huismann (2014) Dowling first cooperated with the WWF. I quote Huismann (2014, 100f): "In 1989 he [Dowling] shot his first documentary film charting the fate of the big game animals. It was called 'The Elephant Man', and revealed that poachers in Africa had slaughtered a million elephants. The viewing public was deeply unsettled and donations flooded in to the WWF - in record amounts. [...] [Dowling:] 'I had the numbers about the slaughtered elephants from the WWF' [...] 'Before the film was finished I knew: the number was incorreet.' [...] 'I completed the film nevertheless, and the WWF even gave me an award to it.'" Huismann also mentions, that Prof. Stephen Ellis at the African Studies Centre in Leiden, Netherlands backs up claims of Dowling concerning the involvement of the WWF in a military commando "Operation Lock". I can not decide what is correct and what is not. But according to the membership lists I see no serious concerns against their authenticity. And you did not provide such concrete concerns either.
So I suggest to modify my edit like this:
According to the German journalist Wilfried Huismann two confidential membership lists can be found on the Internet today, one from 1978, the other from 1987, both from the estate of British journalist Kevin Dowling, who made a never aired film about the activities of the WWF in Africa. Many members of these lists are prominent amongst the world's political and financial elite. They included:[1]
Some Members of "The 1001", according to the confidential membership lists of 1978 and 1987, provided by Kevin Dowling[1]
  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak Huismann, Wilfried (2014). PandaLeaks: The Dark Side of the WWF (1st ed.). Bremen, Germany: Nordbook. pp. 170–174. ISBN 9781502366542.
By the way, this article even now says: "Ann O'Hanlon of the Washington Monthly wrote: "The secret list of members includes a disproportionate percentage of South Africans, all too happy in an era of social banishment to be welcomed into a socially elite society. Other contributors include businessmen with suspect connections, including organized crime, environmentally destructive development, and corrupt African politics. Even an internal report called WWF's approach egocentric and neocolonialist."
But when you state we don't know about membership lists, how can we know than, that "The secret list of members includes a disproportionate percentage of South Africans"? To me it seems to be completely inconsistent to follow Ann O'Hanlon of the Washington Monthly and - on the other side - to banish Wilfried Huismann - without any concrete arguments though - from Wikipedia. I hope you follow my above given sugggestion for a modified formulation. Deletion is no solution in this case. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 17:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC) +--Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 17:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For full context, the sentence you've referenced states:
"Reviewing allegations put forth by Raymond Bonner about the WWF in his 1993 book At the Hand of Man: Peril and Hope for Africa's Wildlife, Ann O'Hanlon of the Washington Monthly wrote: "The secret list of members includes a disproportionate percentage of South Africans, all too happy in an era of social banishment to be welcomed into a socially elite society. Other contributors include businessmen with suspect connections, including organized crime, environmentally destructive development, and corrupt African politics. Even an internal report called WWF's approach egocentric and neocolonialist."
In this instance, Raymond Bonner is making WP:REDFLAG claims and the Washington Monthly appears to be a reliable secondary source reporting on those claims. This is quite different than Wilfried Huismann making WP:REDFLAG claims based upon Kevin Dowling's WP:REDFLAG claims.
I'll reference this discussion at WP:FTN to see if we can get some feedback. - Location (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, agreed, but you did not present our subject correctly there. This is not abouit the question what aims the 1001 club is tracking. The edit you deleted (and I am interested in) was only about the membership lists. Nothing else. Some notes:
1. You still did not give any concrete hint why you call Huismann's claim a WP:REDFLAG claim, but Washington Monthly a reliable secondary source reporting on those claims. What makes this difference in your view?
2. The article already treats Stephen Ellis (1994) as reliable source. This is exactly the scientist, who backs important (often seen as sensational) findings by Dowling about the involvement of the WWF in a military commando "Operation Lock", as mentioned above. You asked for such a instance backing Dowlings positions and findings. But it is already cited in this article, you should consider this, too, for further approach in this subject.
3. Once again: let's stick to the question of Dowling's membership lists, cited by Huismann. This is our subject here, not any proceeded speculations. I'm joining your efforts against conspiracy theories in WP at any time. But I still got no source which make me doubt the authenticity of Dowling's membership lists, when no one (even not WWF) formulates any concerns in this matter. But for that tell me, when you got such information. Do you have such one?
Greetings, --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 23:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of substantial discussion of this article at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#The 1001: A Nature Trust. - Location (talk) 18:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Location, I'll sum up some of the results of the scientific literature so far:

  • Your claim (here), that Raymond Bonner "put forth" "allegations" of "conspiracy theories" about the WWF in his 1993 book At the Hand of Man: Peril and Hope for Africa's Wildlife, is untenable. Bonner is cited by all scientists and more, his book seems to be one of the main sources, maybe the main source, at all. You never explained, what kind of sources you used for your allegation, that Bonner is part of conspiracy theories. The only source you gave, is journalist Ann O'Hanlon, who even calls Bonner's charges a "thorough indictment of WWF". As fvar as I can see, you therefore obviously misused O'Hanlon to state the opposite by just citing those parts, which seemed to support your own view.
  • Kevin Dowling's membership lists (for 1978 and for 1987) are not treated as part of conspiracy theory in scientific literature. Spierenburg & Wels (2010) explicitly cite Dowling's membership lists as main base of ourt knowledge about the 1001 club (cf. Ramutsindela et al., 2013, too). At least the list for 1987 is in possession of Stephen Ellis, who - with help of it - confirms many of the claims, made in Private Eye (cf. http://www.private-eye.co.uk/covers.php?showme=486; Private eye, Issue 486, August 1, 1980, Page 19), which refers to the membership list of 1978. Wilfried Huismann again refers to the membership lists for 1978 and 1987 from the estate of Kevin Dowling.

Your claims in this article and in this discussion therefore do not fight conspiracy theories, but even help constructing such ones - against all reliable sources and rationality. User:AndyTheGrump, who supported these claims at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#The 1001: A Nature Trust, cites five main issues at his talk page: "Quality Control", "Reliable sources", "Free speech", "Applied science.", "Knowledge". Everyone may judge, what is necessary first to reach these goals. Hope this helps. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 23:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, it is my user page that Anglo-Araneophilus is referring to - and if s/he had bothered to actually read the material in question, s/he would have realised the humorous intent of the content - and that amongst other things I quote Randall Munroe of XKCD fame regarding the often poor choice of using 'free speech' arguments for anything: "I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express". I would appreciate it if in future s/he takes the appropriate care not to misrepresent my views. Not that the content of my user page has any relevance whatsoever regarding the only legitimate subject of this page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello User:AndyTheGrump, yes, your talk page is the talk page of yours. And right, I did not represent your view, because I did not intend it in this context. I cited the main issues on your talk page, because they illustrate perfectly what is missing in the way of quality control, you and User:Loacation tried to conduct without considering the sources content, or at least, without accurately considering them. Quality control needs quality, not just control. Otherwise it has to called censorship. As you can see, this construction of a conspiracy according to Bonner, Ellis, Huismann and the rest of the world seems to start again. It helps to read and use scientific sources instead of stating private opinions. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 00:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the slightest bit interested in your opinions as to what constitutes 'censorship' - as I would have thought would be apparent from my earlier comments. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay. And sorry, I changed your talk with your user page. You were right with this. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 00:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_1001:_A_Nature_Trust&oldid=1205615102"