Talk:Clouds Blur the Rainbow

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

Kurtz source is tangential at best.[edit]

  • The Kurtz source is tangential at best. It mentions the movement Dominionism, but not Political Research Associates, Chip Berlet, or even the book itself, Clouds Blur the Rainbow ! This source cannot be used to attempt to push these points of an independent non-profit research group being "controversial". Smee 15:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • That particular source would not be appropriate to cite in any of the above mentioned articles, save on the article Dominionism itself. Smee 15:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
      • I request that you remove your most inappropriate information and tangential source from the article. Please respond to my above points, here on the talk page below. Smee 20:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The Kurtz article clearly says "You can see the basic technique of the conspiracy mongers in this 1994 report on the Dominionists for Public Eye Magazine and links directly to the Political Research Associates published article he is referring to. BabyDweezil 00:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pamphlet, not a book[edit]

Article edited accordingly. Smee, the pamphlet's author has already corrected your having cited it as a book in another article.BabyDweezil 00:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why does it have an ISBN number and is listed as such in reputable secondary sources? Smee 09:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
It's barely mentioned anywhere, as the article. A partisan magazine article, passing mention in a book or two (including one by the author). hardly notable. But its a pamphlet. i'm holding it in my hands. BabyDweezil 14:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. However the infobox is a useful place for displaying key information about it, including the ISBN numbers and publication information. Smee 14:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
It was a published report with an ISBN #. It was never a "pamphlet."--Cberlet 18:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you illuminate us regarding this statement's veracity, and/or citation discussion below? The report was written during the 1988 Presidential campaign of Marxist psychologist and political activist Lenora Fulani, and Fulani and Newman maintain that it was written and distributed to dissuade progressive voters from supporting Fulani's bid and her New Alliance Party. Yours, Smee 18:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
It was originally published in 1987 to expose the fact that Newman's front groups the "Rainbow Alliance" and "Rainbow Lobby" were crassly parasitizing support for Jesse Jackson's "Rainbow Coalition," thus the title. The first version had only a few mentions of Fulani, and was not aimed at the election campaign. I have no control over how Fulani and Newman characterize it.--Cberlet 18:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, the characterization is correct :). BabyDweezil 18:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed formatting, restored balance[edit]

Restored balance to the intro. Smee, since you seem unfamiliar with this pamphlet, I should point out that its 20 years old and has little support for its conclusions. Therefore, balance is needed in the first paragraph to counter its minority viewpoint (you can go to www.allstarproject.org and compare the actuality of Fulani's work with this petty political attack pamphlet. Also--why do you use both Initial caps, italics and "quote marks" in sentences? Highly claims in that way is unorthodox, and the style used by POV and propaganda outlets, not Wikipedia. BabyDweezil 14:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign[edit]

The pamphlet was written during the 1988 Presidential campaign of Marxist psychologist and political activist Lenora Fulani, and was explicitly written and distributed to dissuade progressive voters from supporting Fulani's bid and her New Alliance Party

  • Can you provide a quote from your citation to back up this claim?? Thanks. Smee 14:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
see the Fred Newman article. it's all in there. BabyDweezil 15:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the link to this Fred Newman article? And even so, that would be his allegations and opinions, and not the actual facts behind Berlet's motivations. Smee 15:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
It's all in the Radical America article that I used as a source. It's summarized in Fred Newman. Smee, you are taking a confrontational approach to defending an article whose background, history and context you seem to be completely unaware of. BabyDweezil 15:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not attempt to characterize my actions. Per Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks, just focus on commenting on the content, not the contributor. Now, do you have an external link for this article??? Smee 15:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
No, its a fringe magazine that no longer exists. It might be archived on the net if you do a search. BabyDweezil 15:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, could not find it. And if you say that it is a "fringe magazine", then it is not a WP:RS, and should be removed forthright. Smee 15:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Again, you seem unfamiliar with the topic at hand. It's the fringe magazine that published Clouds Blur the Rainbow, which subsequently was made into a pamphlet by the equally fringe political partisan organization Political Research Associates and mailed to progressive organizations to attack Fulani. So if it's "removed forthright", then we would have to delete the whole article, n'est-çe pas? BabyDweezil 15:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please provide some sort of citation with an external link to back up what you are saying. Forgive me if I won't trust referring to a different Wikipedia article as a source for more info on this topic... Smee 15:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
You can find it here http://dl.lib.brown.edu/radicalamerica/index.html. Please note however, i am not your personal research service. BabyDweezil 15:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. However I had already found that archive and could not find the item you are referencing... Smee 15:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The archive is searchable. you know the author your looking for. BabyDweezil 15:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One moment please..... Smee 15:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • BD need only cite RS. The RS does not need to be available on the net. We assume good faith here. If you dispute his representation of the RS then you will need to find it at the library or whatever, he does not have to do your work for you. --Justanother 15:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here is the link to the article, which does not back up BD's assertions. I will therefore remove it and the material it claims to back up, which it does not, unless you can provide a quote from it. Smee 15:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

the quotes from the Fred Newman article(which Berlet assisted in editing):

In 1987 Berlet's Clouds Blur the Rainbow: The Other Side of the New Alliance Party appeared. Berlet then joined with others on the political left to write a series of articles for the magazine Radical America. The special issue of the magazine was written in the midst of Lenora Fulani's campaign, and contained charges of manipulation, political deceit, and cultic practices. Berlet, however, noted that Fulani “deserves tremendous credit for apparently gaining ballot status in a majority of states.” The editors of Radical America, however, concluded that there were "dangerous...implications" in failing to confront Newman and his groups: "Painful and unpleasant as it is, the time has come to expose the NAP before it discredits the Left--especially among blacks, gays and those exploring progressive politics for the first time." and

In an issue that featured a series of essays denouncing NAP, the leftist magazine Radical America wrote "We have become convinced that [various political organizations associated with Newman and the Institute for Social Therapy]... are not just other legitimate groups with whom we must coexist" adding that the New Alliance Party is not "a legitimate political organization", that it fails the journal's "basic test" for one, that NAP threatens to "discredit the left" and urges its readers to do what is necessary to dissuade "anyone" who might be attracted to them, noting "we can't be liberal about this one, comrades." [43].
Smee Do NOT remove what i wrote, since it is clearly backed up by the source, and please STOP disrupting wikipedia with your false claims. BabyDweezil 16:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am not the one making false claims. Please provide the page number for this quote - I simply cannot find it in that article, which I have linked for your perusal above. Smee 16:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]


Smee stop it. You are out of control. take a break from your disruptions--i am not doing any more work for you. BabyDweezil 16:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will disregard and not address your personal attacks, but the fact of the matter is the piece you quoted above does not exist in the citation you gave. This is factually inaccurate to cite in such a manner and not encyclopedic. Smee 16:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Again, I have looked through the Radical America magazine but can not find this quote, it does not exist. At the very least you have to revise your citation. Smee 16:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I'm through arguing with you. The quotes above are taken directly from the issue cited. If you keep reverting, you are vandalizing. Have a nice day. BabyDweezil 16:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:BabyDweezil, please actually see the magazine entry itself, and tell me where you can find these quotes. Your citation is inaccurate and wrong. Smee 16:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • BD, how can the stated aims of one publication stand as the aims of another? It seems that the best you can say is that the same or similar material was presented in another publication that did have that stated purpose. You can phrase it better but you know what I mean. --Justanother 16:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The quotes are from the introduction to Clouds Blur the Rainbow that appeared in Radical America, explaining why they were publishing it. It's all the same. BabyDweezil 17:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not all the same. Your assertions are unsourced. Smee 17:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Smee, they are sourced to the introduction of the Radical America issue that published Clouds blur the Rainbow. I properly cited it, and you keep disrupting the artcile by removing accurate citations. You are WRONG, and you need to STOP.BabyDweezil 17:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked through the entire intro. Your quotes are simply not there. Therefore, the assertions are unsourced and require a proper citation. Smee 17:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
the quotes are in the introduction to the magazine. I have corrected your errors in this article, I have provided accurate context, I have found you citations and location of the original publication which you were unaware of and were unable to find yourself, as you note above, and I've done everything to help you short of sitting you down and reading it to you. STOP disrupting the article, and WP:AGF that the citation is accurate, since you can't seem to find it yourself. BabyDweezil 18:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like I have said, I have read the introduction to the magazine - the quotes are simply not there. Therefore, your claims are unsourced and do not belong in an encyclopedia. Read it yourself from the link I provided and see that the quotes are not there. Smee 18:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I will cite it later, for now, you should WP:AGF that I (as well as the pamplet's author, Chip Berlet, who assisted in writing the relevant section of the Fred Newman artcile) are more familiar than you are at this point with the relevant background. BabyDweezil 18:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will Assume Good Faith, but please leave the {{fact}} tag in place, to show the reader that you have cited the incorrect volume/year of Radical America ... Smee 18:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Vol 21 # 5, page 2-3 of the introduction. Its all correct. Please stop it. BabyDweezil 18:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your citation is wrong. Pages two and three of Volume 21, number 5 is not even the introduction yet, just the table of contents. Obviously your citation is incorrect, and thus your assertions are OR. Smee 04:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Um, Smee. I imagine that when he say page two, he means Page 2, as in the page numbers at the bottom of each page. --Justanother 05:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In any event, the information BD claims - is simply not there the quotes that he claims exist that he quoted above, are not in that citation. Therefore, this is all OR and should be removed. Smee 05:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Nader didnt join the New Alliance Party[edit]

it was dissolved years earlier. corrected, and more "quote italics" fixed. BabyDweezil 15:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected this with a direct quote from the article itself. Smee 15:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

POV bias and misrepresentations[edit]

Reception[edit]

This section is biased and POV. The reception was that Radical America devoted an issue to condemning Newman and NAP, and in the following years, scores of progressive and gay publications issued reports condemning Newman and NAP and its ever-blossoming front groups. That should lead this section What some commentator said about The Public Eye has no place on this page.--Cberlet 18:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FBI[edit]

The whole section on the FBI is told from the dubious POV of the Newmanites. In print is my public statement criticizing the FBI for its investigation. Where is that mentioned?--Cberlet 18:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added. BabyDweezil 19:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Factual errors and POV[edit]

BabyDweezil introduced so many factual errors into recent versions that I took the unusual step of removing the numerous errors and re-arranging the text.--Cberlet 22:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What was in error? BabyDweezil 22:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia is not anyones personal publication[edit]

Chip, you can't use this article to compose your own extemporaneous opinions and put "citation needed." Find reliable sources, add any appropriate text, and properly source it. BabyDweezil 23:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The material you are adding is simply not accurate. You have the way the publications appeared wrong. You have statements by the Newmanites in the lede as facts. Some of the material critical of me and PRA has nothing to do with this page. --Cberlet 03:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the Radical America issue was delayed in publication. It was not published until late 1988, more that a year after the first edition of Clouds Blur the Rainbow was published. The inside front cover of Radical America has a note about the delay. Also note that the version of Clouds Blur the Rainbow is a later edition, in which Lenora Fulani has more text devoted to her presidential campaign. The first edition mentions her briefly. Much of what has been inserted by BabyDweezil is based on incompetent research.--Cberlet 14:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Minor chronological issues. Fact is, ain't no disputing the report and the Radical America issue and PRA's mailing it to every lefty group they could pull off their Rolodex was simply typical sectarian nonsense that PRA was more than happy to inflame in response to Fulani's campaign. If there's any incompetent research, its what contained within the pages of this "report." BabyDweezil 15:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of your opinionated statements violate WP:NOR, and therefore have no place in this article. Same as the incorrectly cited "quote" above, that cannot be found in that citation... Smee 20:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
All quotes i supplied are in the sources cited. I really can't help you, Smee, if you can't find it. And if you are aware of any "opinionated statements violate WP:NOR" in the article, then point them out rather than make vague and unsubstantiated accusations. BabyDweezil 22:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to "help" me, however we can't have unsubstantiated quotes in the article. And in this case, the quotes simply do not exist in the citation you gave. Either the volume you cited is incorrect, or the quotes don't exist. Smee 00:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Good night, Smee.BabyDweezil 01:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<----------The Radical America issue was published after the election ("mailed November 1988," inside front cover). I have a print copy. The central point here is not about the Fulani campaign (which was over), but that whole sections of the U.S. Left joined to denounce the Newmanite tendency as a dangerous cult.--Cberlet 18:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the publishing history of Clouds Blur the Rainbow based on research using the original print documents:

  • 1987 - Summer: First edition draft circulated privately
  • 1987 - November: Public distribution of first edition, published as spiral-bound report by Political Research Assocuaes
  • 1987 - December: Posted online
  • 1988 - October 7: “Fact, Fiction, and the New Alliance Party,” final article draft submitted to Radical America
  • 1988 - November: Radical America special issue mailed out (according to printed note on inside front cover.
  • 1992 - October: Second Edition (revised and updated) of Clouds Blur the Rainbow is published

--Cberlet 19:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this notable?[edit]

This looks like an obscure pamphlet handed out in the late 1980s. From an outsider's perspective, I see nothing that tells me this is notable as a separate article. Maybe this material should be relocated elsewhere. Fred Newman himself is a marginal figure, so a rebuttal against him is even more marginal. Berlet himself is pretty obscure. Now, I am NOT saying that any material should be somehow censored, but I just don't think there's enough here to justify a separate article. Yakuman 02:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please note the 19 verifiable citations, as well as the unusual lawsuit against the FBI and Janet Reno. Smee 03:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

That's not a lot of citations -- and the pamphlet was simply found among other documents. I see a lot of effort here, straining to make this thing look influential. I've published things that have gotten more than 19 citations -- and I'm not giving them separate articles! Yakuman 18:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One "cited by other works" was excessively POV and off-topic. I fixed it. I will not likely get involved in discussing the notability of this unless it comes up for AfD. --Justanother 19:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though I still might have left it a bit long. Kinda weird section anyway; like scraping for importance where little actually exists. Should we take that section out completely? --Justanother 19:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quotations are directly relevant to the subject of the article itself. Smee 19:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Off-topic. Unless CBTR is about Nader. I probably left too much Nader in as it is and someone else is free to prune it further. --Justanother 19:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The work is about the Newmanite Party, which is directly discussed in the quotes. Smee 19:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
        • I will not dispute your last edit as that would be arguing for arguing sake. I can clearly see that the Nader did not belong - what you have left is more something that very interested editors would argue about. Too esoteric for me. --Justanother 19:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notable work.
  • The article fits the notability criterion of Wikipedia:Notability (books). It easily fits criterion (1), and (5). Smee 19:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • For me, I will look at it if someone else AfD's the article. I do not lightly AfD things and only if I feel conversant with all sides of the issue. Smee, apropos of what we talking about over on the template page, let me take this opportunity to link Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox which specifically prohibits "Propaganda or advocacy of any kind". If I see such in the Scn articles I will take all action needed to remove it. It won't be hard to remove, just a waste of time for all concerned. --Justanother 20:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability/Removal of entire section of sourced content[edit]

  • This is for User:Yakuman to comment on the summary removal of whole sections of hard-worked sourced content, and the constant re-adding of the notability tag. Please take to AFD if you must, but stop re-adding the tag and removing highly sourced material from reputable secondary sourced citations. Thanks. Smee 05:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

1.) Nothing in that article establishes notability. It is all obscure information about an obscure pamphlet. I merely removed the most egregious example. 2.) Your frequent reversions constitute a 3RR violation . The 3RR rule applies to all articles. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing.Yakuman 05:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article fits the notability criterion of Wikipedia:Notability (books). It easily fits criterion (1), and (5). Smee 05:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • And why would you remove sourced citations and material backed up by reputable secondary sources? I do not understand... Smee 05:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I submit that it fails (1), and (5). Also, your multiple 3RR violations are evidence of a lack of civility and good faith. Please abide by policy. Yakuman

  • Do you want to discuss the article in a civl and good faith manner, or do you want to keep making baseless accusations? Pick one. Please state why you think the article fails those criterion, and if so, perhaps it is best the article goes to AFD, instead of this back and forth banter. Please try to act more polite on the talk pages. Thanks. Smee 05:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

From WP:Civil:

Civility is a code for the conduct of editing and writing edit summaries, comments, and talk page discussions on all Wikipedias. Whereas incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress, our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another.

Yakuman 05:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indeed. Please abide by that policy you just cited. Thanks. Smee 05:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You are the one committing multiple 3RR violations. I'm trying to abide by WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Please don't abuse my acts of diplomacy. Please be civil and avoid personal attacks. If you have questions, please feel free to ask, but read the policy first. I have no the interest in an edit war, nor do I enjoy being drawn into debates like this. Take care, and have a good day! Yakuman 05:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You don't want to edit war, that's is fine and good as it should be. But you don't want to be "drawn into a debate" ?? What else is the talk page for but to discuss and debate? And if you could take a break from your baseless accusations and notice that the edit warring has actually stopped, you might see that if you act more polite we could have a constructive dialogue going on the talk page. Are you willing to do that??? Smee 05:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment WP:3RR says that you cannot commit more than three reverts. In other words, if you commit four you can be blocked. Unless I'm reading the history wrong, Smee has only edited this article three times today, and thus has not violated 3RR. --JayHenry 17:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you, JayHenry, for clearing up this point. Now these baseless accusations may stop, and we can focus on discussing the article, in the subsection below, with the other previously uninvolved editor... Smee 18:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Updated Links[edit]

I was asked to give my opinion of this article's notability in an outside conversation, in researching my answer I noticed that only the introduction was linked to the actual text itself. I've added links to each chapter and a main link to the PublicEYE.org homepage. Anynobody 05:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. What do you think of the current reputable secondary sourced citations in the References section, and the related notability of the article? Smee 05:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The secondary sources themselves seem appropriate to me,

Street-Wise Impresario; Sharpton Calls the Tunes, and Players Take Their Cues. The New York Times. December 19, 1991.

for example is a reputable paper. I haven't read the cited books so I can't speak to their merits or flaws. The inclusion of court documents adds to the credibility of the article because they are a primary source. These facts alone seem to confirm notability, but since these people were running for public office under a cloud of deception it seems to tie into the broader ideas of "dirty" politics. To me the tactics described in Clouds Blur the Rainbow need to be documented. I had previously thought Jesse Jackson had created all the "rainbow" groups for nefarious reasons, now I know why he is moving toward PUSH. Anynobody 06:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion on notability issue[edit]

This opinion in a nutshell: Notability is uncertain.
  • The pamphlet itself seems notable from the current article.
  • However, the majority of this article is NOT about the pamphlet itself.
  • The article discusses topics more suitable to a "Criticism on Social Therapy" section in Social Therapy.
  • I suggest that an editor knowledgeable in the subject moves (well written, I'd say) parts from this article to such a section, and that then notability should be evaluated.

--User:Krator (t c) 22:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for providing your opinion. However, I would say that the bits that are not directly relevant to the report, provide useful background in a succinct manner. Smee 04:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The book fails all criteria Wikipedia:Notability (books) and can be considered self-published. It's an interestin read, but that won't make it encyclopedic. --Pjacobi 20:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clouds Blur the Rainbow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Clouds_Blur_the_Rainbow&oldid=1200981169"