|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to . If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Bias supported by propagandist sources
User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg has inserted a blatantly biased POV paragraph about Findley and used for "support" National Vanguard, a propagandist blog with no scholarly or journalistic credentials whatsoever. The second half is not supported by any source, and is bold-faced Original Research without even the pretense of citation. Specifically: "Today Paul Findley has become increasingly marginal and far from the mainstream, his former party has distanced themselves from him, as well as his former colleagues for making what they say are dubious and unsubstantiated claims." Give me a break.
- Yea your right Findley is well respected both in his party and the rest congress, lol- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- And by the way it is not a propaganda website, it is radical left wing. Considering Findley's views it should be obvious why it appears in sites national vanguard. A near identical article appeared in al jazeera that i will also add.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- There, but I suppose all those are "propagandist sources as well", especially the ones that Findley wrote himself. LoL.-Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Moshe, Vanguard is a propagandistic blog and if you can't see that, then by all means continue to expose yourself by attempting to use it as a reliable source. What's more, your incompetence regarding citation is becoming embarrassing. You used another PARTISAN WEBSITE called "Al Jazeerah.info" NOT the News Network Al Jazeera.Net. They are two separate completely unrelated entities. Your rewrite left much to be desired but fortunately I was spared most of the effort of fixing it by an anonymous editor. I have removed the blogs as references, and quoted Findley directly from his piece in the Huffington Post.--AladdinSE 11:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Once again I forgot, how dare I attempt to to edit a page that Alladin has touched. How could I dare to summon up such gall. I am just in awe of this man, how could he be so brilliant and perfect in everything he does. Anyone you claims he is an aggressive and duplicitous POV pusher has just misunderstood his actions due to their own stupidity. It is a sin that this beautiful man has not been elected emperor of all mankind, nay all the universe.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Anyways, as I have said before, mainstream websites do not quote Paul Findley anymore because he is considered a marginal conspiracy theorist, or in Aladdin's view, because the evil Zionist media will not allow this brave man to speak the truth. So it is necessary to take quotations from the only sources that consider him credible, which is radical trash websites, or if is disagrees with alladin, Propaganda. Oh and for anyone that might edit this page in the future be sure not to delete anything Alladin has written because that is obviously censoring him.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think Joseph Goebbels himself could spin as well as that guy.
- By the way, if National Vanguard is as propaganda like you say it is shouldn't it tell you something about Paul Findley and his base of support if he is willing to give interviews for the site?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I will allow your flame war rants above to stand unanswered. They speak volumes about you that no retort of mine can equal. Also, you really must stop this habit of falsely quoting editors you disagree with. Kindly show me where I made any reference to "the evil Zionist media will not allow this brave man to speak the truth". And Findley did not give an interview to Vanguard, he gave it to a person (or so the person claims) who happens to run or contribute to this blog site. Jimmy Carter gave an interview to Playboy Magazine, that is not justification for calling him a pervert. If guilt by [perceived] association is all you can muster, you are on shaky ground indeed. As for your oft-repeated theories and opinions of Findley, rail about them all you want in Talk, as long as you finally understand that they will not be allowed in the article itself sans reliable sources. I am especially diverted by your reasoning, such as it is, that "mainstream websites do not quote Paul Findley anymore because he is considered a marginal conspiracy theorist". This is your convenient conclusion, no doubt, after having conducted a frustrating search where you were unable to locate any credible scholarly or journalistic sources to smear the man. The irony is credible critical sources exist. I intend to search for some choice ones when I eventually expand the stub with biographical information, if no ones else does it before me. --AladdinSE 13:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- As you have so elegantly said before, it is called hyperbole and sarcasm, it exists to vent rage over things such as constantly having to deal with an editor that seems to be either incapable or unwilling to follow simple common etiqutte and assuming good faith. I will admit my last post was immature but I would venture to say that you have not made one post in either of our last two conflicts that any half way reasonable human being would even consider writing. Let us forget the rudeness, the condenscending persona, and the half-truths and just look at your reasoning, you have somehow managed to equate me quoting from an interview taken from a website which is admitedly radical with describing Carter as pervert for talking to Playboy, quite the logical jump I must say. You were the one that described the website as pure propaganda. Unless they lied about the interview (which I guess even this you will dispute if it doesn't fit in with your POV), it is still fair game.
- Anyways I think I know your the type of person that not only has to have the first nasty think to say in an argument, but also the last. So if it will help, go ahead make one more rude condenscending post, I can get over it, but after that, can we both start acting like normal mature editors and actually pretend like we're working together?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 14:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but the Cephaministy website is clearly not applicable as a source, also the washington post excerpt was vague and ambiguous, try to find something that shows some context that the passage was taken from.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 14:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Go ahead and vent your rage all you want. You denigrate none but yourself. If you're the one "following etiquette", we're really in trouble. You failed in your attempt to censor the AIPAC article, so now you try to discredit the person making the unfavorable remarks. "Venture to say" what you like about what "half way reasonable" person would think of my writing. I am more than happy for our two posts to be examined side by side; and let readers decide for themselves where the excesses lie. In every one of my edits, I participated fully in discussion and explained my actions and perspectives. I equated you to nothing, I used an analogy to illustrate a guilt-by-association fallacy you were committing. And you did not "take an interview from a website". You took editorial comment from a propagandist blog not supported by quotations from Findley. As for maturity in editing, considering the kind of comments you indulged in above, you will I trust, forgive my skepticism.
Your claim regarding the inadmissibility of the reviews quoted by Cephaministy is amazing. No editorial content whatsoever has been used from this Christian website. I only linked to the reviews it quotes from extremely reputable journals. Are you actually going so far in your quest to censor the favourable reviews that this best-selling book got, as to claim that Cephaministy fabricated them, along with all the other reviews for all the other books they list???
By the way, just like I said, there exist credible sources giving negative reviews. I included one from the NY Times, and will look for more later.--AladdinSE 15:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- And yet even as you talk how awful I am to use an interview he gave to the "propaganda" website, you provide a website that can only be described as right-wing christian evengelical mixed with strange fringe messages as the only reference for your reviews. For our readers here is the home page of this website that Aladdin claims is a acceptable source: , I'm am no longer going to allow myself to be pulled in to your games, and make myself look as bad as you. Find a normal website to take your reviews from.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Aladdin, if your going to use a Sock Puppet perhaps you should make it slightly less obvious. 22.214.171.124? - Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- If you provide a refernce for a claim that is invalid, it is not my job to find one that is valid, I have moved the source from Cephaministry (which should never be anywhere near a wikipedia article as a source) to the one you provided in your last comment. I don't see what the big problem was if you were aware of a website that was valid from the beginning, but I don't understand a lot of what you have done on this and AIPAC's articles.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Allowing yourself to be pulled into games and making yourself look as bad as me? You have been mimicking my own language and demeanor exponentially now on a daily basis. I repeat: I am more than happy for our comments to be read side by side, and let anyone who wishes to judge for themselves who among us has exposed themselves.
You are repeating your arguments and deliberately ignoring my responses to them. Unlike you, I have used no editorial or speculation content form biased websites. This is merely a link to a collection of quotations from extremely reputable journals. It is so ironic that you replaced the Cephaministy link with one from Amazon, which you attacked earlier in this very discussion forum as unreliable! The hypocrisy is manifest. As you know I have used Amazon as well and have no objection to using it, or any other site, to link to a collection of quoted reviews. However, for the record, once and for all, are you claiming that Cephaministy has fabricated the reviews it quotes for "They Dare to Speak Out" and all the other books listed in the source?
On what basis are you making the absurd claim that I am using a sock puppet? I have never used one in the entire course of my participation in Wikipedia. This is a new low. I did not provide the Amazon link for the collection of reviews. I believe User:Jayjg has implied in his edit summary when he semi-protected the page that he believes he knows who the anonymous editor is. You ought to apologize.--AladdinSE 02:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- I will not apoligize, in my mind it lit a red light because this was the only page he edited. I will admit that I was wrong however, the anon was actually Alberuni.
- You misunderstand or pretend to, earlier I said a positive amazon editorial review didn't mean a book was particularly well-recieved since they are all positive. I replaced the link because although cephaministry was quoting reputable journals it didn't have any credibility, I moved it to amazon because Amazon has enough credibility to know that they wouldn't lie about reviews, so although they pick and choose which to present, the reviews were still originally written by who they said. I'm not claiming anything about cephaministry, except that it is a strange independent website with no credibility, but as it turns out the excerpts were taken from real reviews. As I have said before I used national vanguard because Findley gave them an interview, and I used the article that was written about the interview. While vanguard is partisan, liberal, and bias, they still have enough credibility to show that they wouldn't lie about an interview taking place, cephaministry is so unknown and cryptic that they don't even have that kind of credibility, If they become more well known and respected that will obviously change.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Charming. You admit you were wrong in accusing me of employing a sock puppet, in a most flippant and sarcastic manner, but insist you will not apologize for your mistake because he only edited one article. It is immaterial if the anon person edited one article or 20. An honorable person would apologize when they discover they have wrongfully accused someone, period. I am content to let this stand as another testament to your character and style of discussion.
Your creative 'apportionment of credibility' is highly amusing. Amazon is "just credible enough" to allow the link, eh? Just as you please. Unless there is editorializaton is being referenced, any site is acceptable as long as no one is claiming fabrication of quotations or statistics. As we finally have an admission that you do not believe cephaministry fabricated those review quotations, you can now have nothing to oppose its being used as a link to read said reviews. No speculation or editorial content whatsoever was used from that website. This is markedly different from how you utilized the propagandist blog site Vanguard, where you actually inserted editorial content not even backed up by Findley quotations. What's more, you continue to insist that Findley "gave an interview to Vnaguard". He did no such thing. Vnaguard is white supremacist blog. The "interviewer", Mark Farrell is one of many independent persons who have posted to the site. He appears to be trying to sell his DVD and increasing his audience by posting about his meeting with Findley wherever he can. You can click on Vanguard and contribute an article yourself right now, it does not mean you represent the organization. Similarly anyone could post a rebuttal or critique of Vanguard on their blog and of course would not be representing, or even be classified as a member, of the organization or its blog.--AladdinSE 08:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- I am no longer going to respond to your lengthy accusations after each and every edit, if I see a credible and coherant argument then I will write something, otherwise I suppose this is a goodbye.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
How transparent, and comical. Considering your wrongful accusations, failure to apologize for them, and my several arguments directly dealing with relevancy and credible sources, your capitulation is accepted. Goodbye.--AladdinSE 09:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I for one give that debate to Alladin
Interested parties and administrators should know that Al-Silverburg is actively exercising his POV bias in vandalizing the insertion of Findley's 'They Dare to Speak Out' in the references on the AIPAC article page. -As of today he's doing this with his unsubstantiated charge that Findley consorts with Holocaust deniers. Dogru144 02:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
He wrote several books that should be mentioned.Precis 13:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Done. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 14:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Project to be done:
When was the first publication date of 'They Dare to Speak Out'? Some sources give 1983; others give 1985. Does anyone have access to a copy of the first edition? Dogru144 02:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The full extent of the views he is famous for is not very apparent in the article. Could I add a sentence giving his view of the cause of 9/11? As a precedent, see the article on Michael Scheuer. If there are objections, please explain here. Precis 00:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Sure go for it. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 01:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
He started Council for the National Interest; so, this was added to the see also section. Dogru144 05:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I just removed the below since it is from a fairly crappy one-person site. I am unsure where it was originally published but it is republished mostly on racist sites. To include it we need to find where it was originally published I believe. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 02:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Findley wrote that "U.S. policy on the Mideast is made in Israel, not in Washington," and also commented that "once beloved worldwide, the U.S. government finds itself reviled in most countries because it provides unconditional support of Israeli violations of the United Nations Charter, international law, and the precepts of all major religious faiths.". 
As far as I know, this was published in a number of places simultaneously. One reputable source is the relatively moderate English language Saudi paper "Arab News". See . Aside: Thanks for all your hard work improving various articles. Precis 05:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 07:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Theydarespeakoutbookcover.JPG
Image:Theydarespeakoutbookcover.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
More bias supported by More propagandist sources
I have removed the following sentences because they are cited to a non-Reliable Source publisher of religious Christian books (Thomas Nelson Inc) by a writer with an obvious agenda. This is not suitable for BLP and should not be re-inserted.
- He was known as "[[Yasser Arafat| Arafat's best friend in Congress." 
- Findley's congressional campaigns were heavily financed by Saudi Arabia. 
I also removed the following from the WP article which is simply inaccurate:
- Findley claims that "Jewish newspapers from coast to coast" called him a "practicing anti-Semite," but gives no citations. 
In fact what Findley actually wrote on that page is that:
"Meanwhile, Democrat Robinson [his opponent in the election] solicited campaign contributions through advertising in Jewish newspapers from coast to coast, stirring up interest by calling me a "practicing anti-Semite, who is one of the worst enemies that Jews and Israel have ever faced in the history of the U.S. Congress." He drew funds from fifty states. In all, the campaign cost $1.2 million - the most expensive in Illinous history. We each spent about $600,000. University students from New York and California, as well as other states, came to central Illinois to staff Robinson's phone banks and handle other campaign chores".
Only bad reviews?
The New York Times review by Adam Clymer, described the book as "an angry, one-sided book that seems often to be little more than a stringing together of stray incidents ... [it] does not really accept the idea that people of any political point of view are entitled to organize, support their friends and try to defeat the people they think are their enemies".