User talk:Ernie1241

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Ernie1241, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -Willmcw 22:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Warning regarding your edits to Talk:John Birch Society.[edit]

Please do not use talk pages for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. See here for more information. Thank you.---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 05:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 2009[edit]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Cleon Skousen. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by some search engines, including Google. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Dori What a silly comment by you! Wikipedia has gazillions of "external links" which are meant to provide readers with documentation for whatever assertions are made. In my case, I provided a link to a report based upon the first-time-released FBI personnel file of W. Cleon Skousen (which totals about 1500 pages!).

How do you propose that a knowledgeable researcher should share such data, available for the first time? Either you can send me $175 for cost of photocopying all the documents I received plus another $25 for postage costs, and I can then SEND YOU Skousen's FBI file so you can create whatever article YOU think is appropriate about his background OR you should allow me to post a link to my 11-page summary report.

Incidentally, here is the absolutely most absurd part: portions of the EXISTING article on Skousen on Wikipedia was written by someone who had access to MY documents and he used MY summary from when I received the initial FBI release a few years ago! However, the article also contains falsehoods. SHAME ON YOU!

Wayward Pines[edit]

Replying to your misundertsandings at Talk:Wayward Pines#Non-Credible Plot: As fas as I can tell, their power source could be a waterfall coming down from the mountain which harbors Pilcher's observation headquarters. A waterfall like that alone could generate enough power for a town the size of Wayward Pines if it'd drive a turbine or if there'd be some kind of hydroelectric power dam for even more efficient use of the water. Gas would be tricky indeed, but maybe their cars run on electricity? Pilcher's all about the environment and climate change, after all. But I must admit they *SOUND* like gas-driven cars.

As for Hassler, you got the date wrong. The date when he took the video of destroyed San Francisco was not in 2040, it was in 4020, only eight years prior to the arrival of Ethan Burke and his family. And the reason why he went to San Francisco is obviously because he needed to see it for himself for some reason.

And the reason why the Secret Service kept sending in agents was obviously because Pilcher demanded agents from the service to cryogenically send them into the 4020s in order to have more efficient lawkeepers in case things would get rough within the community he was planning. After every reckoning, the victims are always left out to rot to serve as public examples to warn everybody who'd dare questioning Pilcher's rules. And that's also why the bar lady knows, because all reckonings in Waywanrd Pines are public and it's obligatory for every community member to witness them. And the entire reason why Bill was given a recknoning is that he had been plotting against Pilcher's rules by trying to flee so he had to be made an example by another public reckoning.

The very fact that Pilcher has learned via Group A that the citizens of Wayward Pines musn't know what really happened (or else they'd go crazy and run amuck) is the very reason as to why Pilcher now keeps everything a big secret from Group B and has introduced these reckonings for them. The only ones who really know about the outside world are Pilcher and his followers who are the only citizens of Wayward Pines that *ARE NO* abductees. All the members of his team volunteered to their cryogenic time travel because they believed in him and his ideas, unlike the many abductees that the majority of Wayward Pines is made of.

Finally, we don't know much about abbies or when they actually began to appear. This is clearly another misundertsanding on your part because you think Hassler's video would be from 2040, when it's really from 4020.

If you're looking for plotholes, they're definitely to be found in other places. How and why did they preserve the original phone answering machine's message of Ethan's wife for 2,000 years? It seems such a minute detail. Why did they put Ethan in the middle of the forrest to wake up when they could've just as well made him come to in Wayward Pones hispital? In flashbacks years before Pilcher began abducting people, we see him looking younger and with long hair, around the time of the abduction of Ethan and his family, we see him middle-aged and with short hair, but when he emerges from the cryo-tank, he suddenly looks young and with long hair again for another few years.

Why did Pilcher have to change his name and use an alias in the future? None of the abductees knew he even existed back in the early 21st century. Much of the dialogues in the flashbacks as told by Pilcher sound very hollow and clichee'd with him as this innocent, all-knowing, utterly selfless messiah that everyone fanatically looks up to, in fact so badly so it all rings false, like it's something he doesn't even believe in for himself as the true story as to what happened (it's a kind of false tone they used on The X-Files at times to tell us this is not what really happened but what an unreliable narrator would prefer to have happened). The Pilcher we hear from during his re-told flashbacks is a very different person from the one we actually see in flesh and blood, and it's not just because the years of survival and establishing his tyrannic rule in Wayward Pines have changed him.

The same utterly false ring, only with a seemingly more sinister intent, can be heard when the hypno-therapist teaches the kids about their world, obviously using rhethorics and persuasion techniques you know from cults, and her telling them they can't tell it to their parents seems not just because otherwise, their parents would run amuck.

So, bottom line: I'm on episode 9 of season 1 now, and I'm still looking forward to another big sham and hoax being uncovered about Wayward Pines, though the truth may not be what the resistance fighters to Pilcher's rule may have thought it was. --79.242.219.119 (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grayfell: Wikipedia is self-described as an "encyclopedia". By definition, an encyclopedia is supposed to reflect factual content -- not gossip, rumors, half-truths, hearsay, or unsubstantiated material.

The ultimate problem with some of the articles on Wiki is this: On some subjects, there has been very little scholarly research done. Sometimes (for example) the official records of an organization are NOT available to independent researchers because the organization does not want anything to be published which reflects adverse information about their group. So, then, what is left? There are (of course) newspaper and magazine articles as well as internet content but HOW are those sources substantiated? Often, there is no way to do so. In many instances (especially with respect to extreme right organizations), Wiki uses sources which your authors deem "reliable" merely because those sources repeat assertions or statements made by previous authors but those previous authors did not have the remotest clue whether or not what they wrote was accurate and truthful because there was no way to validate what was claimed.

What Wiki fails to understand is this: There are always lots of people who have a special interest in some subject matter and those folks often go to great expense and effort to discover new FACTUAL sources of information which often have been hidden for long periods. Example: until relatively recently NOBODY had ever made FOIA requests to the FBI to request files that pertained to the number of FBI informants inside the Communist Party USA and other radical organizations (left or right). Consequently, the ONLY numerical information you can find was written by persons who ESTIMATED (aka guessed at) the number of FBI informants. BY CONTRAST: I stumbled upon the exact numbers by making FOIA requests for the personnel files of senior FBI officials AND requests for annual inspection reports of the FBI's Domestic Intelligence Division. I was the FIRST AND ONLY person to ever make such requests and, guess what? I found confidential and secret documentary evidence which revealed for the FIRST time, the exact number of FBI informants inside "subversive" and "criminal" and "racial" organizations.

Now, according to YOUR standards, nothing I present is acceptable because I am not a published author (other than my online reports). You may see the CPUSA-related statistical info here: https://sites.google.com/site/xrt013/cpusa1

Now--going back to the John Birch Society: your moderator chose to attack and defame me despite the indisputable FACT that over a period of 50+ years I have accumulated a massive amount of factual primary source documentary evidence from a variety of sources including: FBI files, military intelligence files, personal papers of key figures within the Birch Society which are archived at various colleges, universities and state historical societies, private correspondence by senior JBS officials (including JBS National Council members), along with hundreds of JBS publications. Can your moderators say anything comparable?

Here is something you might want to consider: Contact the author(s) of any book or article or doctoral dissertation or master's thesis written about the Birch Society or about the extreme right in the U.S. during the past 15 years. Then report back to Wiki readers what percentage of those folks are familiar with my research and have used material they received from ME!

HERE ARE JUST A FEW EXAMPLES: (search for "Lazar" in each link)

DOCTORAL DISSERTATIONS:

Brenner, Samuel: 2009 Brown University dissertation "Shouting At the Rain" http://samuelbrenner.com/images/shouting%20at%20the%20rain%20-%20final%20submission.pdf [Incidentally, Dr. Brenner came to my home and copied hundreds of pages of documents from my FBI file collection]

Savage, James A., "Save Our Republic: Battling John Birch in California's Conservative Cradle" (2015).Theses and Dissertations-- History. Paper 25. http://uknowledge.uky.edu/history_etds/25

OTHER SOURCES:

Academic articles about the KKK and other white supremacist groups which were written by the late Dr. John Drabble. You will see numerous references in his articles which mention documents which he obtained from my collection and which informed his articles published in academic journals. As merely one example, see:

"The FBI, COINTELPRO-WHITE HATE, and the Decline of Ku Klux Klan Organizations in Alabama, 1964 –1971" published in the January 2008 issue of Alabama Review. [Dr. Drabble came to my home and copied thousands of pages of documents from my FBI file collection].

You may also check out the archives of the Rachel Maddow program on MSNBC for December 23, 2010. During that broadcast concerning the Birch Society -- Rachel used material she received from me and she credited me on air for that material.

You can read the transcript of Rachel's segment which mentions me here: http://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/rachel-maddow-show/2009-12-23

MORE EXAMPLES:

Matthew Cecil: FBI and CIA Documents Online https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08821127.2017.1419767 American Journalism, Volume 35, 2018 - Issue #1, pages 123-125

Sylvester A. Johnson and Steven Weitzman: The FBI and Religion: Faith and National Security Before and After 9/11 [University of California Press, 2017, 376pp]. https://books.google.com/books?id=qaowDwAAQBAJ&dq=ernie+lazar+and+FBI&q=lazar#v=snippet&q=lazar&f=false Page 306 footnote #33 cites serial #112 from my FBI file “Communism and Religion” and then adds, “This memo and many of the other FBI files cited in this chapter are available in the Ernie Lazar FOIA Collection on Internet Archive.”

Digital HUAC – March 21, 2015 https://twitter.com/DigitalHUAC

Emory University Seminar Resources (by Dr. Harvey Klehr) http://polisci.emory.edu/home/neh_2018/resources/index.html

J.M. Berger: “The Turner Legacy: The Storied Origins and Enduring Impact of White Nationalism’s Deadly Bible”, 2016, 50pp [Cites my FOIA research on William Pierce.] https://icct.nl/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/ICCT-Berger-The-Turner-Legacy-September2016-2.pdf

Terry Lautz: John Birch: A Life [Oxford, December 2015, 344pp] https://books.google.com/books?id=xfzDCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT265&dq=john+birch:+a+life&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjk8LGt25DKAhVQxWMKHZE5CeAQ6AEIJjAC#v=onepage&q=lazar&f=false

Stuart Wexler: America’s Secret Jihad: The Hidden History of Religious Terrorism in the United States [Counterpoint, August 2015, 384pp]. He cites me in Acknowledgements and on pages 75 and 212 https://books.google.com/books?id=yJEwCgAAQBAJ&dq=America%27s+Secret+Jihad+%3A+The+Hidden+History+of+Religious+Terrorism&q=lazar#v=snippet&q=lazar&f=false

MISCELLANEOUS WEBSITES CITING ME: History of American Communism website: https://networks.h-net.org/node/6077/search/lazar Mapping American Social Movements (University of Washington) http://depts.washington.edu/moves/CP_map-members.shtml WhittakerChambers.org website: http://whittakerchambers.org/2015/07/01/fbi-vault-on-hiss-case/ MARY FERRELL WEBSITE: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Other_Resources.html Arizona Central website: https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/mesa/2014/07/14/mesa-charter-school-religion/12615041/ Fardell’s Bear website: https://altrightorigins.com/2018/03/28/sheriffs-racists-koch/ Tamiment Library – New York University http://dlib.nyu.edu/findingaids/html/tamwag/tam_576/admininfo.html DeSmog Blog website: https://www.desmogblog.com/john-birch-society#s40 Freedom Press News website: https://freedompressnewsblog.wordpress.com/2017/02/12/declassified-historical-figure-groups-fbi-files/ Bluestem Prairie website: http://www.bluestemprairie.com/bluestemprairie/2012/07/whats-so-extreme-about-cindy-pugh-curtis-bowers-in-swm-tea-partys-latest-video-for-one.html Crooks and Liars website: https://crooksandliars.com/heather/rachel-maddow-exposes-john-birch-society-c Conspiracy Archive website: https://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2015/10/30/frank-gigliotti-minister-freemason-oss-and-cia/

Robbie Maxwell: “A Shooting Star of Conservatism”: George S. Benson, the National Education Program and the “Radical Right” = Journal of American Studies, December 2017, pages 1-29 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-american-studies/article/shooting-star-of-conservatism-george-s-benson-the-national-education-program-and-the-radical-right/ED5F8D1FA88B2111E065EDCF388E5901

Various authors (Mark Rupert): The Long Duree of the Far Right: An International Historical Sociology [Routlefge, August 2014, 238pp]. I am cited for info in my Skousen report https://books.google.com/books?id=xXJeBAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false

Bill Minutaglio and Steven L. Davis: Dallas 1963 [Twelve, October 2013, 384pp] http://books.google.com/books?id=AA11Njdo178C&pg=PT285&dq=ernie+lazar&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kBiBUpPNGc-YigL954CIBw&ved=0CE8Q6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=ernie%20lazar&f=false

Claire Conner: Wrapped in the Flag: A Personal History of America’s Radical Right [Beacon Press, July 2013, 264pp] http://books.google.com/books?id=JWPhb5Jet-wC&pg=PT150&dq=%22ernie+lazar%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=phqBUr3BEYaJjAKu74GgBA&ved=0CGgQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=%22ernie%20lazar%22&f=false

Lee Fang: The Machine: A Field Guide to the Resurgent Right [The New Press, January 2013] http://books.google.com/books?id=Ym2ZoGRteoYC&pg=PT64&dq=ernie+lazar&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kBiBUpPNGc-YigL954CIBw&ved=0CD0Q6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=ernie%20lazar&f=false

David Livingstone: Black Terror, White Soldiers: Islam, Fascism and the New Age [Create Space Independent Publishing, June 2013, 712pp] cites my Skousen and Mullins info http://books.google.com/books?id=FYy7TTmQoD4C&pg=PA678&dq=%22ernie+lazar%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=phqBUr3BEYaJjAKu74GgBA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22ernie%20lazar%22&f=false

Arthur Goldwag: The New Hate: A History of Fear and Loathing on the Populist Right [Random House, September 2012, 378pp] http://books.google.com/books?id=VlMuXEWD8hoC&pg=PA334&dq=%22ernie+lazar%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=phqBUr3BEYaJjAKu74GgBA&ved=0CF4Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=%22ernie%20lazar%22&f=false

Seth Rosenfeld: Subversives: The FBI’s War on Student Radicals and Reagan’s Rise To Power [Macmillan, August 2012, 752pp] http://books.google.com/books?id=_dQFZ4AIJsAC&pg=PA695&dq=%22ernie+lazar%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=phqBUr3BEYaJjAKu74GgBA&ved=0CFIQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=%22ernie%20lazar%22&f=false

Ivan Greenberg: Surveillance in America: Critical Analysis of the FBI, 1920 To The Present [Lexington Books, May 2012, 330pp]\ http://books.google.com/books?id=Rl_AJyXtytwC&pg=PA43&dq=%22ernie+lazar%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6B2BUpaJEoaAiwK6-4GYBw&ved=0CE0Q6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=%22ernie%20lazar%22&f=false

Kathleen M. Blee and Sandra McGee: Women of the Right: Comparisons and Interplay Across Borders [Penn State Press, February 2012, 320pp] http://books.google.com/books?id=wAKBlaRvBxAC&pg=PA254&dq=%22ernie+lazar%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6B2BUpaJEoaAiwK6-4GYBw&ved=0CEgQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=%22ernie%20lazar%22&f=false

Terry Melanson: Perfectibilists: The 18th Century Bavarian Order of the Illuminati [Trine Day, December 2011, 531pp] https://books.google.com/books?id=SH-1BQAAQBAJ&pg=PT105&dq=ernie+lazar&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjk8_We3JDKAhVRymMKHeydA5UQ6AEIUDAJ#v=onepage&q=lazar&f=false

Ivan Greenberg: The Dangers of Dissent: The FBI and Civil Liberties Since 1965 [Lexington Books, October 2010, 344pp] http://books.google.com/books?id=ErCHQ4so9VEC&pg=PA219&dq=%22ernie+lazar%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=phqBUr3BEYaJjAKu74GgBA&ved=0CFgQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=%22ernie%20lazar%22&f=false

Alex Heard: The Eyes of Willie McGee: A Tragedy of Race, Sex, and Secrets in the Jim Crow South [Harper Collins, June 2010, 432pp] http://books.google.com/books?id=LJofSQNs-BwC&pg=PA352&dq=%22ernie+lazar%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6B2BUpaJEoaAiwK6-4GYBw&ved=0CFoQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=%22ernie%20lazar%22&f=false

Alexander Zaitchik: Common Nonsense: Glenn Beck and The Triumph of Ignorance [John Wiley & Sons, April 2010, 272pp] http://books.google.com/books?id=LIDYmd2ibVQC&pg=PA217&dq=%22ernie+lazar%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6B2BUpaJEoaAiwK6-4GYBw&ved=0CD0Q6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=%22ernie%20lazar%22&f=false

Alexander Zaitchik: Meet the Man Who Changed Glenn Beck’s Life Salon.com website, 09/16/2009 https://www.salon.com/2009/09/16/beck_skousen/

Chip Berlet and Matthew Lyons: Right Wing Populism in America: Too Close For Comfort [Guilford Press, 2000, 499pp] http://books.google.com/books?id=Md1aRhWNk1QC&dq=%22ernie+lazar%22&q=lazar#v=snippet&q=lazar&f=false

David Bollier: Liberty and Justice For Some: Defending A Free Society From The Radical Right’s Holy War on Democracy [People For The American Way, Ungar Publishing Co. October 1982, 324pp]

John Haynes Message re my CPUSA File List on H-HOAC 4/20/13

http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=H-HOAC&month=1304&week=c&msg=8Zu/XVKOiId1shy8ynnpJw&user=&pw=

Society For U.S. Intellectual History (Facebook page) 4/15/13 https://www.facebook.com/groups/39928567889/

Please see Wikipedia:Expert editors. When you say Wiki fails to understand... In one sense you are indisputably correct. Wikipedia is a website built by hundreds of thousands of editors spanning almost two decades, and the website isn't capable of understanding anything. Many of these thousands of past and current editors, however, do understand this problem perfectly well. I would hazard to guess that most experienced ones understand this, often first-hand and perhaps better than you realize. Editors have already talked about this a lot, and this discussion has been ongoing since the beginning. The consensus, built by this tedious discussion, is that the way for volunteers like us to build an online encyclopedia, for better or worse, is to summarize reliable, published data.

We are no threat to your personal credibility as an independent researcher. As a bunch of volunteers, we are not interested in, or capable of, vetting your credentials, because that's not what we are trying to do. There are many reasons for this, but in order to discuss this, you have to meet me in the middle and realize what this website is, and how it works. Grayfell (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your explanation is the personal ad hominem attack made against me on the Talk page of your John Birch Society article which was authored by your moderator. His profound hostility and rudeness undercuts everything you wrote above. This has NOTHING to do with "vetting" my credentials. Instead, the MERITS of what is presented is all that should matter. If someone posts a message in the Talk section which advances fact-based knowledge and which is substantiated, then it should be WELCOMED and not disparaged by Wiki writers who are totally (willfully) ignorant about the subjects they discuss. I have NEVER in my lifetime sought publicity for myself and several times I rejected an offer by the late Univ. of Oklahoma political scientist/sociologist Dr.John George who offered to put me in touch with his publisher https://www.amazon.com/American-Extremists-John-George/dp/1573920584. Because I rejected that offer, I am libeled here by the ignoramus who poses as a neutral moderator. Now you know why Wikipedia is NOT respected. Ernie1241 (talk) 23:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)ernie1241Ernie1241 (talk) 23:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For your sake, I hope that the validity of your "research" in general is better than your knowledge of Wikipedia. First, we don't have "moderators" -- moderators generally control discussions and their contents, we have no such thing, we have policies and community consensus to do help determine the content or our articles. We do have "administrators" who deal primarily with behavioral problems and other "janitorial" duties. Second, I am not one of them, as is extremely easy to determine, but which you -- the self-described "researcher" -- obviously never bothered to do. Third, I have never pretended that I am "neutral" on the subject of people who edit here with a point of view to push, such as yourself. I don't like them, and I work very hard to make sure that they don't skew articles with their biased edits. You, quite obviously, have formed very hard opinions based on your "50 years" of "research", and your attempts to make our articles reflect your opinions are, as Grayfell has spent a lot of time trying to explain to you (without discernible results) a violation of multiple Wikipedia policies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, the old chestnut about how Wikipedia not respected. I don't think the solution is to ignore published sources when they are disputed by an editor.

I am also not an administrator. We are editors, just like you, and since Wikipedia is based on a consensus model you'll have to work with us. Sorry.

Even if your other writings had been published by Prometheus Books or any other publisher, we still could not accept your original research. We also still wouldn't ignore other reliable sources. We can only include what is directly supported by reliable sources. Not reliable people, but only reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 03:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is your narrow definition of "reliable sources". I don't have a "viewpoint" to push. If you actually took the time to review what I have presented, it would become self-evident that I am discussing FACTUAL history -- not my personal opinions. That is why numerous PhD historians and journalists and other serious people have repeatedly cited me in their books, articles, academic conference papers, doctoral dissertations and master's theses. They are NOT quoting ANY "opinion" of mine. They are using indisputable FACTUAL evidence which I discovered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernie1241 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One last time, in words of mostly one syllable, and in caps, so you;ll know it's very, very important:

IT DOES NOT MATTER IF EVERY "FACT" YOU PRESENT IS THE GOD'S HONEST "TRUTH", WE CANNOT PUT IT IN A WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE IF IT IS NOT VERIFIABLE AND SUPPORTED BY A CITATION FROM A RELIABLE SOURCE.

YOU ARE NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE BY OUR DEFINITION

THEREFORE NOTHING YOU REPORT THAT IS SUPPORTED ONLY BY YOUR OWN "RESEARCH" CAN BE PUBLISHED ON WIKIPEDIA

IF YOU WERE TO SAY THAT "THE SUN IS A STAR", AND THERE WAS NO OTHER SOURCE TO SUPPORT THAT STATEMENT, WE COULD NOT PUBLISH IT

Do you understand? Because if you don't you really cannot be allowed to edit here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to unlookers: I thought better of posting the comment above, and deleted it 4 minutes after posting it. [1]. Ernie1241 restored it with this edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEN: I really want to believe (despite your snotty tone) that you are an honorable person who values truth. You went to great lengths to state boldly and emphatically that "YOU ARE NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE BY OUR DEFINITION".

OK--fine. Then please delete ALL references in Wiki articles which refer to documentation which I provided to the authors you currently regard as "reliable sources". If you want, I can provide you with a comprehensive list of such Wiki articles. Please provide your email address and I will do so.

You can start by deleting footnote #4 in your article about W. Cleon Skousen which cites Alexander Zaitchik's Salon.com article. That footnote is meant to document a statement made by Zaitchik concerning what Skousen's FBI file reveals about the nature of Skousen's work at the FBI. If you check the actual Salon.com article, you will notice that Zaitchik explicitly states that he is relying exclusively upon ME for that statement and you will also notice that Zaitchik inserts a link to MY online Report about Skousen as substantiation for the statements made in his article. I therefore DEMAND that you delete that reference since it refers to ME as his source and (according to you) I am NOT a reliable source.

ALSO: You must immediately DELETE the following information in your article on Eustace Mullins and delete the entire footnote (#6):

"He said he was educated at Ohio State University, New York University, and the University of North Dakota, although the FBI was unable to verify his attendance at any of them, with the exception of one summer session at NYU in 1947.[6]"

The reason is because the footnote refers readers to one of Mullins' FBI files -- which I was the first and only person to obtain. The link in footnote #6 is to an Internet Archive webpage which contains links to all of Mullins' files. However, those links were actually copied from MY webpage by the National Security Archive. You can contact them to verify that. Sometimes, they acknowledge that they are copying files obtained by other people but other times they do not. One of the ways you can prove that they copied my files is because of the method I used to identify FBI files. I use "HQ" or the Field Office names plus I append the section number of the file to each listing. So you will see HQ-1 or HQ-2 or NYC-1 etc. Another way you can verify that they copied my files is by checking the dates when I uploaded Mullins' files to Internet Archive, i.e. June 2013 -- whereas National Security Archive COPIED MY files in April 2016

MY FILES: https://archive.org/search.php?query=FOIA%3A%20Mullins

NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE: https://archive.org/download/EustaceC.Mullins

I therefore DEMAND that you delete that reference in your article since it ultimately is based upon MY research. IN ADDITION: I HEREBY PERMANENTLY REFUSE permission for Wikipedia to use ANYTHING I have spent my lifetime acquiring, and I demand that you PERMANENTLY DELETE all references on Wikipedia that are using material which I discovered and which cite me as the source. So unless you can cite a reference which is NOT originally ME -- you should remove all such "documentation" because you DO NOT consider me as a "reliable source".

Unfortunately for you, you cannot refuse permission, because you've already given it in perpetuity. With every edit you make, you agree to an irrevocable license of the material you added. The text says:

"By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license."

You cannot withdraw your license, and if you try to delete your material, your edits will be reverted, and you will probably end up being blocked from editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are not being intellectually honest....I NEVER gave permission, nor was I ever asked for permission by Wikipedia, to allow you to use MY research for any footnote in your articles about W. Cleon Skousen or about Eustace Mullins. Furthermore, I spent over $70,000 of my income during the past 37 years to acquire thousands of FBI files and insofar as Wikipedia articles reference files which I obtained (and I was the ONLY person to do so according to the FBI -- and many of those files have now been destroyed by the FBI so I possess the only copies extant) then common decency requires that you request permission to use the fruits of MY labor -- BUT I now REFUSE that permission in perpetuity -- so please find OTHER substantiation for your articles.

Sorry, the simple fact is cannot that you do what you think you can do. I'll be closely watching your edits to make sure you don't try to take matters into your own hands. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I used the term "common decency requires" -- because, normal rules of ethical conduct require authors to request permission to use material (and then give proper credit) when some kernel of fact is solely attributable to the original person who discovered it.

What annoys me most is that you don't even seem to have any self-awareness about how pervasively mere unsubstantiated OPINION appears in Wiki articles--particularly with respect to conservative and extreme right individuals and organizations. FOR EXAMPLE: in your article on Phyllis Schlafly there is this comment: "Schlafly joined the John Birch Society, but quit because she thought that the main communist threats to the nation were external rather than internal" AND appended to that assertion is "Citation Needed". In other words, you do not have one damn clue how to prove that assertion.

Once again, I was the FIRST and ONLY person who found the proof about Schlafly's JBS membership and I shared it with several historians along with a journalist who wrote the following article where he reproduced the letter I gave to him that was written by Schlafly in December 1959 which confirms Phyllis and her husband both joined the John Birch Society. I can even tell you the month/year and location when and where she attended a JBS recruitment meeting. {https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/09/07/eagle-forums-phyllis-schlafly-leaves-legacy-tied-conspiracy-theories SCHLAFLY LETTER RE: JBS MEMBERSHIP].

Neither of Schlafly's biographers (Felsenthal or Critchlow) and NONE of the "sources" and "further reading" authors you cite in your article can produce ANYTHING to verify that Schlafly joined the JBS. So Wikipedia decided to enter a personal opinion (which supposedly is verboten) into its article or to use YOUR formulation: "NOT VERIFIABLE AND SUPPORTED BY A CITATION FROM A RELIABLE SOURCE". Wiki deliberately chose to enter a comment into its article with NO PROOF OF ANY KIND to support its assertion and yet you attack and defame me because I have the actual proof about numerous subjects and can present it! I hope all readers will notice the utter hypocrisy in what you wrote to me. Ernie1241 (talk) 13:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)ernie1241Ernie1241 (talk) 13:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, by the way, I forgot to mention this gem! Your Schlafly article recommends as a "reliable source" the following:

"Ehrenreich, Barbara. 1983. The Hearts of Men: American Dreams and the Flight from Commitment New York: Anchor Books, an attack from the left"

Now--what, exactly, is in Barbara's background which makes HER a "reliable source" to present factual evidence and analyze or discuss Schlafly's history? Here is the verbatim quotation from Wikipedia's article about Barbara:

Ehrenreich studied chemistry at Reed College, graduating in 1963. Her senior thesis was entitled Electrochemical oscillations of the silicon anode. In 1968, she received a Ph.D in cellular immunology from Rockefeller University.

I rest my case. QED!

April 2020[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing from certain namespaces (Wikipedia talk) for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 13:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{{

Nobody should ever be blocked for presenting factual information that corrects errors posted on Wiki -- particularly when Wiki's professed reason for blocking (i.e. original research is unacceptable because secondary sources are more trustworthy than primary source evidence) is universally rejected by all academic professional organizations. Secondary sources merely repeat what they have seen written previously by one or more authors without knowing if those original authors actually were correct .

Truth and reality are based upon discovery of verifiable facts which appear in primary sources.

EXAMPLE: if contributor "A" writes that Doug Weller was born in Dallas, Texas in May 1910 because "A" saw that written in a book or article OR heard it spoken by contributor "B" -- then that would be an example of contributor "A" mistakenly repeating a falsehood which "A" saw or heard from "B" and perhaps other secondary sources.

However, IF contributor "C" comes along and corrects the errors made by contributors "A" and "B" by pointing out reliable factual information re: the birthdate of Doug Weller, then "C" is performing a necessary function.

What makes the data presented by "C" "reliable"? Careful research into primary sources such as birth certificates or any other official records containing birth dates--including, for example, sworn testimony in court cases or before legislative committees or employment applications, military service records, and registration records at educational institutions. This is particularly true if, for example, we were discussing someone who is deceased because, then, even more avenues exist to discover the ACTUAL birthdate of someone such as Social Security Death Index records.

Historical research exists in order to discover facts. The reason why Wikipedia articles are so often revised is because the persons writing the articles (often and perhaps even usually) are not academics or researchers who have spent their lives studying one or more specific subjects. The Wiki article authors probably have never spent so much as one nanosecond doing their own independent research into archives at colleges and universities or at state historical societies nor have they interviewed the most well-known experts on the subjects of the Wiki articles.

Lastly, even people like Doug Weller should be able to recognize with just a cursory amount of research that the overwhelming majority of books and articles which have been written about the Birch Society were written in the 1960's and 1970's. Only ONE new book about the JBS has been published in the 21st century. If you check the bibliographic footnotes of all the books and academic articles written which contain some discussion about the JBS during the past 40 years, they repeat almost all the same sources.

WHY IS THAT? The answer is very simple and must be candidly recognized by any intellectually honest person.

(1) The Birch Society DOES NOT allow outside independent researchers to have access to its historical archives.

(2) Up until relatively recently, our academic community has never even been interested in the history of extreme right organizations in our country (with a couple major exceptions like KKK). Consequently, nobody even bothered to research the personal papers of the deceased individuals (archived at colleges and universities) who were involved in the creation of the JBS and who were major actors during its first 30 years of operation.

(3) Furthermore nobody even bothered to pursue FOIA requests into the JBS for the tens of thousands of pages of government agency records pertaining to the JBS and related subjects.

HOW DO I KNOW THAT? Because I spent 38 years (and $60,000+ of my income) doing FOIA research and, during that time, I submitted over 10,000 requests to many different agencies and I obtained over 600,000 pages of documents. During that process, I also asked for records concerning what OTHER requesters had made requests for the subjects I pursued AND I also asked to be informed regarding how many pages they received. MOST of the time, I was the FIRST and ONLY person to receive those records.

IN ADDITION: I also spent a considerable amount of money doing what NOBODY else ever did, i.e. I obtained copies of the personal papers of many of the key individuals involved in the history of the JBS (and related subjects). Because of that (for example) I was the FIRST and ONLY person to discover the correspondence by JBS founder Robert Welch which explained why Charles Koch resigned from the JBS and I was the FIRST and ONLY person to discover the correspondence by Phyllis Schlafly in which she acknowledged that she had joined the JBS with her husband in the summer of 1959 (which she always lied about to her biographers!)

Almost everything written about the JBS for the past 50 years basically repeats the SAME SECONDARY SOURCE information which originally was published in the 1960's and 1970's. The only significant exceptions to that have been doctoral dissertations such as Samuel Brenner's 2009 dissertation and Randle Hart's 2007 dissertation and D.J. Mulloy's 2014 book.

AND Guess what! All THREE of those authors will tell you that your Wiki article contains indisputable FALSEHOODS and ALL THREE will tell you they consider MY information to be much more reliable than yours---especially since two of those three authors relied upon material I sent to them or made them aware of! In THAT respect, they are repeating MY "original research" which you find so objectionable! Ernie1241 (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)ernie1241Ernie1241 (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)}}[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain areas of the encyclopedia for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 12:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I meant to block you from Talk:John Birch Society. If you wish to make specific points arguing that some sources fail WP:RS you can go to WP:RSN, if you think the article fails WP:NPOV there is WP:NPOVN. You can post there. Doug Weller talk 12:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I remember talking to Bill Buckley about the JBS. To put it mildly, he wasn't impressed. Doug Weller talk 12:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]