User talk:Bob Burton/Archive

From SourceWatch
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Return to after Christmas

Review

test

Return to

Have a look at Solar energy

and these

Dezenhall got an early education in remarks-gone-wild as a young aide in Ronald Reagan's White House. There he helped to tamp down the fuss over the president's suggestion that trees cause pollution. Now he helps companies and other clients manage scandal in an age when Internet innuendo spreads at lightning speed.

Murdoch link

Links to work on

Links

Refs template

See if I can get this Wikipedia template

to work in SW

Notes

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2008/10/01/fox-news-gets-sellout-journo-to-complain-about-journo-selling-out/

http://www.bsr.org/bsrconferences/2007/speakers.cfm

Bob Burton/CC National template

A shill?

Please look over Mawh's changes to your work and let me know what you think. I'm tempted to rollback much of his/her stuff. --Steve Freeman 17:50, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Query

wondering if there's a way that I can embed a google map? I've developed one for the oil issues portal that would be a great feature to include.--BrantoBranto 16:42, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

Paddy

http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080918/NEWS01/809180317/1006

Leaked Qld Doc

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,,24376427-3102,00.html

Leaked UK documents

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/18/carbonemissions.climatechange

And another park

http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org

Another park

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/50034/story.htm

Park link

http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=9&ContentID=93378

Needs work

Reform Intitute

See http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-mccain-davis_tuejun17,0,5274429.story

CoalSwarm Glossary

Terms to include on a page (some useful material here

  • lignite
  • sub-bituminous
  • bituminous
  • anthracite
  • carbon intensity
  • sub-critical
  • super-critical
  • energy gap

Query

Hi, can you arrange for the nuclear spin badge to be changed so the link is to www.spinwatch.org and not www.spinwatch.org.uk?

Thanks

--Davidmiller 14:27, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

SW: vid capture

I finally resolved my video capture issue. I went with a moderately priced piece of commercial software.

ZD Soft's Video Recorder (Win-only) - It's $30 USD, but worth it. The software captures straight from the desktop stream, saves in multiple audio/video formats, and has a simple 1-click off recording. Very nice piece of software.

Copy text to Wikipedia

Hello Bob, I don't see a village pump or other central page to contact the community here but maybe you can repost my message if there is such a page and you think the following message is important enough for the community.

I'm afraid the information about copying data into Wikipedia as described here is not correct anymore. Wikipedia changed to GFDL version 1.3 while SourceWatch is still on GFDL version 1.2. Please read this statement explaining the reason for changing and the consequences. As far as I get it, one way to solve this problem would be for SourceWatch to also change to GFDL version 1.3 just like Wikipedia already did.

Best Regards, Bonzai 10:22, 9 November 2008 (EST)

Hi Bob, was anything done with my remarks? - Bonzai 01:12, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Added links

Bob, long time no see .. but still upset. I spent over two hours adding links to the Bill Ayers article only to have SW not save my work. It's all gone. AI

SW: Link to Greenlivingpedia

Bob, we met some time ago in Melbourne, I have worked on the Forest Letter Watch website (now a blog) for some time, and more recently http://greenlivingpedia.org. I just found Sourcewatch - its a great resource. I have added a link to it on the Greenlivingpedia sidebar. Any chance of a reciprocal link?

Regards, Peter Campbell 02:04, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Category Query

Hi, Bob - I don't think that was our category. It looks like someone started it but didn't get very far... If a database of articles on nuclear power plants (proposed or existing) ever gets added, it would make sense to have an umbrella category for all power stations. But until/unless that happens I think it's fine to get rid of it. Thanks for checking in!

SW: GreenFacts

Hi, Bob. Firstly, let me congratulate you for the many improvements you brought a year ago to the GreenFacts article. It is now significantly clearer and more factual than before.

I have updated this article today with the 2007 funding figures, restructured the "Activities" section, completed the "Publication Process" sub-section, moved the "Handling conflicts of interest" sub-section into the "Criticism" section, and made a few more small changes. I hope that you are happy with the work done.

However, I have added a new section "Is GreenFacts a Front Group?" in GreenFacts' Talk page, because I really think that GreenFacts should be removed from the Front group classification. Kindly review it at your best convenience.

Happy New Year, --Deselliers 05:26, 30 December 2008 (EST)

Global Warming/Climate Change/Coal Swarm

Hi Bob, long time no c. Wow! This stuff is really going over the top. There isn't any balance to the articles. Nace deletes anything that doesn't correspond to his views. Many highly respected and well published scientists are beginning to denounce this as fear mongering. Definitely Coal Swarm isn't making any rankings in the top 500 of the Most Popular list. [1] I'd be greatly disappointed to see SW lose it's credibility over this.

Madness of Crowds Groupthink

My thoughts, James Horn

Wahid Azal

Hi Bob,

Thanks for tidying up the article, mate. Please keep an eye on it because certain parties initiated it on SW in order to defame and vilify. --Wahid 22:03, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Thanks --Wahid 20:52, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Pat Kohli

Hi Bob, I am re-starting the Pat Kohli article which you deleted. I'd like you to give me reasons as to why you say the original deserved deletion. Please cite reasons as to why that article did not fit on SW rather than provide vagueries as you did on the deletion page. The only reason I can find at the moment whereby you deleted it is because you were specifically lobbied to delete it. Thank you. Get back to me. --Wahid 22:49, 15 February 2009 (EST)


Hi Bob,

You say,

  • on the same grounds that I deleted the page on Wahid Azal, which you supported. Both these pages are/were tangential to the core mission of SourceWatch."

This is a vagary. Here's the mission header of SourceWatch: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch

  • A primary purpose of SourceWatch is documenting the PR and propaganda activities of public relations firms and public relations professionals engaged in managing and manipulating public perception, opinion and policy.

Pat Kohli is a public relations professional working on behalf of the Haifan Baha'i organization (in fact, it's Internet Committee whose task is precisely to libel and defame on public forums dissidents and detractors of said organization) and he also has professional ties to the arms contracting tech. aspect of the US military. Both of these were documented. Please explain to me in detail without platitudes how this is tangential to the core mission of SourceWatch? The inclusion of an article on Kohli is highly apropos on SW - spill-over or no spill-over. I, on the other hand, do not work for or am otherwise funded by any foundation, group, corporation, government, think-tank or otherwise.

  • key statements are unsourced (ie "is a member of the Haifan Baha'i Faith who makes regular contributions to the USENET newsgroup talk.religion.bahai")."

As a matter of fact, the second clause was in fact sourced. If you had searched through the versions of the article, another editor had put in links to Kohli's no vote on the creation of talk.religion.bahai and his subsequent activities on it. I took them out because the reference tags were interfering with the body of the article. Go take a look at the history.

  • better formatting, referencing and writing wouldn't overcome the fact that the profile is fundamentally off-topic"

Please explain to me with examples rather than vague impramaturs why you believe this to be? I have shown you above that it is in fact very on topic.

  • I can't see that the page is going to be of any interest to other existing editors."

This sounds like wikipedia editorial doublespeak here to me. But what you say above is categorically untrue, one other existing editor besides myself contributed in the discussion of the article, i.e. the same editor who put in the reference tags which I took down. Then you have Owen who commented, who BTW has admitted on talk.religion.bahai to being Pat Kohli himself -- i.e. the same person who nominated the article for deletion. This stinks, big time!

--Wahid 01:50, 16 February 2009 (EST)


Hi Bob,

Though I'm a new editor here, I would like to offer/seek some possible clarification on this article, and address some of the reasons for its deletion that you mentioned. If you'll permit me to address these point by point:

Hi Wahidazal66 -- re deletion of Page on Pat Kohli my reasons are: 

   * on the same grounds that I deleted the page on Wahid Azal, which you supported. Both these pages are/were tangential to the core mission of SourceWatch.

Though there are many factors involved here, the Baha'i organization has shaped a substantial public image as a non-government religious organization that places enormous emphasis on non-violent dispute resolution, the forbidding of the carrying of weapons, and a general ideological stance towards a supposedly 'peaceful' attitude in the conduct of its affairs and philosophies. A couple of pages have been initiated on Sourcewatch by a reliable editor on certain Baha'i bodies, including the Baha’i Chair for World Peace, and other affiliated ‘think tanks’ and NGO’s centred around ‘peaceful conflict management’ and the provision of humanitarian services etc. Similarly, several other articles have been created on individuals affiliated with the Baha'i faith who have directly involved themselves with the manufacture of weapons technology for the US government. I believe the importance of this article is that one of the most prolific Baha’i affiliated internet activists in addressing external critics and internal dissenters within the Baha'i faith, is himself affiliated with an aspect of the US military industrial complex, a point that substantially assists in aspects of the debate over the profile and internal operations of this organization. 

   * Both were the spillover of some edit war over at Wikipedia and that makes me very wary about providing another venue for the same edit warring to continue;

Wether this is true or not, as an individual article, it seems to me that (with a little clarification) this still appears to fulfill the criteria for inclusion on Sourcewatch, and in fact, if there was such group motivated edit warring occurring, that Sourcewatch acts as a repository of key verifiable information that may otherwise be removed by organized groups of editors on Wikipedia? I know Wikipedia is a pain, and you wish to maintain distance from it, but there are obviously complex factors involved here! 

   * key statements are unsourced (ie "is a member of the Haifan Baha'i Faith who makes regular contributions to the USENET newsgroup talk.religion.bahai"). Other material which does have a reference link is simply cut and pasted. As it stands the material there is virtually unreadable to the uninitiated - and therefore I can't see that it is all that useful to any reader.

All of these could be verified with the correct editorial advice and consultation as to their appropriateness. I hope that if such references can be provided, with correct guidelines for usenet sources, this could be solved?

• better formatting, referencing and writing wouldn't overcome the fact that the profile is fundamentally off-topic.

As the information offered was largely from a technical brief regarding the role and activities of the individual in question, is this not appropriate for the initial establishment of an article? If not, perhaps there is somewhere I should look for guidelines regarding paraphrasing such information whilst maintaining factual accuracy? It seems that as there may have been an issue of neutrality spilling over from some ‘edit war’ that maintaining total factual representation may have initially been the best way to go?

Could you please offer some more information regarding why such an article on an individual who is instrumental in developing certain types of weapons technology (hence purely technical info provided with source), and who is also active within a highly connected NGO/religious organization, which operates under potentially conflicting public ideologies, is off topic? I think this is actually quite useful for those presently researching the activities and techniques employed by the Baha’is to create and maintain a certain public profile, and to undertake various NGO related tasks under the banner of a certain ideology/philosophy.

• I can't see that the page is going to be of any interest to other existing editors. And the fact that it wasn't of sufficient interest to the more general readership and editorship of Wikipedia tells me that a profile is not all that vital to the sum of human knowledge.

Would it be possible to reconsider this perspective, as I am currently interested in detailing the activities and connections of the Baha’i organisation, and would appreciate the opportunity to assist in creating a better and more meaningful profile to contextualise this article amongst other related material?

So I deleted it ... and I'll delete it again.--Bob Burton 01:04, 16 February 2009 (EST)

As I said, I would like the opportunity to clarify certain issues with reference to other articles and forthcoming information. There is a substantial amount of material to offer on this topic, and I hope to make a further contribution. Kind Regards. --Atomised 02:57, 16 February 2009 (EST)

Hi Bob,

Would you be able to advise me whether the current version of the page in question (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pat_kohli) is sufficiently well referenced, or whether I should expand upon what is written? The specific context to which this article relates is raised here: http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/technique.htm

Professor Juan Cole (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Juan_Cole) is quoted within the sources above, and has also detailed other aspects pertinent to this issue at:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai/2002/fundbhfn.htm

The Baha'i organisation also claims to maintain a clear stance on disarmament, which should be factored into the discussion, and added to the relevant page (which I hope to do in expanding their article):

http://www.bic-un.bahai.org/87-0824.htm

"In this spirit, the Bahá'í International Community offers the following observations on the connection between disarmament and development: 

  1. Disarmament and development are interrelated. Funds used to make weapons are a drain on the national and world economies. Such funds could be better used to raise the living conditions of the world's peoples.

  2. The economic connection between disarmament and development represents only one side of the issue. A spiritual connection also exists. Resources spent for weapons drain not only national treasuries; they also drain the reservoirs of human hope and trust.

  3. The two issues must be approached in an integrated manner. Not only can disarmament further the cause of development; development can further the cause of disarmament. Indeed, the key to advancing the cause of both disarmament and development lies in fostering a sense of global unity. Unless unity is attained, true peace and security will remain out of reach."


Obviously, these are elements of a much broader discussion to which I would like to contribute, but hope for the time being they will sufficiently contextualise the page on Pat Kohli. Kind regards. --Atomised 06:23, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Coal plants references

Hi Bob-

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I guess I'm still new to wiki editing. I thought I had done the references right, but, for some reason, they were merely linking to the external source and not referencing them in the bottom. I'm not sure why that is, but I'll have time today to take a look at it and see what's going on with that.

In the meantime, because I still have all the references, I'm going to go back and finish at least adding the external links for the other coal plants I edited. Just letting you know so you don't see all these additions go up without the full references. I just want to get all the links put in before I lose them or are unable to find the sources again.

Thanks for all your oversight. It's really been helpful.

-Kate

Northern Michigan University Ripley Heating Plant

Bob - I don't think this is an "existing coal plant" because it's currently not burning coal. <g> --Tednace 21:07, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Feb Material

  • need a page on John Key and some of the following materiual to the NZ national page - "But under the newly elected National Party Government, New Zealand’s fairly average performance is likely get a lot worse. Responding to calls to reduce domestic emissions by 30% [from 1990 levels?] by 2020 – in line with the reduction range necessary for developed countries to adequately play their part – new Prime Minister John Key said “this reduction is not achievable within the timeframe given…. We are better to set more realistic targets and be serious about

achieving them. It will be a huge task to halt the growth in emissions and get them on a downward track.” The new Government’s first actions on climate do not bode well either. So far, Prime Minister Key has suspended the newly installed Emission Trading Scheme, the moratorium on the building of new fossil fuelled power stations as well as scrapping a planned NZ $1 billion home insulation and energy conservation package. He has even reversed the ban on incandescent light bulbs. New Zealand has previously argued that it is not prepared to tackle its rising emissions resulting from the dramatic intensification of its agricultural sector. Emissions from this sector – which already constitute 49% of overall emissions from New Zealand, - are likely to rise to 40% above 1990 levels by 2010."[1]

March Material

april

May

June

As it happened, in the spring I landed a job as executive director of a policy organization in Washington. This felt like a coup. But certain perversities became apparent as I settled into the job. It sometimes required me to reason backward, from desired conclusion to suitable premise. The organization had taken certain positions, and there were some facts it was more fond of than others. As its figurehead, I was making arguments I didn’t fully buy myself. Further, my boss seemed intent on retraining me according to a certain cognitive style — that of the corporate world, from which he had recently come. This style demanded that I project an image of rationality but not indulge too much in actual reasoning.

[4]

July

blog post links

Hi,

how do you display blog posts that mention a particular sourcewatch page?

eg here: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Climate_Science_Coalition

Thanks

--Davidmiller 06:57, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Referencing for new material

Hi Bob, yes I'll go through the material and fix the reference formatting as requested, might take a couple of days to get the hang. Let me know if there were specific issues you wanted me to address. Cheers --Atomised 22:41, 5 March 2009 (EST)


Foreign Language Material

What is the SW policy on sourcing and quoting foreign language material? --Wahid 21:29, 18 March 2009 (EDT)

English only unless the point that is being referenced can be clearly understood from an online translation site/service version of an article. The point being that references should be able to be checked by other editors or readers and the meaning of the cited source be clear. Otherwise the material shouldn't be used.

While we don't have a hard and fast rule I would suggest that:

a) on balance, it is best to avoid relying on a translated page; b) they should not used to support a point that is likely to be controversial (as then it will turn into an argument over the translation); and c) they should at most be used very sparingly unless it is essential. Such online translators may be ok for a general point but not for quoting or where the point may be subtle. --Bob Burton 22:35, 18 March 2009 (EDT)


Baha'i Faith Page

Hi Bob, As you think you've picked up on form your revert edit,it seems that user Owen may have actually inserted the reference to a dubious source in order to paint the inclusion of this article as 'conspiratorial'. Just for clarification on this issue, I have ensured that all phrases/terminology used are directly quotable from Baha'i/Baha'i related sources, including 'world police', "World Super State"(here for example http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/WOB/wob-20.html), "World Legislator" "World Parliament", etc, so any claims of unfair emphasis on 'federalism' or a 'pro-world government agenda' are utterly unfounded, as these professed values/ideologies are coming straight from the horses mouth! I have tried to be as scrupulous as possible about referencing, and will put up more sources from Baha'i, or Baha'i affiliated authors if need be. Even if you look at the reference which user Owen has a problem with, which it appears he actually added himself [www.conspiracyarchive.com/NewAge/social_change_agents.htm#AO World Government Fronts, Psycho-social Change Agents], this source also quotes primary Baha'i sources which employ EXACTLY the same terminology (for example, http://bahai-library.com/introductory/warwick/newworld.html) as this so-called 'conspiratorial' article. Thanks for keeping an eye on this. Cheers --Atomised 00:10, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Hi again Bob,

I've begun adding in even more references directly from Baha'i sources, including for individual bulleted points. I believe Owen has attempted to claim this page is in some way 'progaganda', and I imagine there may be numerous future attempts at altering information on it to cast it in that light. As my research suggests, attempting to curb criticism in this way has also been an issue with this organization in the past. Cheers --Atomised 01:35, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Hi Bob,

I read on TRB about the page on the BF. Based on the SW article, one of the readers on TRB asked how the Baha'is would compel all the people of the world to follow their religion and asks what "The unity of all the world's religions under the umbrella of the Baha'i Faith" means?. One of the other posters on TRB googled that phrase "unity of all the world's religions under the umbrella of the" and found just six hits, half of them on or about this SW article, two separate instances of the essay, "World Government Fronts, Psycho-social Change Agents", one at conspiracy.archive and a second instance at the truthnews. Though the google search, based on the odd choice of phrasing, suggested that there may have been a lift, from the "World Governments Fronts, Psycho-social Change Agents" essay to the SW article, comparison of our SW article against the essay confirms these are substantially the same lists. This is the list as it appeared last night in SW:

... as well as advocating the development and implementation of:

A World Super-State

A World Legislator

The unity of all the world's religions under the umbrella of the Baha'i Faith

A World Parliament

A World Police Force

A Supreme Tribunal

Election of leaders through merit alone without nominations (the Administrative Order)

A single Universal Auxiliary Language

A permanent single currency

An international uniform tax

The implementation of Agenda 21 and the Earth Charter http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Baha%27i_Faith&diff=413455&oldid=413321

This is the list as copied from the "World Government Fronts, Psycho-social Change Agents" essay:

... The organization, and its holy scriptures, advocates the following:

A World Super-State

A World Legislator

A World Parliament

A World Police Force

A Supreme Tribunal

Election of leaders through merit alone without nominations or the democratic process (the Administrative Order)

A single Universal Language

A permanent single currency

An international uniform tax

The implementation of Agenda 21 and the Earth Charter

The unity of all the world's religions under the umbrella of the Baha'i Faith http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NewAge/social_change_agents.htm#AO

These have the same elements. Remember, google showed only six matches on one of those bullets, and none of them traced back to Baha'i sources. The list does try to emphasis the world federalism aspects to induce anxiety among those who are nervous about global government. The terms "World Super-State", "World Legislator", and "World Parliament" were then put into google with "baha'i" and we have a few more hits. The online dating rights web site has Wahid, posting as truthseeker, and MaybeIamone, probably also a newcomer to TRB, and a third poster, Frank Johnson, who provides the list and a link to the conspiracyarchive web site.

So, yes, I did put in the reference to the conspiracyarchive web site because it was clear to me that that was where the information was coming from. If people don't like the citation, my suggestion would be to get a different list. I can't change where it came from, but I can correctly identify the source.

Though I do expect Wahid to fault me for fixing mistakes, since I've watched him blame others for his mistakes at TRB, I am disappointed to see others joining in and blaming me for fixing their mistakes. I hope we can do better. I see the list in question has now been reverted to the misidentification. I suggest that that list be deleted if the editors are completely averse to a correct reference.--Owen 21:44, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

The list is being expanded, and all statements strictly referenced, with supporting material, all from Baha'i sources and including direct quotes. --Atomised 00:33, 28 March 2009 (EDT)


This is unbelievable and utterly bizarre!

The list is based on references to material published in Haifan Baha'i publications, which are scriptural positions and articles of your own creed. If the conspiracyarchive got it from anywhere it was from your own publications and scriptures - which they faithfully reference. They didn't make it up or get it from anywhere else but your own articulated and published material. Again, these are continually delineated positions of your own creed, for pete's sake! And, besides (to reiterate), we didn't put in the link. You, Owen (aka Pat Kohli), put in the link. So what, that Frank Johnson quoted the link on the online dating site or that the phraesology gets some number of google hits? How does this remotely diminsh from the unassailably demonstrable and axiomatic fact that these are your own creedal positions: delienated by your creed, continually articulated by it, incessantly published by it, articles of its faith, no less? Are you denying this is the case? If so, why so?

Bob, you might note here the patently absurd misdirection and sleight of hand tactic being used by this editor. He is raising hubris on a tangential point without remotely addressing the key issue that these points are in fact the articulated positions of the organization he belongs to, which are being faithfully referenced as such

Finally, one should point out that this hubris being raised by Owen (aka Pat Kohli) is the exact same hubris being raised by the handle All_Bad (aka Pat Kohli) on the USENET group talk.religion.bahai. The diction, phraesology, choice of words and argumentation are verbatim that of All_Bad (aka Pat Kohli) on this thread, http://groups.google.com.au/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/thread/1f313d0c16aae477

Note that previously this editor had even denied being Pat Kohli. --Wahid 03:12, 28 March 2009 (EDT)


Hi Bob,

Though I've posted this on my own talk page, I just wanted to alert you to possible editorial motives behind the new contributor, PaulHammond, particularly given his initial contributions in attempting to raise doubts about the activities of the Baha’i Internet Agency, and attempting (as is usually the case) to subtly attack the credibility of other editors. It appears that this person has a long history of involvement with Baha'i related internet propaganda activities, and like Pat Kohli has consistently addressed critics of the faith in the classic "neutral observer" capacity for a numbers of years now. Though he claims no official affiliation with them, in the course of my research I have come across numerous people who have raised doubts about the capacity in which he is conducting his activities.

It should be noted that new contributor PaulHammond claims to be a non-Baha'i. Mr Hammond also states that he was President of the Baha'i Society at Keele University, and also claims to have been involved in other university Baha'i societies, including Liverpool:

PaulHammond 7/18/2003 11:13 AM http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message_list.asp?boardID=5608&discussionID=273027

Another poster here has mentioned what he thinks was the purpose of University Baha'i Societies, in the following terms:

from my own experience as an LSA member, our community supported the Baha'i Society in our Local University. However it was always Baha'i students who run and controled the society as a platform for teaching the Faith. The LSA. supported them and sponsored them financially with literature and at times organised speakers for some of their meetings.

This suggests that the major purpose of University Baha'i societies is as a proselytisation tool.

However, in my experience the University Baha'i Societies that I have been personally involved in, this have not operated in this manner.

Sure, a major aim of a Baha'i Society is to let people know who Baha'u'llah was, but at Keele and Liverpool, I would say that we saw our aim more as a society that would foster debate about Baha'i principles, and invite speakers that would lead students to think about the effect and usefulness of Baha'i principles on society in general.

Certainly, at Keele, those of us non-Baha'is who were involved in the running of the society had a great deal of respect for Baha'i principles, and for our Baha'i friends who had taught us about these principles in the first place.

Also, it was important to us to ensure that we were seperate from the local LSA in the area - aside from anything else, there is a problem with accepting funding from the Student Union if the Baha'i Society is thought of as a Baha'i organisation, seeing as how the University Union is a *non-Baha'i* organisation, and Baha'is aren't allowed to accept outside funding.

Anyway, the Baha'i Society of Keele University, during the time that I was associated with it, did not see its primary aim as being "the gaining of converts to the Baha'i Faith" - and, when we met people who ran other Baha'i Societies, in other universities, they seemed to think similarly, that the main aim was rather to promote awareness of the Baha'i Faith, and the Baha'i Principles, rather than as some kind of "University Branch of the LSA".

In Liverpool, there was a much closer involvement of the LSA with the running of the Guild Baha'i Society.

Does anyone else have any opinions and experiences of running University Baha'i societies, and the aims that should be relevant to such organisations?

Paul"

http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message_list.asp?pageID=6&discussionID=270851&messages_per_page=4

PaulHammond

7/15/2003 7:36 PM 21 out of 36

Hearing an Atheist called Paul Hammond was a President of a bahai society is the best joke I heard this week.

Nevertheless, it is true.

There is no reason why the officers or members of University Baha'i societies have to be Baha'is. There were only 4 Baha'is on the campus at Keele University, and yet we had about 50-odd members.

At Liverpool Uni, I can't remember how many of our other Society officers were actually Baha'is, I think two of the four names on the sheet were. If you were really that bothered about it, I expect my name is still written on whatever record the Student Guild of Liverpool University keeps of their society officers - that is, if they have still got the information for 9 years ago, when I was an MSc student there.


PaulHammond 7/15/2003 7:48 PM 22 out of 36

Reply: Well its obvious from what you say * You did not attend a proper Feast * Neither did you know the rules otherwise you would not have forced yourself on other Baha'is of Liverpool. They never turned you away out of politeness. Likewise if a Baha'i invited you to a feast they were very much in the wrong.

Errol, if you were bothering to read what I have written, you would note that I said *Bristol*, not Liverpool was where I attended the feast. This is just too ridiculous.

I was visiting my Baha'i friend, who is a cradle Baha'i, and whose whole family are Baha'is, and this was about 3 years before I was an MSc student at Liverpool. It so happened that the 19-day feast co-incided with the time of my visit, and the family were faced with the choice of either leaving me alone in the house while they attended the feast, or asking if it was okay to take me along. Considering that I was at the time (I think) Treasurer of the Keele Uni Baha'i Society, and was clearly very interested in the Faith, and insisted that I would not be bored, no objections were raised to my coming along, so long as I understood that I would not be permitted to attend the business portion of the feast.

I'm sure the Bristol LSA will be very concerned to hear that an ex-Baha'i who now cannot seem to find a single good word to say about the faith, and spends his every spare moment running it down in public thinks that they did something "very wrong" over a decade ago when they let an interested seeker attend their feast along with his Baha'i hosts that they had known for years and years. If you are really concerned, write to the Bristol LSA about it now. I'm sure no-one will be able to remember it.

This is too ridiculous. I guess *you* won't be satisfied unless I call up Jeanette now, and get her to come on the net to this thread to swear on the Iqan that my story is true. Oddly enough, I'm not going to be doing that, since my only reason for disclosing these facts about my past Baha'i experiences is to give the lie to your assumption about me that I don't know what I'm talking about, because I don't have enough Baha'i experience to back me up. I'm sure you can see now that you were very wrong in that assumption.

Now, having settled all this, can we get back to the question that you are avoiding answering?

Paul


Mr Hammond also presented a paper on the theme of "Scientific and Religious Knowledge" at a Special Interest Groups meeting of the Association for Baha'i Studies (ABS(ESE) - see also http://abs-uk.manvell.org.uk/) at Keele University.

http://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/abs/associate/a22/a22-03.htm ABS(ESE) SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP REPORTS

Membership in the Special Interest Groups is free to all ABS (ESE) members. To find out more about their activities please contact the person named at the end of each report.

SCIENCE INTEREST GROUP: FIRST MEETING The first meeting of the Science group was held at Keele University on 15th February 1997. The day started with a paper by Mr Paul Hammond on the theme of "Scientific and Religious Knowledge". This paper presented some fundamental ideas on the commonality and connections between science and religion. The second paper by Dr Masoud Afnan was titled "Working with Human Embryos - Dilemmas and Opportunities". This paper offered a brief glimpse into one of the more controversial areas of science, where the moral and ethical issues are paramount, and religious belief is certainly relevant to many people. Dr Masoud outlined the technical issues involved, before discussing his personal approach as a Baha'i to the moral dimensions of the field. After lunch Dr Roger Kingdon presented a paper on "Two Logical Proofs of the Existence of God", with specific reference to the work by William Hatcher "Logic amp; Logos". This was the most intellectually demanding paper of the day with formal logic and higher maths liberally sprinkled throughout the theological content of the paper! The final paper of the day was by Dr Munirih Mali on. "A Baha'i Perspective on Drug Misuse". This paper reviewed the medical and social nature of drug abuse in the UK and offered some insights from the Baha'i Scriptures which served to highlight the severity of the problem in termS of its human costs.

Approximately 24 people attended the meeting, from a wide range of backgrounds, which emphasised the potentially wide appeal of the group. Significantly more interest was expressed via e-mail in the meeting, including many from abroad who stated how they would have liked to attend. Most people present expressed a keen desire to see the group continue and for further meetings, although with greater publicity being required and at an earlier date.

In parallel with the aim of general meetings for presenting papers the Science group now has an email discussion fonum, with over 80 subscribers. The active role of this e-mail list should significantly enhance the scope and maturation of the Science special interest group, (particular thanks are due to James Herbert for arranging the list).

Along with Pat Kohli, Paul Hammond has maintained a long standing internet presence as a voice against criticism of the Baha'i Faith.--Atomised 19:49, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

Thanks again for keeping an eye on things. --Atomised 21:43, 4 April 2009 (EDT)


Hi Bob,

A blog post has recently appeared on the blog Irian.com (moderated by http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jahanshah_Javid)

http://www.iranian.com/main/blog/faryarm/source-watch-0 (accessed April 6, 2009)

"Source Watch This"

"by faryarm 05-Apr-2009

Sourcewatch.org on the whole is a useful site for research. Its integrity and balance, depending on the honesty and integrity of its sources.

Unfortunately The Page on The Bahai faith and its related topics has been Hijacked by its enemies,who have jumped at the opportunity of a new research site, using the credibility of the "Center for Media and Democracy" the publishers of Sourcewatch.org, to engage in what Sourcewatch.org's own policy forbids; namely, "Propagandists" who "engage in selective presentation of evidence."

For example, The Page entry about the Bahai Faith and its related topics is co-written almost entirely by a person/persons notorious on this site for vicious attacks on the Bahai Faith;

As his own web page confirms, one of these contributors is a person by the name of Wahid Azal, formerly known as Nima Hazini, also known on this site as Covenant, NUR and most recently as a result of a Cyber Sex Change, Sophia.

It would then be useful for iranian.com readers to be aware that many of the links regarding attacking the to sourcewatch.org attacking the Bahai faith is conveniently co-written by Mr NIMA HAZINI/WAHID AZAL/COVENANT/NUR/SOPHIA and his cohorts for his frequent use as if written by an independent source, hence the bombardment of links like:

Iranpresswatch...Your life IS worthless, no need to give it

by NUR on Sun Apr 05, 2009 07:41 PM PDT

Regarding Iranpresswatch,

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Iran_Press_Watch

Fortunately Sourcewatch.org's history page confirms this at

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Baha%27i_Faith&action=history


So much for Sourcewatch.org's current credbility !"

I imagine this is telegraphing a potential attack on the credibility of the related material on Sourcewatch in general, and should indicate the kind of mindset of the parties involved. As I'm sure you are aware, all contributions I have made to these articles have been STRICTLY referenced, almost entirely from primary Baha'i sources (and I invite further investigation of these references if required). The moderator of this blog the blog www.Iranian.com (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jahanshah_Javid) has also been selectively deleting discussion, and removing numerous comments which challenge the Baha'i position. This should clearly indicate how resistant to any kind of scrutiny this organisation is, and the kind of techniques which they will use to protect their reputation. It is also a rehearsed technique to marginalise critics by claiming that they are all the same person posting under numerous aliases. As you are no doubt aware, there are also other editors of long standing reputation here, such as Mike, contributing to these articles. Cheers. --Atomised 03:36, 6 April 2009 (EDT)


They say there is no publicity like bad publicity! I just posted the following on iranian.com, http://www.iranian.com/main/blog/nur/challenge-faryarm-bahai-cabal

In case they delete it over there (since only the Baha'is are sacred and everything else not), I also posted it on USENET here, http://groups.google.com.au/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/thread/37f1cc060ab7caae#

--Wahid 10:17, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

Michael Addicott

Hi Bob, re: the Michael Addicott page, this is the person who organized the funding for the company that launched myspace (euniverse). Without that funding, it was going out of business in 2003, and no myspace, which has been in the top 5 websites since 2005. Addicott has a number of globally-oriented technology investments, the largest brain-training site (cognitivelabs.com), the domain name brain.com, which attracts a global audience, and a stake in one of the top mobile service providers (affinity mobile) sold in Radio Shack and Walgreen's stores over the SprintPCS Network. Al-Fawares group is amongst the investors in this company. He also has a Ph.D. and has lectured at numerous top universities. We'll add more external links and references if that's suggested. On Atherton, suppose you are not looking for geographic locations but this is on e of the top political fundraising grounds in the U.S. cheers, haephestion



Wilmette/Willmette Intitute

Hi Bob,

I started a page on the Wilmette Institute, but mispelled it 'Willmette'. User Mike had created a basic page here Wilmette Institute in 2007, but I didn't realise that he'd done so due to my spelling error. Could you assist/advise in merging these articles? Should I just merge edit with the original? The one I have created is here: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Willmette_Institute Thanks very much --Atomised 23:51, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

Hi Bob,

Mike has now merged the pages. Cheers--Atomised 23:13, 2 April 2009 (EDT)

SW: Crescent Security

Hi Bob saw your note could use some help if i dont get it right again. Im new to this and do want to do it right especially for the respect these guys deserve. In case of your add to John Young i dont see where yours has anything to do with CS or the picture from what the name represents.


Iranian.com

Hi Bob,

Could you please check/advise upon and or/revert the edits recently made by new user Jahanshah (who appears to be http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jahanshah_Javid, editor of Iranian.com) to the Iranian.com article.

At the moment his edit stands as "According to its website, "Iranian.com is the largest online community for Iranians residing in North America. With more than 160,000 unique visitors and nearly 2.5 million page views per month."Demographics for Advertisers on Iranian.com, accessed April 7, 2009.

However, the reference I created directly quotes the referenced page (here http://www.iranian.com/contact.html) as claiming that "With more than 620,000 unique visitors and nearly 6.5 million page views per month (March 2007 stats)". Granted, these statistics may be outdated, but as I understand it, as the editor/publisher of the site, Jahanshah should change the actual site statistics on Iranian.com first, prior to altering referenced material on Sourcewatch. If there is a discrepancy between the information on the page and the referenced link, I believe this should noted in the talk page (which Jahanshah has not done) in order not to create confusion with properly referenced material. Obviously, if the site statistics change at the source, then this will need to be altered, but as you can see, there is a significant discrepancy in usage numbers quoted here and the edit here has been made prior to any first hand updates on the site itself. Thanks very much. --Atomised 07:04, 7 April 2009 (EDT)


Hi Bob,

The talk page here has attracted quite a lot of attention and discussion from user PaulHammond, none of which has to do with the actual content of the article itself, and has ended up looking like it fits very well into this person's pattern of online involvement with these issues, and engagement with parties seeking to critique the Baha'i organisation and its related bodies. As you can see from this rather disturbing document below from the "supreme governing body" of the organisation (which I will reference and resource in the main Baha'i article), the Haifan Baha'i organisation itself appears to sanction virtual spying on and coercion of its members (and external "enemies"), and the recent article I created on the http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Baha%E2%80%99i_Internet_Agency and its monitoring of Facebook users, further corroborates the sanctioning of these activities.

http://bahai-library.com/published.uhj/counsellors.html

"Although deepening the friends' understanding of the Covenant and increasing their love and loyalty to it are of paramount importance, the duties of the Auxiliary Board members for Protection do not end here. The Board members must remain ever vigilant, monitoring the actions of those who, driven by the promptings of ego, seek to sow the seeds of doubt in the minds of the friends and undermine the Faith. In general, whenever believers become aware of such problems, they should immediately contact whatever institution they feel moved to turn to, whether it be a Counsellor, an Auxiliary Board member, the National Spiritual Assembly or their own Local Assembly. It then becomes the duty of that institution to ensure that the report is fed into the correct channels and that all the other institutions affected are promptly informed. Not infrequently, the responsibility will fall on an Auxiliary Board member, in coordination with the Assembly concerned, to take some form of action in response to the situation. This involvement will include counselling the believer in question; warning him, if necessary, of the consequences of his actions; and bringing to the attention of the Counsellors the gravity of the situation, which may call for their intervention. Naturally, the Board member has to exert every effort to counteract the schemes and arrest the spread of the influence of those few who, despite attempts to guide them, eventually break the Covenant.

The need to protect the Faith from the attacks of its enemies may not be generally appreciated by the friends, particularly in places where attacks have been infrequent. However, it is certain that such opposition will increase, become concerted, and eventually universal. The writings clearly foreshadow not only an intensification of the machinations of internal enemies, but a rise in the hostility and opposition of its external enemies, whether religious or secular, as the Cause pursues its onward march towards ultimate victory. Therefore, in the light of the warnings of the Guardian, the Auxiliary Boards for Protection should keep "constantly" a "watchful eye" on those "who are known to be enemies, or to have been put out of the Faith", discreetly investigate their activities, alert intelligently the friends to the opposition inevitably to come, explain how each crisis in God's Faith has always proved to be a blessing in disguise, and prepare them for the "dire contest which is destined to range the Army of Light against the forces of darkness".


Given the nature of User Paul Hammond's contributions so far, and the fact that we are not dealing simply with a religious body, but primarily with an organisation with significant NGO, UN, government, media and institutional (including educational) connections, I just wanted to keep you abreast of the issues surrounding these articles. By the way, the site usage statistics on Iranian.com have still not yet been changed to reflect the editor's updated figures he posted here. Thanks very much. --Atomised 23:11, 21 April 2009 (EDT)


Hi Bob, Just a notice of further activity on http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Talk:Jahanshah_Javid. After consistently inserting their own comments mid-flow into other editor's comments, and being asked not to do so (as this is considered vandalism), user PaulHammond is now claiming vandalism on the part of another editor after their inserted comments were moved. This user has still made no contributions to the article itself, or addressed the article's actual content. Cheers.--Atomised 21:21, 5 May 2009 (EDT)

SW: Sourcewatch copyright, and Wikipedia's intended migration of license

I think it is useful to read up on Wikipedia's intended and (at present) ongoing vote to determine if its users agree with the the Wikimedia foundation to change their license to a dual licnse: Creative Commons Share Alike v. 3.0 -- and -- Gnu Free Documentaion License v. 1.2 & later versions... with indent to abandon their current Gnu Free Documentaion License v. 1.2 & later versions.

This has issues for SourceWatch for copying text from Wikipedia.

See, for a start over at Wikimedia.org:

Licensing update
License Comparison
Questions and Answers

This item in the questions and answers is significant for the statement that their opportunity to make the change is time limited, and therefore SourceWatch's is too.

  • Isn't the FSF granting this permission and then removing it down the line – in August 2009? Isn't that arbitrary? If migrating between licenses is a good thing, why ever put an end date on the option?
  • It helps again to refer to the Free Software Foundation's FAQ. The goal of this negotiation has not been to make it forever easy to switch among free licenses but to address the fact that the basic license for Wikipedia (and many similar wikis) is a license that was not particularly well-suited for wiki collaboration because it was developed for a different set of purposes. As the FSF FAQ puts it: "[T]his permission is no longer available after August 1, 2009. We don't want this to become a general permission to switch between licenses: the community will be much better off if each wiki makes its own decision about which license it would rather use, and sticks with that. This deadline ensures that outcome, while still offering all wiki maintainers ample time to make their decision."


-- Redtexture 20:43, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

SW: Discussion hidden on Jahanshah Javid talk page

Bob, I've just noticed that a large amount of the discussion on the Jahanshah Javid talk page, including every comment I made, and the volumes of response from the two major contributors to that page has just been hidden. I don't think this is the right way to handle difference of opinion about editing. Could you take a look, please, as no doubt responding to this in person would increase their anger at me. --PaulHammond 11:21, 21 May 2009 (EDT) http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Talk%3AJahanshah_Javid&diff=421645&oldid=419684


There was no differences about editing of content since none of your rants and diatribes had anything to do with the article itself nor did you edit the article. The whole purpose of your presence on the talk page of the Jahanshah Javid article was to clutter it with irrelevant drivel and snides, misdirection and especially libel against its two main contributors. As such I cleaned the talk page up.


Bob you should note the following: About Paul Andrew Hammond - CAUTION (Baha'i Internet Agency hack)

"First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO, that he is probably working for them."

-- Eric Stetson, September 16, 2003


See,

"Who is Paul Hammond and what is his interest in Bahaism: Keel University, British Imperial policy and the Bahaim" http://groups.google.com.au/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/thread/74cae56bed1aacb4


"The question evaded and dodged by Baha'i Internet Agency hack Paul Andrew Hammond" http://groups.google.com.au/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/thread/7b5a578a0f3ff98f

"When Paul Andrew Hammmond was a Bahai" (message #4) http://groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.bahai/tree/browse_frm/month/1996-04?_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsoc.religion.bahai%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fmonth%2F1996-04%3F&pli=1

--Wahid 00:24, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

Hi Bob, given the substantial (and long standing) evidence I have seen, I absolutely agree with the position that this person "Paul Hammond" is acting in some capacity for/with the Baha'i organisation, and that their activities here are consistent with a well established and highly suspicious pattern of behaviour exhibited by them over the years. Just for additional context, I have previously been alerted to (and have subseqeuntly investigated for myself) a pattern of Baha'i/Baha'i related editorial practices on Wikipedia. As I'm sure is the case with numerous topics/pages over there, the Baha'i related pages are tightly monitored by Baha'i affiliated editors, who appear to have engaged in aggressive, group directed and highly selective editorial campaigns, consistent with the Baha'i organisation's attempts to subvert and contain criticism, and maintain their own (often highly questionable, and often blatantly propagandist) historical narratives. In October 2005, editor "Paul Hammond" received a Wikipedia "Barnstar of Diligence" award for "services rendered to the Baha'i pages" from a user named Mike Russell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MARussellPESE), who identifies himself as a Baha'i, and has consistently and aggressively edited numerous Baha'i related articles in line with the interests of the organisation's information control agenda.


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:PaulHammond&oldid=26117349 (accessed May 27, 2009)

"Barnstar of Diligence for work on the Bahá'í Pages Barnstar of Diligence

For services rendered to the Bahá'í pages (and there are a bewildering array of very obscure ones) I, MARussellPESE, present PaulHammond the Barnstar of Diligence which is awarded here in recognition of a combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service. These pages are the better for your services.

Also awarded to, in no particular order: PaulHammond, Occamy, Geni, and Rboatright."

As Wahid has pointed out, the discussion was not really about "differences of opinion about editing" (as Paul has stated above), but rather initiated by PaulHammond as a strategy to create a forum for attempting to discredit the contributors to the article, and draw attention away from its content (hence PaulHammond's use of the term "witch hunt" both in his comments and the in edit tags). Again, in subsequently pursuing this fairly obvious tactic, PaulHammond was not attempting to contribute to, or discuss the actual content of the article in any way, and therefore, I would in no way consider this a discussion of "difference of opinion about editing". Cheers --Atomised 02:04, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

Just wished to note here that Nima (WahidAzal) has now taken to removing all my comments on that talkpage, and removing Bob's comments on how to discuss things without so much friction, and continues to revert or blank ANY comment I leave on that talk page. I'm quite certain that THIS level of attempt to control the contents of pages here by self-appointed guardians is against the spirit of this site. --PaulHammond 04:28, 27 June 2009 (EDT)

This is non-contributing trollery, Paul, and I'm pretty sure you know it. Since you don't seem to have a problem with the actual referenced facts in the articles upon which you comment, I will suggest to you again- as I have suggested numerous times to you before- to take your concerns elsewhere.--Atomised 04:51, 28 June 2009 (EDT)


IMO

Rowspan example in a table

Assessment of potential reductions of CO2 emissions from shipping by using known technology and practices

>
Design (New ships)Saving of CO2/tonne-mileCombinedCombined
Concept, speed & capability 2% to 50%+10% to 50%+25% to 75%+
Hull and superstructure2% to 20%
Power and propulsion systems5% to 15%
Low-carbon fuels5% to 15%*
Renewable energy1% to 10%
Exhaust gas CO2 reduction0%
Operation (All ships)
Fleet management, logistics & incentives5% to 50%+10% to 50%+
Voyage optimization1% to 10%
Energy management1% to 10%

+ Reductions at this level would require reductions of operational speed. * CO2 equivalent, based on the use of LNG.

HELP

I uploaded a file, N3867X.gif, to document the alleged CIA plane's arrival in Bogota. Cannot figure out how to properly link to it in the footnote. Thanks. Perezoso

Hi Bob. Uploaded a JPG. I am the source. I live in Bogotá, and operate the equipment that captured the Mode-S signal. Thanks. Perezoso (Who, in another life, has another name, and is a credible original source.)

What do you think?

hi, Bob,

Just saw the article on Churchillian, and I'm debating about whether it belongs in SourceWatch. First of all, I'm not sure it fits the site's focus. Also, no info or refs are given about how U.S. conservatives supposedly use the term (which I'm not aware of being used that much). Lastly, while there are refs cited, they're all books, making them more difficult to check.

thanks,

Diane Farsetta 10:41, 7 August 2009 (EDT)

bob

thanks--Ellen naef 21:07, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

  1. ↑ "Missing: Billions of Tonnes of CO2", Poznan ECO 7, Climate Action Network International, December 9, 2008.
  2. ↑ "Spring Cleaning the CDM", ECO 7, Climate Action Network International, December 9, 2008.
  3. ↑ "Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action Under the Working Group on Long-Term Co Operative Action:" Fourth session: Poznan, 1–10 December 2008", UNFCCC, January 15, 2009.
  4. ↑ Matthew B. Crawford, "The Case for Working With Your Hands", New York Times, May 21, 2009.
Retrieved from "https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Bob_Burton/Archive&oldid=434231"