Talk:Pacifica Forum/Archive 1

Expansion ideas

I assessed this Start-class, since I'd like to see expansion with

• Context with other types of organizations
• Organizational structure
• Number of members, how they recruit, dues, publications
• Amount of influence, such as dollars and/or number of letters they write to congress, etc.
• Demographics of members
• How is it associated with U of O?

—EncMstr (talk) 06:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Spencer and User: Xeugene

User: Xeugene added an article from the American Patrol website (Glenn Spencer's organization) as a reference, as well as attempting to obfuscate the Holocaust-denialist views of David Irving et al.

I don't think Glenn Spencer qualifies as a reliable source (in addition, the article in question has nothing to do with the Pacifica Forum), and I question the motivation behind Xeugene's edits. I'm reverting them. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Longrunning Dispute

I would like some outside feedback on this article. User: Xeugene keeps making edits to the article in a fashion that seems to me to be anti-Semitic; at one point he/she dissed Elie Wiesel in a comment accompanying an edit. Also, this user keeps insisting that David Irving and Mark Weber are not Holocaust deniers because they don't deny the entire Holocaust, just 90% of it (they claim 600,000 deaths as opposed to 6 million).

I reverted these edits because denying part of the Holocaust is still considered a form of Holocaust denial, at least according to the legal codes of countries in which it is unlawful to deny or minimize the Holocaust. However User: Xeugene keeps reverting me back. I don't want this to turn into an edit war, so I'd like an outside opinion. Stonemason89 (talk) 13:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure is long running. I've tightened up the weasel language about Holocaust deniers to be consistent with the usage in the rest of the encyclopedia. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Another meeting, another even larger protest

http://eugeneweekly.com/2010/01/21/comentary.html --208.65.188.23 (talk) 01:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Current Status

The Pacifica Forum may not have survived tension over the past year. Free speech about their current address seems mute at this point. Apparently the Baker Downtown Center no longer provides a room. Visitor7 (talk) 19:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

An email is winding its way toward the media editor at the Oregon Daily Emerald; if they have a photo perhaps they will upload it.Visitor7 (talk) 03:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed re-write

Wilhelm Rojas (talk · contribs) attempted to replace this article with a major re-write including much personal commentary, and ran into some technical problems.

I have moved that article to his user space at User:Wilhelm Rojas/Pacifica Forum for the community to review and comment.

I removed the personal notes from the beginning and end of the article and include them below, along with my own comments. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Explanation to editors

This makes use of the previous article of this exact same name, as it existed up to June 7, 2013. This is a comprehensive revision. Approximately 3/4ths of the text is new. The author, a former college teacher, and was a participant in the group from mid 2008 until early 2010. This major revision seemed necessary because the extant article contained multiple errors of fact and assumed a viewpoint that, in the writer's opinion, was unjustified by the record; it also expressed clear bias that, in more than one sense, could be taken as defamatory toward named individuals.

However, parts of the original article were scholarly and as much of that text as possible was reused in this revision. If criticisms are due to that previous writer, some appreciation for his or her work is also called for.

Wikipedia guidelines strongly recommend documentation for all revisions but in this case much documentation was unavailable. Hence nearly all of the new material was written by Billy Rojas, put in third person narrative style, a participant in the events described. However, there also is new documentation inasmuch as the local press published material that described a number of events reported on in this revised article, and the information in those stories supports what the new text says. The most important of these sources are cited in the text because they were integral to the story of Pacifica itself.

Further explanation for this re-casting of the article is provided in the section entitled "Further References."

What should also be said here is that after spending many hours trying to use the text in Wikipedia's "Edit" version of the article, Pacifica Forum, I abandoned the effort as futile. There are so many changes that trying to "work around" parentheses within parentheses, attempting to make sense of numerous code symbols, -none of which contributes in the least to good writing style- I simply created a fresh new article that re-uses nearly all of the original material, although correcting it in a number of particulars.

There are 32 footnotes in this version of the article, some of which are extensive and explain important issues dealing with the group. Obviously there could be still more footnotes, but it seemed like the best course of action to draw a line somewhere -even at the risk of Wikipedia editors inserting dozens of "citation needed" comments. But to repeat the point, for some information there simply are no published sources to refer to.

You will need to decide for yourselves whether this new version of the article is objective, fair to all sides in the story, informative, and well written. I did my very best during a writing and editing marathon that took place over the course of 3-1/2 days.

Billy Rojas Eugene, Oregon June 7, 2013

Some final notes on the draft

This extensively revises and greatly expands a previous Wikipedia article also entitled "Pacifica Forum." All of the new material was written by Billy Rojas, put in third person narrative style, a participant in the events described. However, there is also new documentation inasmuch as the local press published articles that described a number of events reported on in this revised article, and the information in those stories supports what the new text says.

Every effort was made to be objective in (re-) writing the story of Pacifica Forum and at least some of this reporting can be verified by other Pacifica members, especially Barry Sommer, and also, if she can be coaxed to comment, Barbara "X," who almost always prefers not to speak to the media. However, her testimony would be invaluable inasmuch as she consistently seeks to be fair in her evaluations of things, and her background in publications and education makes her a generally reliable witness of events.

Several students interviewed Pacifica members during 2010,with one young woman doing so in the context of a research paper she was writing for a class at the university, her name escapes me for now. But if she can be located her testimony would also be important since she studied the recent history of the group from multiple sources; her interpretation of events may well be different than views expressed here but undoubtedly would agree with basic information provided, otherwise unreported by the press or local television.

Mention should also be made of Dawn Coslow, with whom the author disagrees about nearly everything. The nature of our disagreements are fundamental and unbridgeable. Any contact with her about Billy Rojas and Pacifica might well result in her cussing at the mention of the name. However, Coslow took it upon herself to be the group's archivist and her extensive records should also verify the basic information provided in this revised article.

For a Right-wing version of events at Pacifica possibly the best person to talk to would be a member who goes by the name Rey Acrylic. He was a friend of the writer but someone whose pro-Third Reich views eventually led the author to break off communications. Regardless, Rey always had things to say and was a keen observer of Pacifica meetings.

Edwin, sort of an "odd man out" in the scheme of things, neither a Right-winger nor an academic, saw things from a "non-aligned" perspective and also was very observant of Forum proceedings.

Michael Williams attended most Pacifica meetings from some time in 2003 onward, pretty much as a hostile observer. His views and those of the author are in disagreement most of the time, but Williams would be a good check on factual content.

Another witness to various events described here was Gia Vang, then a reporter for KEZI-TV in Eugene, who knew the author personally and interviewed him several times.

The writings of journalist Joe Lieberman, since relocated to Portland, were as objective about Pacifica and the various controversies it was involved in as anyone could have desired. He attended many meetings of the group, knew leading figures in the Forum personally, all the while being true to his role as news reporter for the Left-leaning Eugene Weekly. He is someone else who, if verification of facts is needed, would be an excellent source of information.

Billy Rojas June 7, 2013

Comments on proposed rewrite

Even if formatted properly, the article has a lot of problems:

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of editorials or journalistic accounts. This proposal includes opinions, commentary, unnecessary insider details, unsourced explanations, and other information that goes way beyond basic encyclopedic facts.
• This is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. See WP:NOTESSAY.
• WP:NPOV is a core policy. The proposed rewrite uses biased language that does not exist in the current version. The lead paragraph of the proposal starts right out using non-neutral terms like "unfortunately" and "grievously inaccurate" and doesn't improve as it goes.

Feel free to revise the text above to address these problems. You could cut out about 50% and still have a good article. ~Amatulić (talk) 11:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

---

After several hours of writing to Howicus and his spending considerable time as well, I now wonder about the feasibility of seeking to have my article published in Wikipedia. It would be helpful for you (or others) to read the exchanges between Howicus and myself but let me try and spell things out in somewhat different terms here.

NPOV is a desirable standard; that much makes perfectly good sense, and for an encyclopedia ought to ordinarily be regarded essential. If it was me, I would allow for certain classes of exceptions, only as exceptions, and only for certain authors, but nonetheless...

For example, an article about humor written by a current writer with the skills of someone like Mark Twain or George Carlin. It would be expected that such authors would not necessarily follow all the rules religiously or might well stretch them to their satisfaction. Or an article about journalism by someone like HL Mencken, or an article about the US military written by General Petraeus.

The example used in discussion with Howicus was that of a hypothetical editor of an encyclopedia of religion signing up the Dalai Lama to write an article about Vajrayana Buddhism. Granted, his contribution would reflect his long experience as a Tibetan Buddhist, and also granted that he would doubtless express his biases, but the value of such an article would be such that they would outweigh other considerations by a very large factor and add great value to the encyclopedia. If it was felt that the Dalai Lama's views were too skewed, a remedy would be easy enough to provide, another article on the same subject written by someone with a different POV, or even by a critic of the Dalai Lama.

For a potentially infinite encyclopedia like Wikipedia this could be understood as added value, and anything but a liability.

The "no original research" rule is preposterous if taken as an absolute. Another example used in exchanges with Howicus was that of an astronaut who might write an article about the International Space Station. By the No Original Research criterion, Wikipedia would turn down such an article ??? That would be inconceivable to me but it does seem to be your policy and if this is an Absolute then we must part company.

Before going that far a few other observations might do everyone with an interest in the true story of Pacifica Forum some good.

(1) There seems to be strong interest in preserving the extant article about the Forum as the canonical Wikipedia story. This, of course, is your decision to make. However, that article is seriously biased toward the political Left. It may not be as far Left as some writers might put things but the tilt is unmistakable. The only way for someone to read that article as "unbiased" is if he or she is also a Left-winger. Which is not the complaint of a conservative against liberals but of a political Independent who has no use for either the Left or the Right. Its just that in this case Left-wing biases are evident from start to finish.

The problem with the current article is also that it is filled with inaccurate statements and is misleading, especially in the blatantly false impression it gives that the only speakers the Forum scheduled were Rightists, which is demonstrably false.

(2) I am aware of attempts by some people associated with Pacifica to edit the article from a VERY different perspective than mine. These exemplify the anti-Zionists who belonged to the group in the past. Most of that faction, IMHO, are deranged, poorly informed, and clearly are anti-Semitic. Some of them seemed to me at the time that I belonged to have serious psychological problems.

My article acknowledges their existence, since they were very much part of things, but puts them in perspective as only one part of the picture, not as "typical" in any sense. I would, as editor of any publication I was responsible for, be just as likely as you to exclude their "contributions" from my journal or encyclopedia. But I would not deny their existence, would not pretend that they were the only members of the group when that manifestly was not true, and would try to offer a rational explanation for what they were trying to accomplish and what their real motivations were. The SPLC and CALC, discussed in my article, do not do this at all and were both content to treat the story of the Forum through a range of Left-wing stereotypes. From my perspective it is regrettable that the current Wikipedia article, while it does not go that far, nonetheless acts, in part, as a mouthpiece for these same Left-wing interests.

Finally a few words about "unsourced explanations." To make the point yet again, much material in the article is not documented in any publications that I am aware of; much in it derives directly from my own eyewitness reporting.

As an aside, some published accounts, not all, but some, contain suspect statements and in a few cases reported falsehoods. Just because something gets into print does not necessarily mean that it is true, as you surely know. I understand your point, usually publication requirements are such that stories in print are factual. But hopefully you are well aware that there sometimes are better criteria for truth than printer's ink.

The reason for including a list of additional other eyewitnesses, including people Left and Right with whom I have political disputes, was that they could verify the factual content in my commentary. With all of their names deleted, along with notes about the fact that they could verify what I said, well, yes, much in the article is now "unsourced." But you don't seem to be aware that this is the case because you edited them out of consideration. I included them so that this problem would be minimized as much as possible.

Also see my comments to Howicus about Wikipedia double standards.

The bottom line is this question: Do you want an article that provides something approaching an objective account of Pacifica Forum, granted my subjective interests, but that nonetheless would be essentially factual ? The current Wikipedia article is, to use vernacular, a mess. As a published writer myself, I can provide a superior article than that even if some of what is reported would necessarily consist of original research.

I could, however, recast various comments as NPOV statements. That should be easy enough to accomplish.

I will wait for your reply before deciding what to do next.

Wilhelm Rojas (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)