User talk:Diane Farsetta

From 2003 to 2009, Diane Farsetta was a senior researcher at the Center for Media and Democracy. Questions about SourceWatch can be directed to Managing Editor Anne Landman, and questions about other CMD work can be directed to lisa AT prwatch.org (replace AT with @) or 608-260-9713.

Someone made big changes to your voting machine article.
Please weigh in on the revisions made by mawh. He/she made big changes. Thanks, --Steve Freeman 17:21, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Hi Diane,

I think that you have confused National Ballot Access with Edee and Heidi. National Ballot Access has never undertaken any casino or TABOR petition. But, Edee and Heidi sure have.

Thanks for your anticipated cooperation,

John

Hi Diane, Why would I need to post a "citation needed" to prove that National Ballot Access doesn't have any criminal charges. It has to be the other way around. If someone knows that they have had criminal charges, then they need to post the charges. There is no online source for me to post explaining that they have never been criminally charged.

Also, I am new and don't know any of the rules yet. So sorry about the deletion.

But, on Edee Baggett's page, the article on her is ridiculous. It talks about an interview with a newspaper in 2006. What the heck is that? She's done dozens of statewide projects. That needs to be the meat of the article.

Thanks, John

Topics
Whoops! Thanks for your assistance on the oil issues badge! -- Hi Diane Farsetta, Just wanted to check in with you about the Duncan Hunter article. The entry was clearly biased and unsupported by facts. I removed it because I was unable to re-source any of the assertions/accusations. If you are going to continue to revert the article, I think it is reasonable to request that you verify the information with additional sources/references. Thank you.

James Cudahy, 17:58 CST, 5/07/2007 --

Thanks for the suggestions... I encourage you to add what you've looked into on these subjects to Disinfo as well! -- Diane -- Glad to see attention to these matters.

Re: "Haiti", looking into the links between economic sanctions which forced a shift to charcoal from kerosene, the deforestation that resulted, and the killer mudslides that resulted from *that*, has probably been under-explored.

The questions about dangerous technology also are somewhat under-explored except for a few interesting long-term problems like molecular assemblers. These technology issues need more attention:

Re: "Lobbying efforts of electronic voting companies" like Diebold, it's interesting to note that people who worked hard on "e-voting" applications, like Jason Kitcat, who was prominent in the original open source GNU e-voting system, literally turned his position around 180 degrees and became convinced that e-voting was dangerous by definition. Many other experts now agree with him, that the disconnection between the body in the community, vs. signals on a wire, is just absolutely unbridgeable. One symptom of that is the loss of control over the voting booth environment which all elections consider important. There's no control for instance on what the voter is looking at just before an Internet vote, or what rewards they might be offered for voting (it being impossible to tell what software is running alongside the "virtual ballot box" and maybe watching the vote - spyware being extremely common). None of these basic philosophical problems are ever acknowledged in the pro-technology propaganda of the voting machine vendors, not surprisingly.

Mad cow (caused by cows being ground up into cow food) and nuclear power seem also caused by pro-technology propaganda by advocates of these "safe" technologies.

You may find that older versions of some articles on questions like pro-technology propaganda have useful text on some of these questions, and, you may also find that the Deletion Log contains many essential articles that have been unrighteously deleted (and which can be undeleted by anyone working here with sysop power, which is not the same as having editorial judgement. ;-))

Good luck! - trolls

"HonestReporting"
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Honest_Reporting need help

USDA
Hi. Are you by any change interested in the USDA and related subjects? I liked your work on the Venneman article. It is good to see some quality research. I have writen some bios for past Sec's of Agriculture on my site. You can bring them over if you wish. They are here.

I have only done:
 * 1) Edward R. Madigan
 * 2) Michael Espy
 * 3) Daniel Glickman
 * 4) Norman J. Coleman

All the best --Hierarchypedia 17:12, 21 Feb 2005 (EST)

coors
hi DF did you delete a new article or one that had a history?? I suspect the latter. Kind rgds -PaulR

Dear Paul, I just checked to make sure, and the Coors Foundation article didn't have a history. (There's a safeguard that reminds you that there's a revision history if you're about to delete an article with one.) best, Diane

mush as most americans
hi

you have just transformed the epic article into the usual american mush -- unwilling to show a bit of backbone. nb: the booklist in its reading list is prticularly telling: the choice of a pathetic list of propaganda books (Makiya, Feldman, etc.). furthermore, their own words on their stance. for you to expunge the critical comment on several issues is pathetic.

epic, ot, and several others, are stool pigeons that happen not to represent anti-war, although they vie for voicing their opinions during anti-war demos or the organization thereof.

your interpretation of "red baiting" is screwy.

sincerely

Antidotto

on EPIC
Dear Antidotto,

Regarding the Education for Peace in Iraq Center article - most of my changes were to add information, including quotes from EPIC's website and press release. All SourceWatch articles should include information from numerous sources, including the person / organization in question, as outlined here.

I also did remove a some of what I deemed irrelevant information -- including Stan Goff's claim that his critique of EPIC might be dismissed as "red-baiting." I just don't see how that belongs in an article on EPIC, especially as I have not found any mention of EPIC or others dismissing Goff because of his association with the Socialist Worker. Of course, Goff's critique of EPIC is relevant, and I kept that in the article.

To expand upon my explanation on the EPIC article's talk page, I edited the article because I felt it was presenting one side of one critique of an organization -- and that based on one person's writing and unsupported claims made about a partial characterization of EPIC's "Suggested Reading" list.

As you know, the beauty of SourceWatch is that you can continue to add to or edit the article if you disagree. However, in order to make SourceWatch a website worth reading, all contributors are asked to follow basic guidelines, including fairness and respect for other contributors.

--Diane Farsetta

bit of Glover Park data
Newshounds, a sort of blog with the slogan,
 * We watch Fox news so you don't have too:

had a Glover Park article today:

News Hounds: "Don't Count Us Out" -- NewsCorp's Phony "Grassroots" Org

Greg Beato, a writer at Wonkette is blogged it here

I checked S/W to see if this has been picked-up by anyone, and found your authorship on the stub. Sorry if the data is already known to you or irrelevant.

cheers --Hugh Manatee 04:10, 29 Apr 2005 (EDT)

"Fox Effect"
You may already have seen this, but thought it was more in your area than mine, which is the "Fox Effect" (from "MSNBC & CNN Imitating the Far-Right 'Fox Effect'" at PRWatch). I "collected" the article links which accompanied the main article, as well.


 * "PBS Suffers the 'Fox Effect'," Media Citizen blogspot, May 3, 2005.
 * Press Release: "Consumer advocates and media reformers call for nationwide hearings on Public. Broadcasting Groups unveil strategy to protect public broadcasting," Free Press, April 28, 2005.
 * Stephen Labaton, Lorne Manly & Elizabeth Jensen, "Republican chairman exerts pressure on PBS, alleging biases," New York Times, May 2, 2005.
 * John Eggerton, "Tomlinson praises Lehrer; pushes balance," Broadcasting and Cable, May 2, 2005.
 * "Save PBS from partisan operatives," Free Press petition.
 * Big Media Hall of Shame: Rupert Murdock, Free Press.

Artificial Intelligence 07:32, 3 May 2005 (EDT)

panegyric
a citation's worth in credibility is a matter of personal estimation. i would consider any association with Alexander the Curmedgeon to be of high value.

also, excuse my curious gogling, i'd probably respond with a precipitant mutiplicity of suedoe creationism on a personal return like this, although it did offer possible origins for faint wisps of deja vu, my aging eyes have sensed in the periphery when seeing you name in print.

will peace, madwoman - --Hugh Manatee 18:07, 19 May 2005 (EDT)

Diane, I'm sure that you've been to Blogs for Bush.com but while looking for Bush+Hurricane Katrina this morning discovered that there is a lot of info there about the anti-Cindy caravan and other appearances. Thought you might like to check it out .. just have to scan through a lot of "stuff" .... Artificial Intelligence 16:38, 2 Sep 2005 (EDT)

thanks
Diane, thanks for the article. I'll leave it long enough for BB and AI to see it, and if they haven't deleted it, I will. They usually cycle through Sourcewtch early mornings (my time PST).

Also, in case you haven't the other places i've mentioned this; i just ran across an interesting doc:

Coalition Provisional Authority "Industry Day" Event Crystal City, Virginia, November 19, 2003

MS Excel spreadsheet - 222kb

Corporation names - representatives - addresses

might come in handy for researching in the future. I've dl'ed it, but i can be messy with tagging and placing documents where i find them again easily 6 months from now.

cheers - --Hugh Manatee 19:58, 1 Dec 2005 (EST)

Hi Diane, I am attempting to make some small modifications to the Monsanto pages but continue to get the message "This page cannot be displayed" when I submit. I have tried this in the past on several different computers all with the same problem. In some places there appears to be a time constraint on submitting, or is this a registration matter?

Well you're the one with the ultimate delete key I suppose, but may I beg to differ? The comments are not dealing with an exact scientific point of fact but with a general opinion on genetic engineering done slap-dash for monetary gain and in which all of the consequences were not well thought out in advance - which this company is guilty of in the opinion of many. In fact the entire movie can be viewed as a commentary on reckless G.E. The particular comments put these thoughts quite succinctly. Besides this I don't see any difference in quoting a movie making a general comment about an ongoing social issue and quoting a book or magazine article. One of the quotes on the list is a general opinion from a college paper. Should this be deleted? This prompts the question, is there some list of approved publications or types of media that we can only quote from? Are you claiming that no one in wikipedia or sourcewatch has quoted anything from a movie? BTW I agree that we wouldn't quote from a movie for point of fact. But this was not claiming to be so.

Adding my repsonse here, too:

Hello,

Regarding the Jurassic Park movie quote, I honestly don't think it belongs in the Monsanto article. If you look at the SourceWatch:About, the SourceWatch:Policy, and SourceWatch:Contributing pages, you'll note that they stress that SourceWatch is an encyclopedia and contributors are encouraged to use News style writing, so that articles will be useful to researchers, journalists, and the like.

If the article in question were on the portrayal of GMOs in popular culture, then quoting from Jurassic Park would be very appropriate. (And I of course agree with you that the movie is a critique of genetic engineering.) But, it's an article on the Monsanto company (which should be devoted to their activities, products, lobbying, PR campaigns, etc). I'm not saying that the quote doesn't have any place in SourceWatch, just that it doesn't make sense to have it on the Monsanto page.

best, Diane Farsetta 19:04, 13 Jan 2006 (EST)

Thanks for the reply. I looked at the pages you referred to and it appears that there is no specific policy on which sources one can quote from, at least that I could see, and I saw nothing on movies. I did see this comment on the SourceWatch:Policy page: "It is important to note that the particular implementation of at least some of these policies is still in a state of evolution, as SourceWatch grows and develops." It thus seems to me that the decision to remove the quote is one based on personal preference not on an actual written policy. That being the case, do I not have at least equal right to include the quote? Further, as the article's author and since there is no policy, do I not have even more right in this decision? Again, remember that the comments are obviously not dealing with a technical point of fact (I wouldn't use a fiction movie for such) but with an opinion on the subject (in a comment section) - and a well put one that many people share.

Regards

Thanks for the Channel One input Diane. We seem to be undergoing a tidal wave of folks attempting to either distance themselves from Abramoff, edit out information and edit in spin, or just plain trying to "pretty up" a very ugly picture.

In fact, every time it happens, it provides incentive to dig deeper and find out what else has not yet been uncovered, i.e. the case of Peter Roff. Eliminating the Washington Times as his "employer" and trying to "tidy up" his image just led to a deluge of less-than-flattering info on him ... sans editorializing. Artificial Intelligence 12:19, 20 Jan 2006 (EST)

arbitration?
I seem to have irritated a new poster at the Mansoor Ijaz stub.

Please check history versioning both the article and talk page. I would appreciate other opinions.

cc AI, BobB, DianeF, Maynard

--Hugh Manatee 09:27, 23 Feb 2006 (EST)

SacBee article regarding WalMart and Ca. politics

 * Sacramento Bee
 * Delgadillo regrets role in Wal-Mart
 * (By Laura Mecoy -- Bee Los Angeles Bureau
 * March 2, 2006

Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo, who's battling Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown for the Democratic nomination for attorney general, expressed regrets Thursday about his role in recruiting Wal-Mart to Los Angeles.

Delgadillo, in a breakfast meeting with The Bee's Capitol Bureau, said he was unaware of Wal-Mart's critics in 1997, when he was a Los Angeles deputy mayor who helped bring the giant retailer to Panorama City.

Delgadillo has called Wal-Mart a "predator" on the middle class and his campaign has chastised Brown for bringing a store to Oakland and accepting $10,600 in campaign contributions from Wal-Mart heir John Walton and his wife, Christy. Brown, in response, resurrected Delgadillo's role in attracting the Panorama City store.

[. . .]


 * SacBee Audio:
 * Rocky Delgadillo chides Wal-Mart for "stealing from the middle class" (:44)
 * Delgadillo criticizes Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown's record on crime (:34)
 * Delgadillo: "We're going to have to use carrot and stick" on illegal immigration (2:09)
 * Delgadillo calls for special courts in death penalty cases (1:09)

cc: DianeF - BobB - BWellington

--Hugh Manatee 11:10, 3 Mar 2006 (EST)

Site navbar
Hi Diane, please see Template talk:SiteNavbar - it would be nice to have feedback, especially as to whether you think it's a good idea at all! --Neoconned 21:23, 14 Mar 2006 (EST)

Tks for the catch
Diane, thanks for the catch on Stiefel/Steifel. --Bob Burton 16:13, 31 Mar 2006 (EST)

thanks
Hi Diane - I've fixed the title of the Stan Zemanek piece - it's now at Stan Zemanek opens PR business. There's some comments & questions on the place of articles with a different writing style over at my talk page.

Stupid Vandal
What is that pelican guys problem anyway? --66.98.152.31 10:41, 25 Apr 2006 (EDT)

request for upload verification
Hi Diane,

Could you please do me a favour? Could you check the following screengrabs which I previously uploaded to SW:


 * Image:AsiaPacificFoundationOrganisationPage29July2005.jpg
 * Image:GohelAPFBulletinSept2001-DownloadedJuly2005-ScreengrabTakenMay2006.png

against these pages which have for some reason survived in the cache of one particular Google server:


 * http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:-grHvv9cI0UJ:www.apfoundation.org/articles-agra.htm+site:apfoundation.org+vision&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2
 * http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:bef2QH2oo6AJ:www.apfoundation.org/organisation.htm+site:apfoundation.org+organisation&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1

Please also use this NSLOOKUP to verify that the server in question is really a Google one: http://www.zoneedit.com/lookup.html?ipaddress=66.249.93.104&server=&reverse=Look+it+up

Having done so, if you think that the screengrabs are accurate and non-fraudulent, could you please sign both Image pages (which can be edited like any other article) with a statement to that effect. User:Ben Malcom has challenged their authenticity, so I'd like to establish this beyond doubt.

Many thanks, --Neoconned 00:40, 8 May 2006 (EDT)

ATT/NSA Data available
ATT/NSA Docs published by Wired News

Evan Hansen, Why We Published the AT&T Docs", Wired News, May 22, 2006

--hugh_manateee 23:44, 22 May 2006 (EDT)

upload verification request
Hi Diane/Conor/Bob/Sheldon, Please could one of you verify these rather important screengrabs?


 * Image:N2189M-flightaware-5-June-2006.jpg
 * Image:N8183J-flightaware-5-June-2006.jpg
 * Image:N4557C-flightaware-5-June-2006.jpg

The first two contain important new information, namely that N2189M has been flying into the CIA's Camp Peary facility, and N8183J has flown to the Phillipines. The last screengrab doesn't really tell us anything new. The flightaware.com site requires (free) registration to view the full historical records.

I'd suggest that the best way to verify a screengrab is to put a signed statement on the actual Image page itself (which can be edited like any other article). Cheers, --Neoconned 13:31, 5 Jun 2006 (EDT)


 * Thanks for verifying those, Diane. Cheers, --Neoconned 23:29, 5 Jun 2006 (EDT)

Weird NavBar text
Hi Diane, thanks for the message. I'm trying to figure out why the dropdown and popup sub navbars no longer appear since the upgrade... the weirdness is intentional and i'll revert it ASAP. Unfortunately there's no "preview" way of looking at these things!--Neoconned 13:32, 23 October 2006 (EDT)

SW: Cheap, safe drug kills most cancers
Diane,

This has been on the net for about two weeks but none of the majors seem to be picking it up.

The overwhelming hope is that DCA will move right to human testing. But the overwhelming fear is that it will not -- because of economic reasons. There is no longer a patent on DCA so it is not owned by any one company. With little chance of one group making a large profit, there may be no incentive for pharmaceutical companies to invest in research.

Sadly, this drug -- that appears to work remarkably well -- may never benefit cancer patients. All because no one stands to make billions of dollars from it.

A New Way to Fight Cancer?

Google News Search

Do you know if anyone on SW would have a use for it? I'm in the process of moving and won't be able to do anything with it.

Also, this info might be useful for those doing work on global warming:

Iron Fertilization

Thanks, James Horn

Appeal For Courage / Jason Nichols
Thanks for the lead, Diane. I think I've just about exhausted the brain power on this one today. It's a Repug front group, just no real way of knowing -- yet -- what or who is behind it. If it wasn't for the right-wing echo chamber, doubt it would have gotten this far. Artificial Intelligence 15:28, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Naming conventions confusion
I just noticed your rollback of section labels in the Mark F. (Thor) Hearne article, which points out some confusion&mdash;at least on my part&mdash;about the labeling of sections within articles. The SW "wayback machine" would show that we have used upper case letters for the beginning of words, i.e. "SourceWatch Resources" or "External Links" or "Articles & Commentary"&mdash;which function like chapter titles&mdash;but which seems to have changed since the birth of CP to the following:


 * See SourceWatch:Naming conventions (which directs you information posted by the Wikipedia).

The following is the order in which it was suggested to me that I follow (Sorry, but I deleted that email.):


 * 1) Related SourceWatch articles
 * 2) Sources / References (this is where the references/ tag that inserts all the footnotes goes.)
 * 3) External resources
 * 4) External articles

I have attempted to make the appropriate changes with each new article/page, as well as retrofit existing articles/pages as I come to them.

Personally, I prefer section headings to begin with upper case letters, as opposed to only the first word in a heading appearing in upper case, with remaining words all beginning with lower case, unless, of course, the word would normally begin with an upper case. Confused? So am I. But, if SW/CP wants to mirror the Wikipedia, who am I to say? Artificial Intelligence 11:22, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

SW: Thank you
Hi, thank you for helping me with my page on Catherine Saxton. This is my first time contributing and I appreciate your assistance and understanding! Jrr 12:15, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Thank You
Diane, I have been trying to clean up the negativity on the page for Sproul. Many of the articles contained on there have since had corrections (that are not included). To keep some of the language as it is negatively written can only be viewed as biased and slanderous. Is it possible for me to change that content?

Diane- After having worked with Sproul- there is much misleading data on that page that needs to be fixed. For example, they aren't a Republican-Affiliated firm, and its detrimental to keep saying so. They work with all sorts of candidates and clients, etc. Under all pretenses- they are no longer working with Voters Outreach of America, an entirely seperate company- effective immediately after 2004. There is not a news story that would report it. I am trying to clear up the confusion- and have posted up the fact that VOA is an entirely seperate company- and has been in existance for 12 years.

SW: double redirects for deletion
Two months ago I cleared out a hundred or more double redirects, and at Votes for deletion, nominated about 15 double redirects for deletion. Those particular redirects were the result of a spring 2007 renaming a bunch of "help" articles, and incrementing or decrementing the numeral associated with the series of articles, because of the insertion of a new article in the series--and don't have any incoming links. I'm hoping to get someone's attention on these nominations. It is pointless to keep the redirects: they have no history, are not in use. I'm hoping this housekeeping item is attended to...by someone. -- Redtexture 23:52, 13 August 2007 (EDT)


 * Thanks for looking at the votes for deletion items related to the series of articles How a bill becomes Law. I have put up the next round of double redirects related to these articles at votes for deletion. The redirects that I previously listed were the start of either triple or quadruple redirects. These are the next layer in. All without significant incoming links. Best regards,  Redtexture 20:15, 21 August 2007 (EDT)


 * You're the only person I've been successful at getting attention on these. I started on this in June, I think. Since the Congress-pedia folks haven't done anything with your invitation to examine them, can I have you look at these and either delete the proposed items, or reject the suggestions?  Thanks -- Redtexture

Nuclear astroturf
Glad to see you wrote up the New Jersey Affordable, Clean, Reliable Energy Coalition. --Beth Wellington 18:39, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

I've been told by a friend who works as a researcher for Greenpeace that the African American Environmentalist Association is a front group for the nuclear energy industry much as Patrick Moore's group. Sourcewatch has no info on this in the article. Can you assist me in finding out more information? The chairman recently disrupted the SE Climate Convergence, taking photographs and videos after being asked not to. He then went and misrepresented his role at the convergence to the Ashville, NC paper...--Beth Wellington 19:02, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for your note. I couldn't find anything either. Are there 990 forms or is his funding too low, as he claims in the Grist article. I noticed you added his Ashville comments. I'll look to see if the reasons he was asked to leave were rebutted anywhere...

Rollback
Diane, I did a rollback on your addition to the Vets for Freedom article. That information is already included in another section of the article. Artificial Intelligence 12:56, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

Page needing some work
Hi Diane, sorry to load this one on to you but I'm out of time for nowe and the Cunningham Broadcasting page needs some cleanup work. If you don't have time, I'll do it when I'm fully back on deck. cheers --Bob Burton 04:11, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Rollback on changes to Wisconsin page
Hi Diane, I am going to do a rollback on your changes to the Wisconsin page. We want to leave the Republican districts in because the voting data contributes to the statewide roll-up. --Mark M 12:18, 18 February 2008 (EST)

Hi, now that I look at the history, I understand why you nuked those rows. The issue was coming from the person before you. Either way, I don't know how to do a roll-back LOL. Do you? We really should roll back to Yael's last version. I will contact the other user to make sure he/she understands to leave the GOP districts blank because putting wikified names there will cause confusion. Thanks for the speedy response. --Mark M 12:28, 18 February 2008 (EST)

Confirmations
I respect your requirement that any deletions be justified by some explanation. My respect would be all that greater if the same standard was applied to insertions.

Nuke Spin box
Hi Diane, just wondering about the Nuclear Spin box on the Monsanto page...

Recent NEI page edits
Hi Diane, have a look at these recent edits] on the NEI page and see if there is anything worth incorporating.--Bob Burton 02:03, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

CDM & Nukes
I've collated some of the links - mostly primary sources at Talk:Clean Development Mechanism and Nuclear Power --Bob Burton 07:41, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Kathy Robb
Hi Diane,

Here's some stuff on Kathy Robb. In Grand Canyon Trust, Plaintiff, vs. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation she defended Imperial Irrigation District who were named along with a whole bunch of other state irrigation districts as defendants on the suit. Here's an overview of the case:

The Bureau operates the Dam using a water release system known as the "modified low fluctuating flow" or "MLFF." Plaintiff contends that the MLFF system impermissibly harms the humpback chub and its habitat, while a "seasonally adjusted steady flow" or "SASF" system would be more accommodating of the chub and more consistent with the Bureau's obligations under the ESA. Plaintiff also claims that the Bureau has failed to fulfill its obligation to consult with FWS in developing [*6] the Dam's annual operating plans and to assess the environmental impacts of those plans.

I think basically the Bureau, with the support of the irrigation districts, didn't want to change the flow standard because it would have lowered flow levels and taken water out of use for irrigation.

I'll post more stuff as I find it.

Vanessa

I found another article that, although not very complex, gives a decent overview of Kathy Robb and has a link to the organization she created, the Water Policy Institute. I'm not sure how to put in just a link on here, so I've just copied and pasted it in as text. http://www.theglasshammer.com/news/2008/08/25/voice-of-experience-kathy-robb-partner-hunton-williams/

Here's an interview that was pretty interesting. http://ww.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?ARTICLE_ID=338891&p=41

I cannot seem to find any news articles, interviews, anything at all from water advocacy groups that are less attached to the industry side of things. That would obviously be a good perspective to get. I'll keep looking.

Vanessa

External Links Verification
Your edit includes new external links. To help protect against automated spam, please type the two words you see in the box below:

Marlo Lewis
I thought you might find this interesting. This is a letter to Marlo Lewis, Jr., of CEI, from Michael Eckhart, of ACORE. I've been finding so many gems today!

Marlo –

You are so full of crap.

You have been proven wrong. The entire world has proven you wrong. You are the last guy on Earth to get it. Take this warning from me, Marlo. It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on. Mike

Michael T. Eckhart President American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE)

Pat Kohli
Hi Diane, the two major references in this piece are news articles. Second, we can substantiate and furnish prima facie evidence of the libel/defamation charges. I understand your position that there could be a legal liability issue with SW in inclusion of this material, but you also should also be aware that these are statements of fact.

That stated, I'd like to address something else here. We went through a similar situation with Bob when this article first went up. After another editor weighed in, and I suggested Bob might have been contacted by these people and lobbied, Bob backed off. It appears that everytime I specifically weigh on something regarding this article you guys get nervous, so I'd like to ask you: have you and SW been lobbied regarding this article by third parties? You can also contact me directly at hurakhsh AT gmail dot com. Thanks --Wahid 20:17, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Hi Diane,

Thanks for the advice. Would it be possible to get some further guidance regarding the proper use of usenet archives, as I think this is important in this case? I was actually looking through the referencing guidelines in preparing the references I added, but couldn't find specific rules. I realise this may be a tricky issue from a referencing point of view, but in the context of the way the Baha'i organization has conducted its seemingly censorious and coercive practices, much of this appears to have taken place in an online context (though I believe there are also official letters and other documents which could be referenced for this too). There is also substantial commentary from those who have been exposed to such practices, and in and of itself this may provide an interesting case study of specifically online attempts at censorship, if treated correctly? There is currently not a great deal written from an external perspective regarding these issues, as the Baha'i faith has received relatively little recent critical attention other than from within the ranks of its own members/former members. However, I believe this also suggests that if treated correctly, the evidence of specific online activities should and could be taken into consideration, as there is evidence that this has constituted a very specific information control tactic. It is also especially important to take into account the work of Susan Maneck as a visible and clearly identifiable online presence acting on behalf of the Baha'i organisation,

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

http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ and Wisdom and Dissimulation in the Baha'i Faith: The Use and meaning of Hikmat in the Baha'i writings

"Hikmat & Taqiya, "wisdom" and dissimulation, key Baha'i concepts If you're unfamiliar with hikmat and taqiya in either a Muslim or Baha'i context, it's basically the "wisdom" of lying and dissimulating when necessary to protect yourself or the faith..... Outside observers should be especially careful and alert to Hikmat & Taqiya." http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/hikmatMENU.htm

Susan has been cited in the official letter used as a reference on the page.

In terms of the personal website of the ex-adherent (http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/), the reference was initially placed as a gateway to other sources (including scholarly work), as much as evidence from the person themselves (though I still believe aspects of Glaysher's commentary are valid and illuminating in this context). Perhaps I should isolate and highlight the relevant sources from this page, such as Professor Juan Cole (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Juan_Cole), and separate published works etc?

In the next few days, I hope to add some of the research I have been conducting to the Baha'i faith page, and its activities as a claimed NGO religious organisation. I hope you may follow this, as there is also an especially interesting (and unique) appeal case in progress at the moment regarding attempts by the Haifan arm of the Baha'i faith to trademark their name, and pursue action against other sects for trademark infringement. This obviously has important implications for an investigation of the NGO related activities of the organisation seeking to apply apparently corporate related laws to its identity as a religious body. Kind regards --Atomised 20:39, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Hi Diane, thanks for your continued advice. In terms of your question regarding identifying Pat Kohli as the author of these posts, perhaps something like this might clear this up? I can also find cross referenced posts which may bolster this confirmation. If so, I can add in the references. Obviously, I've not posted the whole archive here, but snipped out the relevant bits which can be verified by going to the links.

http://www.usenet.com/newsgroups/talk.religion.bahai/msg11019.html

* __From__: Pat Kohli * __Subject__: Re: BBC 'Learning the Lessons of the Kelly Affair * __Date__: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 23:46:22 -0600

(message snipped)

Paul,

I've inferred from your follow-up to my follow-up, rather than to his follow-up, that you have KFed the troll. If no one else is responding to him, I intend to ignore him as well.

Best wishes, all! - Pat kohli at ameritel.net

(from reference on page) http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/3rdRESULT.htm

kohli#mail.ameritel.net                                              Pat Kohli

Again, I understand that the article may appear somehow out of context at the moment, but there are a number of factors involved that I hope will become clearer as the other Baha'i related articles are expanded and linked. As I mentioned to Bob, these issues include the Haifan Baha'i organisation's very public stance on 'peace', disarmament and 'conflict management', its use of these as ideological lynchpins in its NGO activities, the public stance taken against critics, and the apparent conflict of this espoused ideology and the activities of several notable members with ties to the military (including Mr Kohli) and homeland security. For example (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Masood_Tayebi), http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Massih_Tayebi, and the multi-million dollar Homeland Security and DOD contractor, Kratos Defense and Security Solutions (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Kratos). I will attempt to improve the references as we discussed, and hope to keep in contact regarding the correct way to approach the USENET issue, as since so much tactical information and image control has apparently occurred in this way and in this context, I think it would be a worthwhile formulating a workable solution. Kind regards --Atomised 00:51, 6 March 2009 (EST)

Hi Diane, There appears to be some sort of debate going on the Pat Kohli talk page involving user http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=User:Owen regarding claims of a personal interest in the Pat Kohli article. There are claims being made that the user "Owen" is in fact Pat Kohli. This user has addressed user Wahid (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=User:Wahidazal66) by saying  "This is the purpose of sourcewatch, it is not supposed to be another fora for you to disseminate disinformation, but a place for the pattern of your disinformation to be exposed. --User:Owen 20:18, 6 February 2009 (EST". This suggests some prior agenda Owen has in making the comments and edits he has. Whilst exactly what is going on remains to be seen, I think it's worth noting that this user, Owen, has just started a page on an aspect related to Pat Kohli's SW page on "PMA Group", http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=PMA. --Atomised 09:09, 11 March 2009 (EDT)

SW: ARE YOU SURE FREEMAN SPOGLI YOUR FUNDER DIDN'T MAKE YOU DELETE IT?
Hi Diane,

While you deleted my article based on my personal experiences with Sur La Table, how would you like me to preface a personal experience with a company held by Freeman Spogli, which I believe is tied to the CMD?? Or else how did I find you? Regardless, would you like receipts, customer id numbers, sales history (they won't disclose my purchases to me) I have invoice numbers and e mails and voice mails, would you like those? Would you like to verify with their PR department or NY Freeman Spogli or LA's Tim Parris? That's no problem. The article content was copied and sent on for editorial to my papers as promised. You should know based on your title, first amendment rights of a journalist are protected and editorializing and self-experience makes for most accurate reading, especially when the other guy screwing you is big business. Please indulge me with an explanation.

Sincerely,

Lesa Meryl or "Hit a Nerve"

Phony News?
Hi Diane. As you are the reigning expert on fake news I'm wondering if you're seeing more of it now that the economy is going south and newspapers are struggling to stay afloat. Are they spinning corporate propaganda for private pay? What's made me wonder is this article (and a couple of others I've read recently). Here's a quote, "Many people were shocked to find that products like Seventh Generation, Ecover and Trader Joe's left their dishes encrusted with food, smeared with grease and too gross to use without rewashing them by hand." We happen to use one of these products, have for years, for our dishes (and our water is probably as hard as it gets - it comes from a well), yet our dishes come out just as clean, I'd say cleaner since it leaves no film, as the big name brands. My only criticism of them is that they are not as concentrated, one needs a bit more to do the job. Anyway, I suspect that the temptation to take corporate money is overwhelming now for news organizations. Miocene 01:07, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

Baha'i Related Articles
Hi Diane,

As you may have seen, I have been making contributions to numerous articles related to the Baha'i organisation, and appears that some of these articles have been being noticed by various parties that have taken (and I am sure will continue to take) active issue with. I also posted this to Bob, as I would really appreciate your continued support regarding the dissemination of information on these issues.

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 further potential attack on the credibility of the material on Sourcewatch, or at least an attempt to influence material presented here (even when it's their own writing!!) 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). I believe approximately 30 of the 32 references constutiting the main body of the article on the Baha'i Faith, its ideologies and instiutions are primary Baha'i sources. The moderator of the blog where this comment appeared 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 also appears to be a rehearsed technique of this organisation not only to enage in continual ad hominen of critics, but also to marginalise them by claiming that they are all the same person posting under numerous aliases. Usual story. As you are probably aware, there are also other editors of long standing reputation here, such as Mike, contributing to these articles. Just in case their's any doubt as to the mindset behind the organisation we're dealing with, please refer to the document at http://www.palabrapublications.info/list/pdf/scp_handout.pdf The Spiritual Conquest of the Planet SUPPLEMENT. Systematic Unfoldment of the Divine Plan. Unfoldment of the Bahá’í Faith. Our Response to Plans], Deepening and Study Materials, Palabra Publications, 2006. Summer School Handout also available in Electronic texts. Accessed April 3, 2009. The ways in which they choose to display their public face, and what they teach sometimes appear very different! Cheers. --Atomised 04:02, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

Iranian.com
Hi Diane, I've notified Bob of this issue, but thought you might be good to run it by you as well.

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 19:07, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

FYI

 * may be of interest IPCC Technical Paper on Climate Change and Water http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tp-climate-change-water.htm

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

(I also posted this to Bob Burton's and Anne Landman's pages.) I can't find a suiitable forum for this, so I'm putting this on your talk pages. I think it has significant consequences to sourcewatch, and its ability to use text from Wikipedia, and other wiki publishers.

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 intent to abandon their current Gnu Free Documentaion License v. 1.2 & later versions.

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 22:07, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

According to the wikipedia statements about the change, the window of opportunity to change licenses closes in August 2009, and was arranged by the writer of the license that Sourcewatch uses. Apparently there has been ongoing and mutual understanding between wikipedia and the Free Software Foundation that the Gnu Free Documentation License, your current copyright license, is not that great for wikis. The links below are informative to your technical colleagues. I bring up the entire issue, because it has been possible and permissible to copy items (and citations) from Wikipedia, because the license has been the same. That will be no longer the case if and when Wikipedia migrates away. I also note that the successor to Congresspedia uses the destination Creative Commons license already.

See:
 * http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3-faq.html
 * http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Questions_and_Answers#August_2009_date

-- Redtexture 17:12, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

Update: Wikipedia has agreed to migrate their copyright license. Sourcewatch may wish to take on the same decision See: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Result

-- Redtexture 09:46, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

Water and energy
May be of interest - http://globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/full-report/climate-change-impacts-by-sector/water-resources and on looking at it, the "Energy Supply and Use" chapter of the Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States also looks interesting. I haven't had a chance to read it yet but it looks like there are some significant points in it vis a vis coal power, nuclear, oil and gas plants and water supplies. It states that "Generation of electricity in thermal power plants (coal, nuclear, gas, or oil) is water intensive. Power plants rank only slightly behind irrigation in terms of freshwater withdrawals in the United States.191" and that "There is a high likelihood that water shortages will limit power plant electricity production in many regions. Future water constraints on electricity production in thermal power plants are projected for Arizona, Utah, Texas, Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, California, Oregon, and Washington state by 2025.191 Additional parts of the United States could face similar constraints as a result of drought, growing populations, and increasing demand for water for various uses, at least seasonally. 209 Situations where the development of new power plants is being slowed down or halted due to inadequate cooling water are becoming more frequent throughout the nation.191" --Bob Burton 01:39, 22 June 2009 (EDT)--Bob Burton 01:26, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

FYI
Diane, this may be of interest --Bob Burton 06:27, 13 July 2009 (EDT)
 * http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2009/0901.blake.html

SW: tns media/cmag
Greetings. New to SourceWatch writing.

Would it be worthwhile for me to just summarize more website content and follow up with any references I can get on the internet about this group?

I have no direct knowledge or contact with them. Should I let someone who does do the work?[http://www.tnsmi-cmag.com/index.asp

PT]

References on National Ballot Access
Hey Diane,

I am wondering how you found the references on National Ballot Access? The references are not available online and the corresponding contributions were made long after the references were published. This begs the question: Where did you find these references?

Thanks,
 * --Johnwynnejr 03:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)