This is Edwin Black. Hello all.

As some of you may know, I have registered under my real first and last name to verify my identity. I thank users who have assisted me with registration. My website is www.edwinblack.com. I am on this forum not as a regular member but to communicate with interested parties as I continue my journalistic coverage of Wikipedia and answer general questions related to my work. I can provide books and documentation if asked. Many of you may have heard about my recent writings on the topic of Wikipedia, writings which have been syndicated at The Cutting Edge News.com, History Network News, Auto Channel, Daily Estimate, Energy Publisher, Spero and many other outlets, as well as letters to the editor at Cutting Edge which have run.

As is known, I do not believe in the anonymity or censorship policies, or the mob action of Wikipedia. That said, the notion of Wikipedia could have immense potential if reformed. If Wikipedia is doing something right, I will be the first to acknowledge it. I am not a member of the Wikipedia community. But I do have an account in my own name on Wikipedia for the sole purpose of answering questions on any topic I can be helpful on, and correcting false statements with regard to me or my work. I require open identified email to work with Wikipedians and prefer the phone. The false statements against me have been triggered by my Holocaust work which a few individuals on Wikipedia wanted to delete or dilute while hiding behind fake names. Because I have objected, other action was also taken against me in other articles including my own bio. That get corrected soon. Despite these many problems, I was able to temporarily right the process with some extremely decent and devoted Wikipedia administrators who stepped in. I thank them. They represent the best edge of Wikipedia. I am still proceeding on all editorial fronts employing traditional journalistic norms on the issue of Wikipedia.

If you have a message for me personally, don’t leave it here. I will not see it or know how to reply properly since my mechanical forum skills are extremely poor. Instead email me at inquiry@edwinblack.com wikipedia-inquiry@edwinblack.com with your real name and your approximate location—country or state—and I will try to reply swiftly. If I do not reply--you got pulled into my spam box. Sorry. I check it often. While I need to know who I am speaking with, I am happy to protect your identify in the usual journalistic fashion. That is ordinary.

All information I use regarding individuals or policies--will have to verified. All letters at the Cutting Edge News will need name and city and conform to our conservative letter style. I have already worked with several very intelligent WR members by phone and email. Smart minds with a sense of intellectual balance. All are welcome to contact me on any topic and I look forward to working with more of you very soon. Remember, my ability to navigate these sites is quite primitive and I hope to be helped by some good WR folk. Thank you to all. Edwin Black

Wikipedia has a notable history of people with a pro-Jewish/pro-Israel/pro-whatever you want to call it point of view using the site in a manner that over exposes the amount of weight deserved to such POV. There are many threads on these forums about it.

Par for the course, I'm afraid. I'm still familiarizing myself with the situation, but the gist of it seems to be that some people - who could very well have a "WP:CoI" problem with respect to IBM-related topics - have attempted to define you as a "fringey" conspiracy theorist of some sort for having written about IBM's dealings with Nazi Germany, specifically with respect to their sale of punch-card systems for use in death camps.


Well, you got logged in and found the "New Topic" button, and that's at least half the battle! Most people just click the "Reply" button in the lower-right corner of the post they want to reply to, and anything beyond that is just formatting. (Also, there's a handy "edit" button to the left of the "Reply" button for your own posts, in case you make a mistake of some sort.)


Right, but would it support the pro-Jewish agenda (generally speaking) to quash WP references to IBM's dealings with the Nazi regime? I would think just the opposite, personally.

I mean, even if you prefer to go with the idea that IBM was acting the way any corporation would under the circumstances (i.e., if it had been Jews wanting to mass-murder antisemitic fascists because of their beliefs about ancient Germanic mysticism, their kinky sex practices, and their general tendency to behave unpleasantly, IBM might well have been happy to sell them tabulating systems too), historically I would say that Jews, and anti-denialists in general, have always preferred to publicize such things even at the risk of making powerful enemies in the process. The Swiss banking industry comes to mind, and the Austrian government while Kurt Waldheim was President.

Exactly. The Wikipedians with the pro-Jewish agenda quashed the people trying to quash the reference.

The material was found in once source I've seen, which was by a person who has a clear POV. I wouldn't allow such material in except if it is attributed directly and seen as one person's view (and not even a scholar's view, mind you).

I am not sure I understand the gist of your comments ( and not sure if this reply will come up in right place), but this may help clarify >>> http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/comments.php. In addition, if you will send my your email, I will email you a copy of the book and lots of period documentation right now. I think but am not sure I understand the gist of these remarks. Documenting the Holocaust is not a pro-Jewish undertaking, it is just history. But I could be misunderstanding you. Edwin Black

Books with a POV are easy to find historical documents for. History can be manipulated for any agenda. My field is literature. There are so many conflicting interpretations of rather straight forward texts that it is easy to establish that any source you used could be used to promote whatever personal bias or agenda.

Where is your book on Mitsubishi car manufacturers being responsible for Pearl Harbor? Is that next? Or is your view about companies and WW2 limited to one specific agenda?

Just look at who praises you:

* Jewish Documentation Center
* Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum
* Hebrew University, Jerusalem
* Buchenwald Camp Memorial
* Stutthof Concentration Camp Museum

You appeal to people who have an agenda to make as big of a deal as possible out of such things. Of course, apple pickers will want to promote eating apples, so museums and institutes around the holocaust would promote the tarring of as many people as possible to get the word out and promote their cause.

My work is history not an agenda. Whether I am writing about Muslims massacred in Iraq or Armenians in Turkey (Banking on Baghdad), or Appalachians or African-Americans people being sought out for systematic destruction (War Against the Weak) or the history of fuel or the future of alt-fuel (Internal Combustion)... it is just vetted, documented history. Give me your real name phone number and your real name, and I will discuss it with you and answer any questions. I know how easy it is to harbor misunderstandings and remain entrenched when shielded by a fake name on a forum. I think you have identified your position and I won't bother you with furthers on this forum. But if you have the courage of your convictions, enough to emerge with your identity, and a genuine question, I am happy to answer it with materials or explanations and do so hopefully to your satisfaction. Hope this helps. Edwin Black




Thank you for allowing me to offer some thoughts. I think I have done enough. Good bye. Edwin Black

Don't bother about Ottava, Mr. Black. He is a polemicist well known here on the Review and on Wikipedia. Like most wikipediots, he is easily frightened and confused by any fact that does not square with his rigid and dogmatic preconceptions. He is allowed here (for the present, anyway) because our staff and mods are rather loathe to ban members merely because they express unpopular or ridiculous ideas, as is so often the case on Wikipedia. Feel free to ignore him; I seriously doubt that anyone other than Ottava would feel offense.

I'm 100% sure that a "best selling author" does not write dry, boring accounts of history. The only way to sell books is to take a controversial position or push an agenda that appeals to people. You aren't a historian. You are a mass media marketer. At least be honest with yourself. The list of supporters of the book reveals a strong POV of the book. You are proud of that fact on the website, at least be proud about it here.

By the way, you were pretty honest within this title: "2006 - Essay Contributor, What Israel Means to Me: By 80 Prominent Writers, Performers, Scholars, Politicians, and Journalists, edited by Alan Dershowitz (Wiley Books)". By the way, your bread and butter is labelling people as Nazi sympathizers or supporters. I have yet to see anything written on any of the other topics you listed up there nor would that really outweigh the dozens and dozens of Nazi/Jewish holocaust related works (as you only focus on Nazis in terms of slaughtering Jews and not, say, battles during WW2 or any other aspect).

Edwin, just a heads up (assuming your good bye doesn't mean you won't read this thread again):

1. There are 3 general groups of people here: (a.) people who despise Wikipedia and want to see it destroyed (who are often good for a chuckle, but probably end up scaring people away), (b.) people who are here to defend Wikipedia in the hopes of scoring points in one or Wikipedia cabals (who are often good for a chuckle, but probably end up scaring people away), and (c.) people who believe there are serious intellectual and/or ethical problems surrounding Wikipedia that should be exposed and critiqued.

2. Ottava Rima is in the "(b.)" group.

3. Usually someone will say "welcome to WR" at some point to new reviewers.

Welcome to WR.

Welcome to the Review, Edwin. Please feel free to ignore Ottava.

[Moderator's note: I have moved the most egregiously off-topic posts from Ottava, and replies to them, to a thread in Tar Pit.]

I was shocked, in fact, to read Ottava's comments implying that the neutrality of an author or judge can be impugned based on those who like a report. It isn't even an ad hominem argument, it is an argument based on other people. As well, that an author sells popular books or writes for a popular audience is no reflection on neutrality or bias, though there is a problem in that unbiased works, sometimes, won't be popular. Nevertheless, where there are massive controversies and an author is neutral, it is quite possible that one or the other side of the controversy sees the writing as favoring their position, and recommends it.

I'm sad to see that Ottava apparently doesn't understand this, and attacked Mr. Black without providing any sound basis, and without necessity, or at least no shown necessity.

If it's an instance of a "meritless accusation" leveled against another author or editor, there is a notable history of that practice on WP. Specifically, that's one of the charges leveled against Paul Mitchell (FeloniousMonk) that ArbCom convicted him of a year or so ago.

Mr Black. You sir are an author, a blogger and a total cunt.

Have a nice day... along with your circumcised ferret.

Wikipedia Blocks Fred the Oyster and Challenges Blaxthos on Holocaust Entries


You should give him a call, Kurt Adkins. I bet he would give you the opportunity to respond in his next article about wikipedia cultists.